Author Topic: Electron "IT'S BUSINESS TIME" - Lemur sats et al. - November 11, 2018  (Read 55870 times)

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 255
Well Curie discovered Radium and Polonium.

If it were up to me, I'd go with Radium for the name.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down



I'd be tempted for Electron for the first stage, Muon for the second and, Tau for the kickstage.

Online MattBaker

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 17
But Polonium has 84 electrons...

Hmmm, kick stage's name always changes to the appropiate element, this was the #3 Electron, so clearly it was the Lithium kick stage. Good thing there's not a lot of water in space.

Not sure what you'd do for Electron #119 but I'm not sure if that is the biggest problem with that idea.

Offline LtWigglesworth

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 7
I's quite a feat that after a failed first launch last year, the Electron rocket aced two successful launches this year so far.
The first launch wasn't a failure by Electron, was actually very successful. Failure was on 3rd party's comms equipment that was monitoring it, had to terminate Electron because of loss comms.

It may have been “successful” for Rocket Lab, but I still constitute that maiden flight a failure since it fell short of orbital velocity. You don’t have to take my side.

Developmental success, operational failure.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 5520
  • Likes Given: 942
I's quite a feat that after a failed first launch last year, the Electron rocket aced two successful launches this year so far.
The first launch wasn't a failure by Electron, was actually very successful. Failure was on 3rd party's comms equipment that was monitoring it, had to terminate Electron because of loss comms.

It may have been “successful” for Rocket Lab, but I still constitute that maiden flight a failure since it fell short of orbital velocity. You don’t have to take my side.

Look at the context of the question.  You can call it "failure" all you want, but for the purpose of predicting the future track record of the rocket, it was a resounding success.

Besides, this is the exact fault with all the "Statistics experts" that keep pointing out that a rocket is still only "2 out of 4" or whatever.  It really really matters if it's fail-fail-win-win, or say fail-win-win-fail, because those are not independent events.  It also really matters what the failures were.

Electron had a support system fail on it, and then proven that the LAS worked. I am not the least bit surprised that the next flights were also good.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1960
  • Liked: 2644
  • Likes Given: 291
With electric pumps and no gas generator, the Electron's flight looks very tidy.  For comparison, the Atlas 401 has the clean flame, but the rocket is covered with bumps and warts.  Falcon 9 has clean lines, but the flames look chaotic.  Electron has very clean lines both above the engines and in the exhaust below.  It's a great looking rocket!  Here's to hoping the results match the appearance.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • Liked: 1751
  • Likes Given: 1452
I agree with meekGee: Pretty much a success for RocketLab on Flight 1
(Why do they even have a Flight Termination System on stage 2? 
It's really flying into the middle of nowhere in all practical azimuths from Mahia.)
I agree with LouScheffer: It's a lovely clean looking and flying rocket.
I agree with everyone who congratulated RocketLab on a job very well done on "It's Business Time". 

What no one has pointed out is that Peter Beck could be seen throughout the live streaming of the launch sitting in the third row, calm as can be. 
A very interesting character. 

Now on to a more rapid pace.
Once a month?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13123
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4378
  • Likes Given: 796
Yes, the first one was clearly a launch failure.  I would suggest that it was also a Rocket Lab failure, because isn't the prime ultimately responsible for everything, responsible for having a Plan B in case of data drop out, etc.?

A very good test launch failure, I would say, because it exposed some not-so-obvious issues that needed solving.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13123
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4378
  • Likes Given: 796
Six objects cataloged in near-circular orbit along with Object A in elliptical orbit.  Did Curie stage deorbit?  It shouldn't have because it holds the drag experiment.  Otherwise something is missing.

43690 OBJECT A  2018-088A  504 X 208 KM X 85.03 DEG
43691 OBJECT B  2018-088B  517 X 499 KM X 85.04 DEG
43692 OBJECT C  2018-088C  518 X 497 KM X 85.03 DEG
43693 OBJECT D  2018-088D  517 X 491 KM X 85.03 DEG
43694 OBJECT E  2018-088E  551 X 491 KM X 85.02 DEG
43694 OBJECT E  2018-088E  515 X 491 KM X 85.02 DEG
43695 OBJECT F  2018-088F  518 X 496 KM X 85.03 DEG
43696 OBJECT G  2018-088G  516 X 491 KM X 85.04 DEG

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/13/2018 02:13 am by edkyle99 »

Online MattBaker

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 17
I remember an animation during launch coverage showing that it could and would, but with the drag experiment, no idea.

43694 OBJECT E  2018-088E  551 X 491 KM X 85.02 DEG

That one is quite different from the others, almost seems like an error or typo or something? I didn't think any of the cubesats had propulsion and that seems like quite a change for a bump for deployment.

Maybe E is the Curie but then one of the cubesats is missing.

Offline TrevorMonty

Yes, the first one was clearly a launch failure.  I would suggest that it was also a Rocket Lab failure, because isn't the prime ultimately responsible for everything, responsible for having a Plan B in case of data drop out, etc.?

A very good test launch failure, I would say, because it exposed some not-so-obvious issues that needed solving.

 - Ed Kyle
The receiving equipment was independent 3rd party's and their responsible. They were contracted to oversee flight. RL receiving equipment had no problem receiving data. Time didn't allow both parties to compare data and notes.


Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • Liked: 1751
  • Likes Given: 1452
Six objects cataloged in near-circular orbit along with Object A in elliptical orbit.  Did Curie stage deorbit?  It shouldn't have because it holds the drag experiment.  Otherwise something is missing.

43690 OBJECT A  2018-088A  504 X 208 KM X 85.03 DEG
43691 OBJECT B  2018-088B  517 X 499 KM X 85.04 DEG
43692 OBJECT C  2018-088C  518 X 497 KM X 85.03 DEG
43693 OBJECT D  2018-088D  517 X 491 KM X 85.03 DEG
43694 OBJECT E  2018-088E  551 X 491 KM X 85.02 DEG
43695 OBJECT F  2018-088F  518 X 496 KM X 85.03 DEG
43696 OBJECT G  2018-088G  516 X 491 KM X 85.04 DEG

 - Ed Kyle

My guess is that A is Curie and the second stage deorbited.
Do we even know the 2nd stage’s initial orbit? 
Was it displayed or in the press releases? 
It could have had a very low perigee.
208 km perigee is good for drag deorbit testing.

Edit: We will see if object E’s orbit is seen to really be in that higher orbit. I think that’s about an additional 15 m/s.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2018 11:21 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online MattBaker

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 17
Yes, from the press kit:

Quote
The payloads will be launched to a 210km x 500km circular orbit at 85 degrees, before being circularized to 500 x 500 km using Rocket Lab’s Curie engine powered kick stage.

504 X 208 and 500 X 210, sure seems like the 2nd stage.

Plus I've never heard about the 2nd stage being able to deorbit but I'm sure others read more about this than me.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13123
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4378
  • Likes Given: 796
I remember an animation during launch coverage showing that it could and would, but with the drag experiment, no idea.

43694 OBJECT E  2018-088E  551 X 491 KM X 85.02 DEG

That one is quite different from the others, almost seems like an error or typo or something? I didn't think any of the cubesats had propulsion and that seems like quite a change for a bump for deployment.

Maybe E is the Curie but then one of the cubesats is missing.
Typo.  Sorry!  Object E should be 515 x 491 km.  I'll fix in original message.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13123
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4378
  • Likes Given: 796
Six objects cataloged in near-circular orbit along with Object A in elliptical orbit.  Did Curie stage deorbit?  It shouldn't have because it holds the drag experiment.  Otherwise something is missing.

43690 OBJECT A  2018-088A  504 X 208 KM X 85.03 DEG
43691 OBJECT B  2018-088B  517 X 499 KM X 85.04 DEG
43692 OBJECT C  2018-088C  518 X 497 KM X 85.03 DEG
43693 OBJECT D  2018-088D  517 X 491 KM X 85.03 DEG
43694 OBJECT E  2018-088E  515 X 491 KM X 85.02 DEG
43695 OBJECT F  2018-088F  518 X 496 KM X 85.03 DEG
43696 OBJECT G  2018-088G  516 X 491 KM X 85.04 DEG

 - Ed Kyle
They've now added an OBJECT H
43697 OBJECT H 2018-088H 514 x 495 KM x 85.03 deg

 - Ed Kyle

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 3
Objects A and B have been switched.  A is identified as CICERO 10, B (with low perigee) as rocket.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • Liked: 1751
  • Likes Given: 1452
Six objects cataloged in near-circular orbit along with Object A in elliptical orbit.  Did Curie stage deorbit?  It shouldn't have because it holds the drag experiment.  Otherwise something is missing.
 - Ed Kyle
So do we have:

43690 OBJECT B  2018-088A  504 X 208 KM X 85.03 DEG 2nd Stage
43691 OBJECT A  2018-088B  517 X 499 KM X 85.04 DEG CICERO 10
43692 OBJECT C  2018-088C  518 X 497 KM X 85.03 DEG
43693 OBJECT D  2018-088D  517 X 491 KM X 85.03 DEG IRVINE 01
43694 OBJECT E  2018-088E  515 X 491 KM X 85.02 DEG
43695 OBJECT F  2018-088F  518 X 496 KM X 85.03 DEG
43696 OBJECT G  2018-088G  516 X 491 KM X 85.04 DEG
43697 OBJECT H  2018-088H  514 x 495 KM X 85.03 DEG

From where are the IDs being pulled?
I got IRVINE 01 association from N2YO
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?