-
#820
by
Hobbes-22
on 22 Mar, 2017 08:09
-
I think the battery pack is not shown in that video either, those are just the S1 tanks. The shipping container is 12m OL, and I posted a table some time ago that shows the dimension of the full S1 is 12.1m, so they certainly have to split it for transport. That segment is probably 9m or so, based on a 1.2m diameter.
You can get ISO standard containers that are 13.7 m /45 ft long, so container length alone is not a reason to split the stage.
-
#821
by
WmThomas
on 22 Mar, 2017 12:25
-
-
#822
by
CameronD
on 23 Mar, 2017 00:15
-
I think the battery pack is not shown in that video either, those are just the S1 tanks. The shipping container is 12m OL, and I posted a table some time ago that shows the dimension of the full S1 is 12.1m, so they certainly have to split it for transport. That segment is probably 9m or so, based on a 1.2m diameter.
You can get ISO standard containers that are 13.7 m /45 ft long, so container length alone is not a reason to split the stage.
Not in this part of the world. Standard shipping containers are either 20' or 40' -- that's it. You can get some extra height or p'raps side-opening if you wish, but no-one in these parts has their trucks, ships, straddles, storage areas nor anything else set up for anything other than this.
-
#823
by
gin455res
on 29 Mar, 2017 21:41
-
How hard would it be to scale the electron up?
A reusable first stage with 30-40 engines, A reusable second stage with 5ish engines (vtol), and a single integrated small-ish-sat--3rd-stage with storable propellants?
Kind of fully-reusable without being fully-orbital as the small-sat--3rd-stage would achieve orbit. The small-sat having an enlarged tank and an additional orbital insertion engine. Poorer 3rd stage (storable) isp might be compensated for by reduced mass fraction afforded by sharing the enlarged small-sat tankage with the small station keeping engines.
[a bit like the (integrated?) third stage that takes a satellite from GTO to geostationary orbit, only to LEO and staging sub-orbitally]
delivering a single small-ish-sat with full-reusability, but without the faff of ridesharing.
-
#824
by
Toast
on 30 Mar, 2017 16:59
-
How hard would it be to scale the electron up?
A reusable first stage with 30-40 engines, A reusable second stage with 5ish engines (vtol), and a single integrated small-ish-sat--3rd-stage with storable propellants?
With that many changes, it'd probably be easier to just start from scratch. And Rocketlab (so far) hasn't shown much, if any, interest in reuse. Such a design would also go against their mantra--they're targeting easy and cheap manufacturing so that they can build lots of rockets very quickly. Building larger, more expensive (but reusable) stages to launch the same payloads doesn't fit with that business model.
-
#825
by
QuantumG
on 30 Mar, 2017 23:21
-
With that many changes, it'd probably be easier to just start from scratch. And Rocketlab (so far) hasn't shown much, if any, interest in reuse. Such a design would also go against their mantra--they're targeting easy and cheap manufacturing so that they can build lots of rockets very quickly. Building larger, more expensive (but reusable) stages to launch the same payloads doesn't fit with that business model.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bigger rocket on the drawing board and are just waiting for funding.
-
#826
by
CameronD
on 30 Mar, 2017 23:29
-
With that many changes, it'd probably be easier to just start from scratch. And Rocketlab (so far) hasn't shown much, if any, interest in reuse. Such a design would also go against their mantra--they're targeting easy and cheap manufacturing so that they can build lots of rockets very quickly. Building larger, more expensive (but reusable) stages to launch the same payloads doesn't fit with that business model.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bigger rocket on the drawing board and are just waiting for funding.
I would. Both their current
manufacturing assembly facilities and their launch pad don't allow for anything much larger.. and besides bigger does not necessarily mean greater returns in the market they're playing in. Perhaps they'll do 'bigger' in the States in years to come, on a drawing board they haven't bought yet, on a launch pad built by others, but for now methinks they have their hands full with the rocket they have now.
-
#827
by
QuantumG
on 30 Mar, 2017 23:32
-
for now methinks they have their hands full with the rocket they have now.
Agreed, but since when has that stopped the business guys.
-
#828
by
gin455res
on 30 Mar, 2017 23:35
-
With that many changes, it'd probably be easier to just start from scratch. And Rocketlab (so far) hasn't shown much, if any, interest in reuse. Such a design would also go against their mantra--they're targeting easy and cheap manufacturing so that they can build lots of rockets very quickly. Building larger, more expensive (but reusable) stages to launch the same payloads doesn't fit with that business model.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bigger rocket on the drawing board and are just waiting for funding.
What might be the main non-linear costs of scaling the electron up by 5 x to allow the 2nd stage to have a low enough thrust to weight ratio to return vertically on a single engine.
And are there advantages to letting a single small-sat (and 3rd stage) take over some of the dv for orbital insertion, in terms of reducing the re-entry heating on the second stage?
-
#829
by
Toast
on 30 Mar, 2017 23:50
-
What might be the main non-linear costs of scaling the electron up by 5 x to allow the 2nd stage to have a low enough thrust to weight ratio to return vertically on a single engine.
First, there is no "scaling the electron up"--it really would be a whole different rocket at that point. And thrust-to-weight ratio on the second stage isn't enough to get stage recovery--those engines would need to be vacuum-optimized, and that would cause problems (e.g. flow separation) on the way back. You'd either need a retractable nozzle extension, a second landing engine, or some other scheme. Plus, you'd have to reinforce the second stage to be able to withstand reentry. That's not an easy task, and not a problem that RocketLab has ever even started working on. A third stage is an even worse proposition, because it destroys the cost-saving benefits of reusing the second stage. Why not just reuse the first stage and expend the second? Unless you can do it all with two stages, reusing the second stage isn't worth it, because you have to build a larger and more expensive first and second stage
plus a third stage which will cost just about much as the original expendable second stage.
And again, RocketLab is not currently focused on reusability. They want a cheap and quick to build expendable rocket.
Maybe they'll worry about reusability in the future, but for now they haven't even launched a demo mission yet.
-
#830
by
TrevorMonty
on 31 Mar, 2017 00:05
-
For now a low cost reliable ELV is all they need to worry about. RLV will come eventually.
-
#831
by
gin455res
on 31 Mar, 2017 00:08
-
What might be the main non-linear costs of scaling the electron up by 5 x to allow the 2nd stage to have a low enough thrust to weight ratio to return vertically on a single engine.
First, there is no "scaling the electron up"--it really would be a whole different rocket at that point. And thrust-to-weight ratio on the second stage isn't enough to get stage recovery--those engines would need to be vacuum-optimized, and that would cause problems (e.g. flow separation) on the way back. You'd either need a retractable nozzle extension, a second landing engine, or some other scheme. Plus, you'd have to reinforce the second stage to be able to withstand reentry. That's not an easy task, and not a problem that RocketLab has ever even started working on. A third stage is an even worse proposition, because it destroys the cost-saving benefits of reusing the second stage. Why not just reuse the first stage and expend the second? Unless you can do it all with two stages, reusing the second stage isn't worth it, because you have to build a larger and more expensive first and second stage plus a third stage which will cost just about much as the original expendable second stage.
And again, RocketLab is not currently focused on reusability. They want a cheap and quick to build expendable rocket.
Maybe they'll worry about reusability in the future, but for now they haven't even launched a demo mission yet.
The engines would be the same. 4 vacuum engines encircling a sea level engine on the 2nd-stage. This is pretty analogous to the configuration of the ITS upper-stage which would have 6 vacuum engines around 3 sea level engines. Why would there be flow separation issues if the 2nd stage is landing on the central sea-level engine?
New features, tank, tps, legs (unless it can caught), and programming.
You sound like you are connected to Rocket Lab, though.
-
#832
by
Toast
on 31 Mar, 2017 00:14
-
You sound like you are connected to Rocket Lab, though.
Not connected to them in any way. I'm just fully aware that they're a company who's still trying to get off the ground, and has only scraped together enough investment to cover their first few flights. Designing rocket that's more ambitious than anything currently on the market when they don't even have anything flying yet is ludicrous. Give it time. Once Electron is flying and they've got money coming in, we can see where they want to go with this. Until then, they aren't going to worry about reuse.
-
#833
by
ringsider
on 31 Mar, 2017 20:43
-
-
#834
by
ringsider
on 31 Mar, 2017 21:08
-
-
#835
by
TrevorMonty
on 31 Mar, 2017 21:08
-
Given any crashed Electron will endup being underwater I don't see it being an issue.
-
#836
by
ringsider
on 31 Mar, 2017 21:11
-
Given any crashed Electron will endup being underwater I don't see it being an issue.
Beck explicitly says he wants the "no photos" law because some debris could up on land, and discusses reusability as well as IPR and security (in the filing). He really doesn't want people taking photos of what is inside that rocket.
-
#837
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 04 Apr, 2017 15:34
-
-
#838
by
ringsider
on 04 Apr, 2017 15:58
-
-
#839
by
ChrisWilson68
on 04 Apr, 2017 16:39
-
It's nice to see a new rocket vertical on a new pad!