-
#80
by
QuantumG
on 10 Aug, 2014 00:48
-
all I get is strange looks when I go looking for the "55-gallon drum" size bulk coffee at 7/11 or Starbucks....
Which is a great analogy for looking for low $/kg from a smallsat launcher.
If you want bulk prices, go to Walmart or Costco, and expect to part with a lot more cash in one go. When you take into account your cashflow and the time value of money you might not even end up paying less overall.
But it's not just about price. If Rocket Lab are successful at maintaining a regular launch cadence, there will be customers that value
responsiveness over going as a secondary. It's important to remember that we're not talking about cubesats here. These are smallsats with propulsion - notoriously difficult to get launched as secondaries. So far, that's meant you had to find other smallsats to share a ride with - sometimes even your competitors!
-
#81
by
RanulfC
on 10 Aug, 2014 01:01
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Randy
-
#82
by
QuantumG
on 10 Aug, 2014 01:03
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Wrong. [/Jim mode]
I don't know where you get this nonsense from.
-
#83
by
RanulfC
on 10 Aug, 2014 01:15
-
My speculation. There might be some sort of a Heavy version of the Electron in the future. Perhaps even a 5 or 7 core super Heavy version.
I wondered the same. The otrag unit of the teens?
"OTRAG" technology and support of the original inventor has gone to InterOrbital
I'm really trying to wrap my head around why this is designed the way it is because I've only seen a very few, specific, cases where a small launcher wants/needs multiple engines on it and those were almost always aerospikes or for other altitude compensation reasons. Exactly what the Electron doesn't need.
Then again from "that-part-of-the-worlds" history I'm wondering why they use LOX at all given H2O2 experience but that's probably more "English" than ANZac
And while I'm ON that subject anyway the two launchers aren't all that different are they:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_ArrowRandy
-
#84
by
RanulfC
on 10 Aug, 2014 01:25
-
There are any number of efforts to build smallsat launchers. People do pursue this potential market.
They pursue it because they really, really want to build rockets and they can't afford to even attempt anything bigger.
DARPA can't afford anything larger?
Often time the answer is actually yes in fact
Depends on how many "failures" they've lost money on previously
What you say may be true for most of the efforts but that doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I think it more likely that this effort is sincere in going for the stated target.
Yes but...
One thing that becomes very clear, very fast in any aerospace project is that "size matters" especially when paying for and building a "prototype" or test article. Smaller costs far less than larger despite any "operational" penalties. Building a 1/6th test article costs far less than 1/6th of the price of a full scale article even if you have to build all the infrastructure for building the 1/6th and the full scale as well.
Still in this particular case I'd go with the idea they are shooting for exactly what they say the are.
However, on the gripping hand this is pretty much what I "baseline" for a starting an LV program because I'm pretty sure this is all I could afford. (Or technically get someone with some actual money to afford
)
Randy
-
#85
by
RanulfC
on 10 Aug, 2014 01:28
-
What I find funny, is that this Electron and also the Firefly launcher, both use webpages that are all-but blatant copies of Space-X's vehicle page. Same grey background, mostly the same fonts and sizes and even the same general layout.
Compare the pages for yourself:
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/
http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-a
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
So much for original thinking...
You're going to try and make an "issue" of the fact that they all use the same web-page designer? Probably the ONLY person in the situation at the moment who's making any money I might add
Randy
-
#86
by
RanulfC
on 10 Aug, 2014 01:46
-
So we have three recently-proposed launch vehicles, Falcon 9, Firefly and Electron, each of which has a single lox-hydrocarbon engine on the second stage and a large cluster of sea-level versions of the same engine on the first stage. It seems to be the new paradigm. Though you could argue it goes all the way back to the Saturn B designs circa 1960 -- eight H-1s for the first stage and a small cluster of vacuum-optimised H-1s for the second stage.
Hmmm, no clustered engines have been a "thing" for a long time, and historically its because it was a lot easier to make ONE engine and then bolt on as many as you needed. Then take the same engine and put a larger nozzle on it for high altitude use. "Optimized" small number engines was pretty much always aimed at LH2/LOx because everyone KNEW that they would be killer upper stage engines. Everything else was simply for biding time till we had "hydrogen" engines which were going to be the end all, be all engine and we'd never use/need anything else.
(No little bit of myopia to early rocket engineering I've noted from history
)
The drive towards single engine on each stage was simply to reduce the count of parts that could possibly fail during launch. It's pretty much been "common wisdom" that with a small launcher you already wanted to aim at as few parts as possible, with this only recently being questioned with designs such as the Electron and Firefly. Commonality of propellant and engines has always seemed to be a "standard" for first and second stages from what I can see with third or more usually going for maximum performance (LH2/Lox) or density (solid) as a result.
Specifically for small launchers where in many cases small performance advantages have bigger effects, it has always seemed to me you'd want to put the highest density propellant with the "simplest" (there are degrees here) most robust engines in the first stage and higher performance (but still with robustness and cost in mind) engines on the second stage so as to if at all possible not NEED a third stage.
Seems I'm alone though in that philosophy
(In case anyone is interested: H2O2/Kero regenerative, pump fed first stage with a regenerative, pump fed LOx/Sub-Cooled Propane engine second stage = smallest possible, highest performance
)
Anyone wishing to steal the "concept" is welcome to it
Randy
-
#87
by
RanulfC
on 10 Aug, 2014 01:57
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Wrong. [/Jim mode]
I don't know where you get this nonsense from.
My paper work including the full treaty which was used to convince Congress the thing was a pile of doggy-do searching for a place to sit
It may be the ONLY thing the L5 Society managed to do, but getting the US to stay out of that thing was THE one it it was it
Despite the minimal treatment Wikipedia gives it it includes a link to the full wording of the treaty AND the efforts to establish the UN commission that will be in charge of the a fore mentioned redistribution. In that exact same manner for the same process for any and all "seabed" mining that is covered under the 1979 treaty of the seas from which the wording was directly taken.
The US Congress DID sign and ratify THAT mess and has been working hard to undo it ever since. Mostly because it turns out Howard Hughes was NOT building a certain ship in order to strip the seabeds of minerals and make an obscene profit at the expense of the "common heritage of all mankind"
He was simply going after a sunken Soviet submarine but wasn't telling anyone that
You will note that "it has not been ratified by any state which engages in self-launched manned space exploration or has plans to do so" including the Russians (Soviets at the time) who were the major force BEHIND the treaty in the first place? Even the Chinese don't want anything to do with it for a reason
Randy
-
#88
by
QuantumG
on 10 Aug, 2014 02:09
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Wrong. [/Jim mode]
I don't know where you get this nonsense from.
[incomprehensible self serving rant trimmed]
What the heck does any of that have to do with launch providers for smallsats?
-
#89
by
TrevorMonty
on 10 Aug, 2014 04:29
-
Multiple engine 1st stage LVs using same engine reduces the development costs to one engine.
Developing a large 1st stage engine is a lot more expensive than the 2nd stage engine.
With 3D printing build costs are reduced and will only get cheaper in time. ($10,000 for NX-01 which is similar size engine).
Only one engine production line.
Any enhancements benefit both stages.
Engine out capability is added bonus along with option of powered recovery.
-
#90
by
RanulfC
on 10 Aug, 2014 05:11
-
It might be a tipping point for Australia to set up Commonwealth Space Agency and space program after all. C'mon Kiwi, c'mon!
Uhm, why? New Zealand isn't signatory/ratifier of the 1979 Moon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Ratification) Australia is and therefore ANY profit made in space is going to have to be given to the UN for "redistribution" as a "heritage of all mankind" if operations are conducted from Australia.
No real incentive I'd think.
Wrong. [/Jim mode]
I don't know where you get this nonsense from.
[incomprehensible self serving rant trimmed]
What the heck does any of that have to do with launch providers for smallsats?
Commercial launches of ANY sat from Australia (per the quoted post) are a non-starter due to the treaty. YOU stated this was "wrong" and asked where I got the information from. You then "trimmed" the relevant information and then ask how it's relevant. Hope that help you understand things
Bottom line is that the company of which this thread speaks is launching from New Zealand and therefore has no connection with or from Australia which the cited post was "hoping" would become involved. If they do this company is dead unless they move operations to the US.
"Relevance" is back in your court... literally actually
Randy
-
#91
by
RanulfC
on 10 Aug, 2014 05:21
-
Multiple engine 1st stage LVs using same engine reduces the development costs to one engine.
Still technically leaves you with the issue of much higher parts count and failure points. Which was the whole 'reason' for going to one engine in the first place.
Developing a large 1st stage engine is a lot more expensive than the 2nd stage engine.
Partially? How about we say that developing a LARGE first stage engine (to replace the multiple small ones) would be more expensive given manufacturing technology as per the next part?
With 3D printing build costs are reduced and will only get cheaper in time. ($10,000 for NX-01 which is similar size engine).
True and applicable per the above. But let me note that for SMALL rockets the engine costs were never that much of an issue anyway. I've seen higher performance engines offered that were made using older technology with similar pricing and better if they'd ever gotten to mass production. So I still don't "see" all the much advantage over and above its made "in-house".
Only one engine production line.
Any enhancements benefit both stages.
I'll buy into these two as a given
Engine out capability is added bonus along with option of powered recovery.
Former is a maybe advantage but the latter is VERY iffy given the size of launcher. Then again I LIKE the idea no matter the size, so I might as well agree here too
Randy
-
#92
by
QuantumG
on 10 Aug, 2014 05:22
-
Commercial launches of ANY sat from Australia (per the quoted post) are a non-starter due to the treaty. YOU stated this was "wrong" and asked where I got the information from.
I also said it was nonsense. I've known people who have gotten very far into the process of launching commercial payloads from Australia. They've never had any problems with this supposed showstopper. I think you're just making stuff up.
Bottom line is that the company of which this thread speaks is launching from New Zealand and therefore has no connection with or from Australia which the cited post was "hoping" would become involved.
I too am baffled as to why anyone brought this up.. I know people like to joke that there's some sort of rivalry between Australia and New Zealand, but it's just that.
If they do this company is dead unless they move operations to the US.
What the heck are you talking about now??
-
#93
by
TrevorMonty
on 10 Aug, 2014 08:17
-
Rocketlab is USA listed company with a lot of profits going to its USA share holders. Beck will be a significant shareholder with maybe a few other NZers.
All money spent on manufacturing and launches will stay in NZ economy, so it is still good for NZ.
Unlike other manufacturing I can't see it moving to China. ITAR has some pluses.
-
#94
by
Zed_Noir
on 11 Aug, 2014 11:08
-
There is a TMRO (formerly spacevidcast) webcast interview with the Rocket Lab USA founder & CEO Peter Beck about the Electron rocket and the Rutherford engine.
Webcast was uploaded on August 10th. Interview is from 17:55 to 31:44
Apparently from webcast. The Electron rocket body and tankage got heritage from carbon composite work New Zealand companies did for America's Cup boat races. Come to think of it, the rocket does look like an over-sized sail mast.
-
#95
by
edkyle99
on 11 Aug, 2014 16:28
-
Apparently from webcast. The Electron rocket body and tankage got heritage from carbon composite work New Zealand companies did for America's Cup boat races. Come to think of it, the rocket does look like an over-sized sail mast.
New Zealand not only built its own boats, but built many of the parts for the USA Team Oracle boat - not to mention providing the CEO, the skipper, the strategist, and most of the crew for the "USA" boat!
- Ed Kyle
-
#96
by
TrevorMonty
on 12 Aug, 2014 08:56
-
Just watched the show, some interesting points.
1) Choose the launch site first then designed LV for local weather so it can launch weekly.
2) Waited until they had hardware(working engine) before going public.
To many new space companies go public with paper rockets or hardware (sounds a bit like a competing black LV).
3) Build a tank(fuselage?) every 2 days.
4) Were overwhelmed by the response from potential customers after going public.
5) Targeting a late 2015 launch date.
6) No plans to build anything bigger. Considering Electron has yet to fly I'm not surprised at this answer.
-
#97
by
TrevorMonty
on 14 Aug, 2014 09:01
-
-
#98
by
Silversheep2011
on 11 Oct, 2014 06:26
-
I admire the work on "Viscous Liquid Monopropellants"
to Quote
"VLM is a single part high density monopropellant. It currently has performance and density equal or better than current solid fuel propulsion systems but has all the controllability of a liquid system with an ability to throttle arbitrarily, shut down and restart"maybe it's a development we will see years later catching on elsewhere...
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/category/rocket-lab-news/vlm/
-
#99
by
TrevorMonty
on 03 Nov, 2014 08:55
-
