-
Rocket Lab - Wallops facilities
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 17 Oct, 2018 10:09
-
-
#1
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:00
-
-
#2
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:01
-
-
#3
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:03
-
Support at least 12 launches a year. First launch 3rd quarter of next year.
-
#4
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:06
-
It'll look like their current launch site. Support 30 jobs.
(As below).
-
#5
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:10
-
-
#6
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:10
-
I wonder which location at Wallops they will use. Could it be the old Scout rocket pad?
-
#7
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:16
-
$5m grant and more money incentives from the State.
Peter noted it's a quiet site and allows them to build right now.
-
#8
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:25
-
LC-2 will be within the fenceline of Pad A - south and east.
-
#9
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:35
-
LC-1 will remain the high frequency pad. LC-2 for customers who want to remain in the US and need that inclination.
-
#10
by
SkipMorrow
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:35
-
This is awesome! I live two hours from there and usually go to most launches. Well done, MARS team! Rocket Lab, you won't be disappointed.
-
#11
by
orulz
on 17 Oct, 2018 14:59
-
Interesting to note that for launches from here, they plan to do vehicle integration (installing engines and avionics) onsite, not just payload integration.
Wouldn't this mean they will need to maintain a separate team on hand at Wallops trained to carry out this part of the manufacturing process? Other concerns aside, it would seem more efficient to have only one such team, so there must be some other concern.
Theory: Maybe the carbon fiber structure of the first stage is small enough and/or durable enough to be transported cheaply from NZ to VA in a standard shipping container on a common container ship, but if the engines/avionics are installed then it becomes either too fragile or too long to fit.
-
#12
by
mainmind
on 17 Oct, 2018 15:14
-
So within a year (or two) Wallops will have three operating orbital rockets?
Pad 0A - Antares (up to 2 launches per year?)
Pad 0B - Vector (? launches per year)
Pad ? - Electron (up to 12 launches per year)
That's quite the scaling up of their range capabilities, isn't it?
-
#13
by
Firestorm76
on 17 Oct, 2018 15:19
-
Theory: Maybe the carbon fiber structure of the first stage is small enough and/or durable enough to be transported cheaply from NZ to VA in a standard shipping container on a common container ship, but if the engines/avionics are installed then it becomes either too fragile or too long to fit.
The company is based in California, and they do the manufacturing there. So they only need to truck the rocket across country, once Wallops is up and running.
Great to see more launches coming in the future at Wallops!
- Firestorm76
-
#14
by
orulz
on 17 Oct, 2018 15:20
-
Let's not forget Minotaur as well (also 0B)
-
#15
by
mainmind
on 17 Oct, 2018 15:24
-
Let's not forget Minotaur as well (also 0B)
Good catch. Sorry.
-
#16
by
orulz
on 17 Oct, 2018 15:27
-
The company is based in California, and they do the manufacturing there. So they only need to truck the rocket across country, once Wallops is up and running.
Great to see more launches coming in the future at Wallops!
- Firestorm76
According to the article (
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/10/rocket-lab-us-wallops-first-launch-site-readies-electron-november-launch/), tanks/carbon fiber/structures etc will continue to be built in Auckland NZ, while avionics and engines will continue to be built in California, and the components will be integrated at the launch site for that paricular rocket.
For Electron launches from New Zealand, the avionics suites and engines will ship from California to New Zealand and be integrated to the propellant tanks and stages at the Auckland, New Zealand, facility before Electron is shipped to its launch location on the Mahia Peninsula.
For launches from the U.S., Electron tanks and stages will be shipped from New Zealand to the launch site at Wallops, its engines and avionics shipped from California to Wallops, with the entire vehicle being integrated at its launch site.
-
#17
by
GClark
on 17 Oct, 2018 15:57
-
So within a year (or two) Wallops will have three operating orbital rockets?
Pad 0A - Antares (up to 2 launches per year?)
Pad 0B - Vector (? launches per year)
Pad ? - Electron (up to 12 launches per year)
That's quite the scaling up of their range capabilities, isn't it?
Vector won't be using Pad 0B - it is strictly for GBI/Minotaur-class solids.
Besides, Vector uses a TEL; all they need is a level asphalt slab.
-
#18
by
mainmind
on 17 Oct, 2018 16:23
-
So within a year (or two) Wallops will have three operating orbital rockets?
Pad 0A - Antares (up to 2 launches per year?)
Pad 0B - Vector (? launches per year)
Pad ? - Electron (up to 12 launches per year)
That's quite the scaling up of their range capabilities, isn't it?
Vector won't be using Pad 0B - it is strictly for GBI/Minotaur-class solids.
Besides, Vector uses a TEL; all they need is a level asphalt slab.
At the risk of going to far off-topic, I'd found the Vector at Pad 0B reference from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_Regional_Spaceport_Launch_Pad_0 and this linked article
https://spacenews.com/vector-to-perform-first-orbital-launches-from-virginia/ Perhaps all they'll need is the slab but that's the general location that was announced.
-
#19
by
TrevorMonty
on 17 Oct, 2018 16:56
-
Theory: Maybe the carbon fiber structure of the first stage is small enough and/or durable enough to be transported cheaply from NZ to VA in a standard shipping container on a common container ship, but if the engines/avionics are installed then it becomes either too fragile or too long to fit.
The company is based in California, and they do the manufacturing there. So they only need to truck the rocket across country, once Wallops is up and running.
Great to see more launches coming in the future at Wallops!
- Firestorm76
California would need larger building to support final assembly of complete stage. Currently only builds small components ie engines and avionics.
Wallops has to have large building to house stages so it may as well assemble them.
Less chance of vehicle being damaged in shipping, build it and roll it out to pad. No need to check it thoroughly after cross country truck ride.
-
#20
by
Firestorm76
on 17 Oct, 2018 20:30
-
The company is based in California, and they do the manufacturing there. So they only need to truck the rocket across country, once Wallops is up and running.
Great to see more launches coming in the future at Wallops!
- Firestorm76
According to the article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/10/rocket-lab-us-wallops-first-launch-site-readies-electron-november-launch/), tanks/carbon fiber/structures etc will continue to be built in Auckland NZ, while avionics and engines will continue to be built in California, and the components will be integrated at the launch site for that paricular rocket.
...
Thanks for the correction! I had not read the article yet and did not realize they opened that new factory in NZ recently. So they - would have - trucked stuff across country from their original location but now the mostly non-engine stuff will be brought over from NZ. Fun! Lots going on with Rocket Lab these days. Exciting!
- Firestorm76
-
#21
by
orulz
on 17 Oct, 2018 22:11
-
I am very genuinely curious to know how they are shipping the tanks and other structures manufactured in NZ. At 5 million per launch chartering cargo planes might start to eat significantly into the budget. I suspect they have something clever worked out as far as logistics is concerned. Maybe they will ship them in a large batch and have a stockpile on site at wallops. Maybe that's why there are so many of them on the factory floor at once in the photos by Everyday Astronaut.
-
#22
by
nacnud
on 17 Oct, 2018 22:33
-
Sea shipping is not expensive and carbon fibre tanks are going to be very robust.
-
#23
by
Chasm
on 17 Oct, 2018 23:17
-
If the longest single part is 39 foot long just shove it in a 40 foot container.
With a bit of planning you should be able to fit the stages (and their transport jig) into one 40' container. Even if not the fright rate estimate for two 40' containers from Auckland to Norfolk is $10k and a 4 week trip.
Searching for numbers the first stage has an official length of 12.10m. Got to shave off 10cm (say the engines) to fit a generic container. Or go for a 45' container which adds another ~1k per container.
I'd try really hard to fit each electron into one 40 foot container. Makes the transport chain so much easier. Looking at the dimensions I suspect Rocket Lab had the same idea.
-
#24
by
orulz
on 18 Oct, 2018 01:32
-
I'd try really hard to fit each electron into one 40 foot container. Makes the transport chain so much easier. Looking at the dimensions I suspect Rocket Lab had the same idea.
That is what I was thinking. If this speculation is true, it likely is very intentional, a big reason why their rocket is the size it is, in order to make possible (and economical) their plans for multiple launch sites worldwide.
-
#25
by
CameronD
on 18 Oct, 2018 01:46
-
I'd try really hard to fit each electron into one 40 foot container. Makes the transport chain so much easier. Looking at the dimensions I suspect Rocket Lab had the same idea.
They already do this. That's how they get it from Auckland to the launch site. ..and it's a far rougher ride than the stage would ever experience leaving NZ either by ship or plane.
EDIT: In doing so it seems like they've invented a new export market for NZ: Shipping rockets to America!!!
-
#26
by
orulz
on 18 Oct, 2018 01:46
-
Really it's very interesting. Every rocket has something that determines its size and capabilities. For Falcon 9 and Antares it was CRS combined with clearance along the trucking routes from Hawthorne to the Cape. For Atlas and Delta it was the EELV specs and the reference orbits. Minotaur and Pegasus were "build us some rockets using ICBM motors" All very bureaucratic requirements.
BFR was designed around a clean sheet look at the needs of Mars colonization and as a result went big. No bureaucracy. Lots of things such as the factory location followed.
Likewise Rocket Lab took a fresh look and found that some high percentage of satellites launched fall in the 300kg and under range, and designed a rocket as efficiently as possible to meet that spec and (conceivably) so it would fit in a shipping container to simplify logistics. No bureaucracy. The market at work, building rockets for specific purposes and solving problems in different creative ways.
Utterly fascinating.
-
#27
by
Jim
on 18 Oct, 2018 02:12
-
R Minotaur and Pegasus were "build us some rockets using ICBM motors"
Pegasus used all new motors
-
#28
by
Jim
on 18 Oct, 2018 02:23
-
Really it's very interesting. Every rocket has something that determines its size and capabilities. For Falcon 9 and Antares it was CRS combined with clearance along the trucking routes from Hawthorne to the Cape. For Atlas and Delta it was the EELV specs and the reference orbits. Minotaur and Pegasus were "build us some rockets using ICBM motors" All very bureaucratic requirements.
BFR was designed around a clean sheet look at the needs of Mars colonization and as a result went big. No bureaucracy. Lots of things such as the factory location followed.
Likewise Rocket Lab took a fresh look and found that some high percentage of satellites launched fall in the 300kg and under range, and designed a rocket as efficiently as possible to meet that spec and (conceivably) so it would fit in a shipping container to simplify logistics. No bureaucracy. The market at work, building rockets for specific purposes and solving problems in different creative ways.
Utterly fascinating.
Huh? There is no difference. There is no bureaucracy in the design of the other vehicles like EELV. Engineering determined the vehicles. EELV had to carry existing vehicles plus future ones. That was the market. Solids were added to the EELVs because of the market. Commercial Comsats were getting bigger. Then DOD satellites took advantage of them.
CRS and trucking constraints; and Mars colony and harbor factory are just different design constraints. Neither are "bureaucracy"
-
#29
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 18 Oct, 2018 06:27
-
I was surprised RocketLab chose Wallops. Available orbital launch inclinations are only from 38 to 60 degrees, which is pretty limiting, when I think most payloads will want to go into polar orbits. Cape Canaveral is 28.5 to 57 degrees. I would guess their next launch site would be on the west coast.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/about/launchrange.html
-
#30
by
Davidthefat
on 18 Oct, 2018 13:42
-
I was surprised RocketLab chose Wallops. Available orbital launch inclinations are only from 38 to 60 degrees, which is pretty limiting, when I think most payloads will want to go into polar orbits. Cape Canaveral is 28.5 to 57 degrees. I would guess their next launch site would be on the west coast.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/about/launchrange.html
I think the costs and the incentives drove the decision. Not a lot of margin is left if you have to pay a million for range support and ect. I reckon Wallops gave them a good deal as it seems they need the business there.
-
#31
by
edkyle99
on 18 Oct, 2018 21:03
-
Thanks for the correction! I had not read the article yet and did not realize they opened that new factory in NZ recently. So they - would have - trucked stuff across country from their original location but now the mostly non-engine stuff will be brought over from NZ. Fun! Lots going on with Rocket Lab these days. Exciting!
- Firestorm76
Electron has always mostly been manufactured in New Zealand, where its engineering team resides and where it was developed. In my view, this is a New Zealand rocket that uses some U.S. made parts. Obviously, a lot of capital has also come from the U.S. (Lockheed Martin, apparently).
My question about the new launch site location is this. Several reports have mentioned that it will be on "Pad A" at Wallops. Does this mean "Launch Area 0A"? LA 0A is, of course, the current Antares, and former Conestoga, launch site.
Wallops Island itself already has a "Launch Area 2", so I find the "Launch Complex 2" bit confusing.
https://celestrak.com/satcat/maps/mapWLPIS.php - Ed Kyle
-
#32
by
whitelancer64
on 18 Oct, 2018 21:15
-
I was surprised RocketLab chose Wallops. Available orbital launch inclinations are only from 38 to 60 degrees, which is pretty limiting, when I think most payloads will want to go into polar orbits. Cape Canaveral is 28.5 to 57 degrees. I would guess their next launch site would be on the west coast.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/about/launchrange.html
They can already do polar from their NZ launch site.
The RL website says the NZ launch site can handle from SSO to 39 degrees, so Wallops actually dovetails really nicely into that.
-
#33
by
IanThePineapple
on 18 Oct, 2018 21:34
-
RL also might be able to launch to SSO from Wallops, as Antares is/was able to do the same.
Source:
https://spacenews.com/41674orbital-executive-antares-could-be-ready-for-sun-synchronous-launches-next/I know they can launch to SSO from LC-1, [speculation] but if they're clogged up there they might be able to move some launches (Even though they likely never would). [/speculation]
Also, the likely dogleg to avoid North Carolina would cut away a good chunk of performance, so I'd say it's unlikely for them to go to SSO from Wallops.
-
#34
by
Lars-J
on 18 Oct, 2018 23:52
-
I was surprised RocketLab chose Wallops. Available orbital launch inclinations are only from 38 to 60 degrees, which is pretty limiting, when I think most payloads will want to go into polar orbits. Cape Canaveral is 28.5 to 57 degrees. I would guess their next launch site would be on the west coast.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/about/launchrange.html
They can already do polar from their NZ launch site.
The RL website says the NZ launch site can handle from SSO to 39 degrees, so Wallops actually dovetails really nicely into that.
The weird thing for me is that Wallops does not add any target orbit capability that they don't already have from NZ. So what gives? Tax breaks? Is launching from US soil so important for their customers?
EDIT: OK, Wallops is 2 degrees closer to the equator... Yes, but that is not a significant difference it seems.
-
#35
by
TrevorMonty
on 19 Oct, 2018 00:19
-
I was surprised RocketLab chose Wallops. Available orbital launch inclinations are only from 38 to 60 degrees, which is pretty limiting, when I think most payloads will want to go into polar orbits. Cape Canaveral is 28.5 to 57 degrees. I would guess their next launch site would be on the west coast.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/about/launchrange.html
They can already do polar from their NZ launch site.
The RL website says the NZ launch site can handle from SSO to 39 degrees, so Wallops actually dovetails really nicely into that.
The weird thing for me is that Wallops does not add any target orbit capability that they don't already have from NZ. So what gives? Tax breaks? Is launching from US soil so important for their customers?
EDIT: OK, Wallops is 2 degrees closer to the equator... Yes, but that is not a significant difference it seems.
They can launch DOD payloads from Wallops.
-
#36
by
yg1968
on 19 Oct, 2018 01:03
-
I couldn't find the archived video of the press conference. I only found this short 1 minute extract from the beginning of the presser:
-
#37
by
rayleighscatter
on 19 Oct, 2018 01:05
-
Interesting to note that for launches from here, they plan to do vehicle integration (installing engines and avionics) onsite, not just payload integration.
Well, sort of, which is equally as interesting.
The integration facility is going to be adjacent to the airfield on the mainland, which is about a 10 mile drive to the pad.
-
#38
by
Lar
on 19 Oct, 2018 01:47
-
Interesting to note that for launches from here, they plan to do vehicle integration (installing engines and avionics) onsite, not just payload integration.
Well, sort of, which is equally as interesting.
The integration facility is going to be adjacent to the airfield on the mainland, which is about a 10 mile drive to the pad.
If the unassembled parts are coming in via container, why locate next to the airfield? Too hard to build something near the pad?
-
#39
by
CameronD
on 19 Oct, 2018 01:53
-
If the unassembled parts are coming in via container, why locate next to the airfield? Too hard to build something near the pad?
Maybe rent is cheaper out at the airfield? Presumably it's also less hassle to assemble the parts near the airfield and then ship completed rockets to the pad in one piece rather than stockpile stuff at the pad where it would only get in the way come 'business time'.
-
#40
by
TrevorMonty
on 19 Oct, 2018 10:32
-
If the unassembled parts are coming in via container, why locate next to the airfield? Too hard to build something near the pad?
Maybe rent is cheaper out at the airfield? Presumably it's also less hassle to assemble the parts near the airfield and then ship completed rockets to the pad in one piece rather than stockpile stuff at the pad where it would only get in the way come 'business time'.
Also building would be vunerable in launch failure.
-
#41
by
rayleighscatter
on 19 Oct, 2018 10:41
-
And also rather pragmatically, there's business park associated with WFF who's development started a couple years ago so all of the infrastructure is already in place, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to get some local incentives as well. And while it's 10 miles, that's a pretty rural area so transporting over road from mainland to island shouldn't cause that much of a commotion.
https://www.co.accomack.va.us/businesses/wallops-research-park-information
-
#42
by
block51
on 19 Oct, 2018 15:06
-
And also rather pragmatically, there's business park associated with WFF who's development started a couple years ago so all of the infrastructure is already in place, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to get some local incentives as well. And while it's 10 miles, that's a pretty rural area so transporting over road from mainland to island shouldn't cause that much of a commotion.
https://www.co.accomack.va.us/businesses/wallops-research-park-information
They will actually be the first building to go up in the research park. I'd be very surprised if the incentives they received didn't come with a "Must build in the research park" caveat. I could be wrong, but I know the county really wants the research park to get built out. Here is some good layout info:
https://www.co.accomack.va.us/businesses/wallops-research-park-information/proposed-park-layout . Google maps has some good views too. As someone that lives and works here on the DelMarVa peninsula I'm very excited to see rocket labs coming to the area. My career started at WFF and my current employment is directly linked to projects that started at WFF via the sounding rocket program. More aerospace is always a plus for an area that really doesn't have much going for it otherwise in terms of good engineering jobs.
-
#43
by
edkyle99
on 19 Oct, 2018 16:22
-
I'm having trouble picturing where this new pad will go. The discussion suggests that it will be between LA 0-A and 0-B, but there is a building and a road there already. Shouldn't this be 0-C?
- Ed Kyle
-
#44
by
block51
on 19 Oct, 2018 20:20
-
The area where they were doing the ground breaking ceremony (based on pictures a friend posted on facebook as I can't find a replay of the video which I seem to recall showed the ground breaking area in a fairly decent way right at the begining) is circled in the attached image.
Not sure if that is where they're going to put the pad exactly or not. Should know really soon though. My father-in-law may know as well as he works out on the island fairly often.
-
#45
by
block51
on 19 Oct, 2018 20:25
-
-
#46
by
Lars-J
on 19 Oct, 2018 20:32
-
I'm watching this video (https://www.wmdt.com/2018/10/wallops-flight-facility-becomes-first-us-launch-site-for-rocket-lab/) and the ground breaking ceremony definitely took place in the area that I circled. I can 100% confirm that given the video. Now the question becomes is that were they are actually going to build the pad? Can't say for sure, but seems likely enough.
So... that basically means the end of Antares? I know it was probably coming based on NGIS lack of interest in it, but this seems like a stealthy way to reveal it by Wallops. I don't see how both launch pads could co-exist that close to each other.
-
#47
by
rayleighscatter
on 19 Oct, 2018 20:44
-
I'm watching this video (https://www.wmdt.com/2018/10/wallops-flight-facility-becomes-first-us-launch-site-for-rocket-lab/) and the ground breaking ceremony definitely took place in the area that I circled. I can 100% confirm that given the video. Now the question becomes is that were they are actually going to build the pad? Can't say for sure, but seems likely enough.
So... that basically means the end of Antares? I know it was probably coming based on NGIS lack of interest in it, but this seems like a stealthy way to reveal it by Wallops. I don't see how both launch pads could co-exist that close to each other.
No reason they couldn't. Rocket Labs' NZ launch pad is fairly tiny. LC-39C sits inside of LC-39B's fence at KSC the same way.
My guess is this has to do with the Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS probably only covers very specific places, so unless they want to wait 18-24 months for a new one, then they have to work with what they have.
-
#48
by
Lars-J
on 19 Oct, 2018 21:10
-
I'm watching this video (https://www.wmdt.com/2018/10/wallops-flight-facility-becomes-first-us-launch-site-for-rocket-lab/) and the ground breaking ceremony definitely took place in the area that I circled. I can 100% confirm that given the video. Now the question becomes is that were they are actually going to build the pad? Can't say for sure, but seems likely enough.
So... that basically means the end of Antares? I know it was probably coming based on NGIS lack of interest in it, but this seems like a stealthy way to reveal it by Wallops. I don't see how both launch pads could co-exist that close to each other.
No reason they couldn't. Rocket Labs' NZ launch pad is fairly tiny. LC-39C sits inside of LC-39B's fence at KSC the same way.
My guess is this has to do with the Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS probably only covers very specific places, so unless they want to wait 18-24 months for a new one, then they have to work with what they have.
LC-39C is completely notional at this point. And RL's launch infrastructure is not as tiny as you think. The NZ launch pad infrastructure is in a ~800ft by 250 ft box. Could they move things around? Sure.... But this is not a mobile trailer launch like "Vector".
-
#49
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 28 Feb, 2019 20:25
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1101229751581044741Later this year Electron will lift off from this very spot - Rocket Lab Launch Complex 2 at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia! Construction is underway on the pad, plus the Integration and Control Facility which will support the simultaneous integration of multiple Electrons!
-
#50
by
CameronD
on 22 Mar, 2019 05:45
-
Just in case anyone's looking for a job, RL are hiring.
(Seems I might have posted this in the wrong spot a couple of days back.)
-
#51
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 12 Apr, 2019 18:47
-
-
#52
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 13 Apr, 2019 02:47
-
So what should this pad be called within Wallops' existing pad numbering system? There's already an old LC-2 there (the Scout pad IIRC).
Maybe "LC-0A-2" since it shares infrastructure with Antares' pad?
-
#53
by
russianhalo117
on 13 Apr, 2019 04:57
-
So what should this pad be called within Wallops' existing pad numbering system? There's already an old LC-2 there (the Scout pad IIRC).
Maybe "LC-0A-2" since it shares infrastructure with Antares' pad?
LC-2 is the current WFF launcher for Atlantic sounding rocket flights of the Zombie sounding rocket family.
Unless they pull the 39C hat trick LP-0A-2 seems appropriate for MARS naming system (WFF uses Launch Area (LA - suborbital) and Launch Complex (LC - mostly orbital)) since LP-0C site exists on maps but has never been built.
-
#54
by
mrhuggy
on 13 Apr, 2019 22:36
-
-
#55
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 21 May, 2019 19:16
-
-
#56
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 28 May, 2019 20:48
-
-
#57
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 05 Jun, 2019 23:09
-
-
#58
by
CameronD
on 06 Jun, 2019 00:15
-
Aside from the water tower which might or might not be part of their facility, can anyone explain exactly what we're looking at here? Or is it a bit too early in construction to tell?
-
#59
by
russianhalo117
on 06 Jun, 2019 03:17
-
Aside from the water tower which might or might not be part of their facility, can anyone explain exactly what we're looking at here? Or is it a bit too early in construction to tell?
Everything on the right of the water tower is the pad foundation.
-
#60
by
tyrred
on 06 Jun, 2019 05:11
-
Is it a safe assumption that said water tower looming in the... er, proximity, will also end up being plumbed to supply sound suppression water for LC-2?
edit: plumbing
-
#61
by
russianhalo117
on 06 Jun, 2019 05:31
-
Is it a safe assumption that said water tower looming in the... er, proximity, will also end up being plumbed to supply sound suppression water for LC-2?
edit: plumbing
I would not expect that to be the case. Even 39C on 39B has separate water system.
-
#62
by
CameronD
on 06 Jun, 2019 05:35
-
Is it a safe assumption that said water tower looming in the... er, proximity, will also end up being plumbed to supply sound suppression water for LC-2?
edit: plumbing
I would not expect that to be the case. Even 39C on 39B has separate water system.
Well, if nothing else at least it means RL won't need worry about lightning protection!
-
#63
by
tyrred
on 06 Jun, 2019 08:56
-
Is it a safe assumption that said water tower looming in the... er, proximity, will also end up being plumbed to supply sound suppression water for LC-2?
edit: plumbing
I would not expect that to be the case. Even 39C on 39B has separate water system.
Dang. Curious, can you point me to a link of the separate water system for 39C? I wasn't aware there had been enough activity there to make it worthwhile. Mobile water trucks?
Could a sharing agreement be reached wrt NASA and
OATK NGIS of this particular water tower that could lower costs for RocketLab and everyone else involved?
edit: OT
-
#64
by
arachnitect
on 06 Jun, 2019 17:05
-
Could a sharing agreement be reached wrt NASA and OATK NGIS of this particular water tower that could lower costs for RocketLab and everyone else involved?
edit: OT
Do they really need it? I don't see a water tower at RL's New Zealand site.
Antares is 17x as much thrust.
-
#65
by
TrevorMonty
on 06 Jun, 2019 17:30
-
Could a sharing agreement be reached wrt NASA and OATK NGIS of this particular water tower that could lower costs for RocketLab and everyone else involved?
edit: OT
Do they really need it? I don't see a water tower at RL's New Zealand site.
Antares is 17x as much thrust.
Mahia has big hills behind it for reservoirs, with enough head to feed deluge system. Wallops is dead flat hence need for a water tower to generate enough head.
-
#66
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 29 Jun, 2019 02:14
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1144790767996588034 Today's mission will lift off from Launch Complex 1 in New Zealand, but progress on our second launch site is coming along nicely too. Rocket Lab Launch Complex 2 at Wallops Island, Virginia is on track to be operational by the end of the year.
-
#67
by
rayleighscatter
on 03 Jul, 2019 01:24
-
So what should this pad be called within Wallops' existing pad numbering system? There's already an old LC-2 there (the Scout pad IIRC).
Maybe "LC-0A-2" since it shares infrastructure with Antares' pad?
LC-2 is the current WFF launcher for Atlantic sounding rocket flights of the Zombie sounding rocket family.
Unless they pull the 39C hat trick LP-0A-2 seems appropriate for MARS naming system (WFF uses Launch Area (LA - suborbital) and Launch Complex (LC - mostly orbital)) since LP-0C site exists on maps but has never been built.
LP-0C and LP-0D both exist on paper, with LP-0D having a rather wild design that puts the pad on a pier.
Could a sharing agreement be reached wrt NASA and OATK NGIS of this particular water tower that could lower costs for RocketLab and everyone else involved?
edit: OT
In theory, the water tower doesn't belong to NASA or NG. It belongs to Virginia Space.
-
#68
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 05 Aug, 2019 17:35
-
-
#69
by
jstrotha0975
on 15 Aug, 2019 19:37
-
-
#70
by
gongora
on 15 Aug, 2019 20:00
-
According to Rocket Labs live launch schedule, Electron is scheduled to launch some time in Sept. from Wallops Launch Complex 2.
https://www.rocketlaunch.live/?filter=rocket-lab
That is
extremely unlikely. You also made a typo there, it's RocketLaunch.Live's launch schedule.
-
#71
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 19 Aug, 2019 16:56
-
-
#72
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 18 Sep, 2019 20:37
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1174422069968158720Exciting times at Launch Complex 2! Just 7 months after work began on our 2nd launch site, we've installed Electron's launch platform. It's one of the final pieces of infrastructure to be installed before integration and testing begins. Full update here: bit.ly/2ksXneu
Rocket Lab Readies Launch Complex 2 for Electron Launches From U.S. Soil
Wallops Island, Virginia. 18 September 2019 – Rocket Lab, the global leader in dedicated small satellite launch, and Virginia Space at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), have completed a major construction milestone ahead of the first Electron launch from U.S. soil. The recent installation of the launch platform at Rocket Lab’s second launch site, Launch Complex 2, marks one of the final steps in the construction of the new pad being built by the Rocket Lab and Virginia Space teams.
Construction on Launch Complex 2, located at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) on Wallops Island, Virginia, began in February 2019. In the few months since then, more than 1,400 cubic yards of concrete have been poured to create the pad on which Electron’s launch platform is mounted. The 66 ton launch platform was installed into its final position this month, ready for the 44 foot, 7.6 ton strongback to be mounted to the platform in coming weeks. Both the launch platform and strongback were built by Steel America in Norfolk, Virginia. The launch site largely mirrors Rocket Lab’s first launch location, Launch Complex 1 in New Zealand, where the Electron launch vehicle transports horizontally down the launch ramp, and then is lifted vertically by the strongback to be ready for launch.
In the coming weeks, work will focus on final build and integration of various launch pad systems that will process, load propellant into, and launch Electron. The final step in the completion of the site is integration and test activities, which is expected to be complete by December 2019. Once the site is complete, work begins on testing, commissioning, and integration at the launch site in preparation for the first Electron launch from U.S. soil in early 2020.
Rocket Lab’s Vice President of Launch Shaun D’Mello says the completion of the launch platform is a significant step in enabling Electron launch from U.S. soil.
“I’m immensely proud of the Rocket Lab team here at Launch Complex 2 and continuously impressed by the drive and dedication of the Virginia Space, MARS, and NASA teams, as well as our many local suppliers, as we’ve worked together to build a launch site in record time. We’re now entering an exciting period of testing and commissioning to get Launch Complex 2 ready for its first Electron launch in early 2020,” said Mr. D’Mello.
David Pierce, Director at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight Facility, said: “NASA is actively advancing all aspects of small spacecraft missions to the greatest national benefit, and Rocket Lab’s progress on Launch Complex 2 over the past several months has been nothing short of incredible. The company’s Electron rocket helps fill a key national need for providing more – and more frequent – launch opportunities for small satellites, and NASA’s Launch Range at GSFC/Wallops, which has enabled commercial space operations for decades, is poised and ready to support these missions.”
Dale Nash, CEO and Executive Director of Virginia Space, said: “Emplacement of the launch mount is a major milestone on our march toward completion of Launch Complex 2 in less than 12 months. It is a remarkable partnership we have developed with Rocket Lab, NASA, DoD, and the supplier base from Virginia to New Zealand and back again. The first launch of the Electron from Launch Complex 2 at MARS on Wallops Island is just over the horizon – you can almost hear the roar, and see the smoke and fire.”
In addition to the launch site itself, Virginia Space has started construction on a new Integration and Control Facility (ICF) located within the Wallops Research Park to support the Rocket Lab team in Virginia. The ICF will house multiple Electron launch vehicles for pre-launch integration and will be home to Launch Complex 2 Range Control operations, payload integrations cleanrooms, and administrative offices. Once fully operational, Launch Complex 2 is expected to employ up to 30 people in engineering, launch safety, and administrative positions.
Launch Complex 2 is Rocket Lab’s second launch site and will supplement launch availability out of Rocket Lab’s existing site, Launch Complex 1 on New Zealand’s Mahia Peninsula. Launch Complex 1 is the world’s only private orbital launch site and is licensed for up to 120 launches per year, offering unmatched launch schedule flexibility for small satellite operators. Launch Complex 2 can support up to 12 launches per year and is tailored specifically for government missions. The launch customer for the first Electron mission from Rocket Lab Launch Complex 2 will be announced in late 2019.
For real-time updates on Rocket Lab activities and for upcoming mission announcements, follow Rocket Lab on Twitter @RocketLab.
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-readies-launch-complex-2-for-electron-launches-from-u-s-soil/
-
#73
by
Ken the Bin
on 18 Sep, 2019 20:47
-
-
#74
by
PM3
on 01 Oct, 2019 04:56
-
-
#75
by
Salo
on 09 Oct, 2019 18:24
-
-
#76
by
Ken the Bin
on 16 Oct, 2019 19:31
-
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1184551540201123841Today's mission will lift off from Launch Complex 1, but our second launch site is almost ready for Electron missions from U.S. soil. This week the iconic strongback was installed at LC-2 at @VCSFA_MARS on Wallops Island, Virginia.
-
#77
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 22 Oct, 2019 20:04
-
-
#78
by
vaporcobra
on 30 Oct, 2019 01:27
-
-
#79
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 01 Nov, 2019 21:27
-
-
#80
by
joseph.a.navin
on 06 Nov, 2019 02:23
-
While photographing the Antares rocket on Pad-0A for the NG-12 mission, I caught the strongback for Rocket Lab's LC-2 next to the Antares rocket. You can also see LC-2 to the right of the water tower in the second photo. Can't wait for Rocket Lab to launch Electron out of LC-2 in 2020. Rocket Lab should increase the launch cadence out of MARS and cause more industry to come to the Wallops area and the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
-
#81
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 27 Nov, 2019 06:10
-
-
#82
by
Ken the Bin
on 11 Dec, 2019 13:12
-
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1204744865667436544Tomorrow, less than a year after construction started, we’re officially opening our first launch site on U.S. soil. We’ll be hosting a webcast at 11:00 am ET/ 8:00 am PT where you can hear from our CEO Peter Beck and others about the first scheduled LC-2 mission.
-
#83
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 11 Dec, 2019 19:37
-
-
#84
by
Ken the Bin
on 11 Dec, 2019 20:10
-
twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1204863073187696640
Tomorrow we officially open LC-2! Tune in to the webcast to hear about our first scheduled mission from Electron's newest home. Our CEO @Peter_J_Beck will be joined by representatives from @VCSFA_MARS, @NASA_Wallops and more.
12 December, 11:00 ET
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1204864114251718656Also, press conferences aren't as tight on T-zero times as Electron is, so just sit back, relax and hang in there if the webcast doesn't start exactly on 11:00 am. 🚀😎
-
#85
by
Chris Bergin
on 12 Dec, 2019 15:15
-
And the release (held back until 15 mins into the livestream announcing most of the below
)
Rocket Lab Opens Launch Complex 2, Confirms U.S. Air Force Payload as First Electron Mission from U.S. Soil
Scheduled for lift-off in Q2 2020, the mission will be Rocket Lab’s first launch from U.S. soil
Launch Complex 2, Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia. EMBARGOED UNTIL 11:15 AM ET, 12 DECEMBER, 2019 – Rocket Lab, the global leader in small satellite launch, has today officially opened Launch Complex 2, the company’s first U.S. launch site, and confirmed the inaugural mission from the site will be a dedicated flight for the U.S. Air Force.
Located at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Wallops Island, Virginia, Rocket Lab Launch Complex 2 represents a new national launch capability for the United States. Construction on the site began in February 2019, with the site completed and ready to support missions just 10 months later. Designed to support rapid call-up missions, Launch Complex 2 delivers responsive launch capability from home soil for U.S. government small satellites. The ability to deploy satellites to precise orbits in a matter of hours, not months or years, is increasingly important to ensure resilience in space.
At a press conference held at NASA Wallops Flight Facility today, the U.S. Air Force’s Space Test Program has been announced as the first customer scheduled to launch on an Electron vehicle from Rocket Lab Launch Complex 2. The dedicated mission will see a single research and development micro-sat launched from the site in Q2 2020.
Rocket Lab’s Founder and Chief Executive, Peter Beck, says the completion of Launch Complex 2 represents a new era in frequent, reliable and responsive space access from the United States.
“It’s an honor and privilege to be launching a U.S. Air Force’s Space Test Program payload as the inaugural mission from Launch Complex 2. We’ve already successfully delivered STP payloads on Electron from Launch Complex 1, and we’re proud to be providing that same rapid, responsive, and tailored access to orbit from U.S. soil,” says Mr. Beck. “With the choice of two Rocket Lab launch sites offering more than 130 launch opportunities each year, our customers enjoy unmatched control over their launch schedule and orbital requirements. Rocket Lab has made frequent, reliable and responsive access to space the new normal for small satellites.”
“Rocket Lab’s launch site at the Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Wallops Island, Virginia, strengthens the United States’ ability to provide responsive and reliable access to space. We look forward to Rocket Lab successfully launching the STP-27RM mission from Launch Complex 2 next spring, which will test new capabilities that we will need in the future,” said Col. Robert Bongiovi, director of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center’s Launch Enterprise.
Virginia Space CEO & Executive Director Dale Nash said, “The opening of Launch Complex 2 is a significant milestone and a remarkable achievement made possible by the strong partnership with Rocket Lab and NASA. Almost immediately after Rocket Lab’s selection of MARS as its U.S. launch site; engineers, managers and technicians worked tirelessly together across multiple time zones and two continents to make LC-2 a reality. Also, the strong support from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Air Force, as well as the skilled contractor team have contributed greatly to this success. We look forward to a busy manifest of Electron launches coming off LC-2.”
Rocket Lab’s Vice President of Launch, Shaun D’Mello, said the rapid pace of construction was made possible by the tireless support of teams from Virginia Space, which owns and operates MARS, and NASA Wallops Flight Facility. “The fact that we have an operational launch site less than a year after construction began is testament to the hard work and dedication of the Virginia Space and NASA teams, as well as the unwavering support of our local suppliers. Thank you for being a huge part of enabling us to open access to space. We’re excited to embark on the next phase of working together – regular and reliable Electron launches from the United States,” says Mr. D’Mello.
About Launch Complex 2:
Located at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Wallops Island, Virginia, Launch Complex 2 is Rocket Lab’s second launch site for the Electron launch vehicle. It joins Rocket Lab’s first site, Launch Complex 1, located on New Zealand’s Māhia Peninsula. Between the two sites, Rocket Lab can launch more than 130 times each year, offering small satellite customers unrivalled choice of orbital inclinations and control over their launch schedule.
Following a site selection process in late 2018 involving multiple U.S. spaceports, Rocket Lab selected the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport as the location of Launch Complex 2 due to the wide orbital inclinations the site can support, as well as the rapid planned construction timeframe. Construction on Launch Complex 2 commenced in February 2019, with the site operational just 10 months later in December 2020. More than 150 local construction workers and contractors were involved in the development of Launch Complex 2, with many Virginia-based companies supplying services, hardware and materials for the site. Locally built infrastructure at Launch Complex 2 includes the 66-ton launch platform and 7.6-ton strongback for the Electron launch vehicle, supplied by Virginia-based company Steel America.
Launch Complex 2 is tailored specifically for U.S. government missions to provide responsive launch for small satellites from U.S soil. Launch Complex 2 can support up to 12 missions per year, supplementing the 120 launches possible from Launch Complex 1 every year.
In addition to the pad itself, Launch Complex 2 will also be home to an Integration and Control Facility located within the Wallops Research Park for processing payloads and Electron launch vehicles prior to lift-off. The ICF will house multiple Electron launch vehicles for pre-launch integration and will be home to Launch Complex 2 Range Control operations, payload integrations cleanrooms, and administrative offices. With the launch site now operational, Launch Complex 2 is expected to employ up to 30 people in engineering, launch safety, and administrative positions in the coming year.
ENDS
-
#86
by
Rondaz
on 12 Dec, 2019 15:31
-
We're thrilled to confirm the 1st Electron launch from LC-2 will be a dedicated mission for the @usairforce Space Test Program in Q2 2020. It's an honor to be providing access to orbit for STP once again following the first STP launch on Electron from LC-1 earlier this year.
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1205160031555112960
-
#87
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 12 Dec, 2019 17:24
-
-
#88
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 13 Dec, 2019 06:42
-
Looks like no one wanted to cover the press conference! My excuse was that it was at 2:30 am and I needed some sleep after getting up to cover New Shepard 12 the previous two early mornings here.
Anyway, the name of the STP-27RM payload is Monolith from USAF Research Laboratory. Its designed to test the ability of small bus sizes to support large aperture space weather payloads.
-
#89
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 13 Dec, 2019 07:22
-
Delivered $5M transportation fund on the day of the announcement. 163 piles installed. Drove first piles in February. Have begun systems checkout. Chilldown tests next week.
-
#90
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 13 Dec, 2019 07:26
-
Have 30 people there at present.
-
#91
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 13 Dec, 2019 07:28
-
Questions from the audience. First one was on liability.
Up to four Electrons can be stored at Wallops. Initially two vehicles and then expanded to four. Will be initially shipping stages from NZ. Later will be shipping stages from California by road.
-
#92
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 13 Dec, 2019 10:32
-
-
#93
by
TrevorMonty
on 13 Dec, 2019 17:53
-
Questions from the audience. First one was on liability.
Up to four Electrons can be stored at Wallops. Initially two vehicles and then expanded to four. Will be initially shipping stages from NZ. Later will be shipping stages from California by road.
Articles from earlier in year said they would use Wallops as USA assembly of stages. Engines and avionics shipped from CA with core coming from NZ. Looks like assembly will be done in CA, which makes more sense. Wallops will just be a launch crew with lot of spare time between launches.
-
#94
by
joseph.a.navin
on 13 Dec, 2019 23:23
-
-
#95
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 15 Dec, 2019 19:08
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1206297237233356800Wallops Island put on a stunning day for the opening of Launch Complex 2. Thanks to everyone who came along to celebrate, and a huge thanks to everyone who helped to build Electron's new home in just 10 months. We cannot wait to launch from here early next year!
-
#96
by
CameronD
on 16 Dec, 2019 00:09
-
Why is it so hard to get Peter to smile?
-
#97
by
Lar
on 16 Dec, 2019 01:45
-
Why is it so hard to get Peter to smile?
He's smiling on the inside. You just can't see it.
-
#98
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 09 Feb, 2020 08:32
-
-
#99
by
joseph.a.navin
on 09 Feb, 2020 18:09
-
More photos, enjoy!
-
#100
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 15 Feb, 2020 20:29
-
-
#101
by
Comga
on 16 Feb, 2020 04:30
-
-
#102
by
joseph.a.navin
on 16 Feb, 2020 21:21
-
-
#103
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 05 Mar, 2020 07:30
-
-
#104
by
Mammutti
on 22 Apr, 2020 03:59
-
https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1252806287349309440The new LC-2 Integration Control Facility (ICF) just got its roof! It can process 2 Electrons at once to support responsive access to space. Thanks to the teams @VCSFA_MARS, @NASA_Wallops for all your support and to @usairforce for the mission that will debut out of the pad.
-
#105
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 29 Apr, 2020 18:41
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1255567765995319296 We've rolled Electron out at LC-2 in Virginia for the 1st time! We're gearing up for our 1st mission from U.S. soil - a dedicated mission in partnership with the Department of Defense’s Space Test Program & the Space and Missile Systems Center’s Small Launch and Targets Division.
Edit to add:
twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1255568473968635904
Our team carried out integrated systems tests to verify launch systems on Electron and on the ground systems at LC-2. Tests included raising Electron vertical, activating & tuning pad fluid systems, power and comms checkouts, plus RF testing with the range.
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1255569406198870016The mission is scheduled for launch in Q3 this year. One of the final remaining steps before launch is completion of NASA certification for our Autonomous Flight Termination System (AFTS), a system that has been successfully flown on several missions from LC-1.
-
#106
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 29 Apr, 2020 18:59
-
-
#107
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Apr, 2020 23:29
-
-
#108
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 05 May, 2020 08:47
-
-
#109
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 30 Sep, 2020 16:50
-
-
#110
by
TrevorMonty
on 04 Oct, 2020 01:45
-
-
#111
by
yoram
on 15 Nov, 2020 02:12
-
NASA software problems delaying RocketLabs Wallops launches.
https://spacenews.com/first-rocket-lab-u-s-launch-delayed-to-2021/"We expect that, under the current rate in which we’re developing and correcting the code errors, we should be ready to certify that unit in the first half of ’21,"
This means launch not before second half of '21?
So they didn't just find a single error, but apparently it was like Starliner quality software and needs a long term development effort to fix. It's really hard to imagine what went wrong here. I thought Flight Termination is a simple problem. They have to rewrite the whole software? How big can that be?
So NASA needs far longer to set up a flight termination system than RocketLab needs for a whole rocket with launch pad. I bet Beck is furious.
-
#112
by
Zed_Noir
on 15 Nov, 2020 03:34
-
Maybe Peter Beck should just call Elon up and get a working AFTS from him. Same goes for
OSC OATK NG.
-
#113
by
john smith 19
on 15 Nov, 2020 11:34
-
Maybe Peter Beck should just call Elon up and get a working AFTS from him. Same goes for OSC OATK NG.
SX don't build their AFTS units. They buy them in.
The one's tested by RL were under DARPA funding from these
guysAFTS consists of a core software package CASS, with a "Wrapper" to interface it to the sensors that will drive it, and a workstation package that updates CASS.
CASS has been licensed by NASA under ITAR and wrappers have to be inspected.
It is unclear if RL could write a CASS
equivalent package and their own wrapper, as long as it could interface to the range safety work station and meet IV&V requirements. If it can sit on the first stage they could be recoverable.
Basically AFTS is 2 MilSpec single board computers (in separate boxes, probably on separate power buses) running a single special program.
My instinct is that FTS boxes have been a cash cow for the companies that made them. Decades old hardware with through-the-nose pricing because you have to have them.
I don't think RL wanted to replace an expensive bought in sub system for
another expensive bought in sub system.
-
#114
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 11 May, 2021 19:03
-
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1392189588995727360Rocket Lab is still working to have autonomous flight termination system (AFTS) certified before it can begin launches from LC-2 in Virginia.
Beck: It is "taking a lot longer than than we all expected" but keeping his eye "on the longer term prize" of AFTS at Wallops' range.
-
#115
by
shiro
on 07 Oct, 2021 07:37
-
Any news on the recent progress in Wallops?
The COVID restrictions seems to be long-lasting in NZ, so the launch pad / processing facilities availability looks like a real bottleneck for RocketLab right now.
-
#116
by
trimeta
on 30 Dec, 2021 23:48
-
Some updates on the status of certifying Rocket Lab's AFTS solution for flights from Wallops, and discussion of how the system will work in general. Key quote regarding readiness:
“We remain on track to complete flight safety certification of the software by the end of February 2022,” [NASA spokesperson Jeremy] Eggers said. “Once that happens, Rocket Lab will need to process the software with their hardware and go through a safety review. In all, we expect to be able to support launch of the first Electron launch from Wallops in the second quarter of 2022.”
https://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2021/12/30/nasa-and-rocket-lab-clear-way-for-electron-launch-from-virginia-in-2022/
-
#117
by
Jim
on 02 Jan, 2022 11:18
-
My instinct is that FTS boxes have been a cash cow for the companies that made them. Decades old hardware with through-the-nose pricing because you have to have them.
I don't think RL wanted to replace an expensive bought in sub system for another expensive bought in sub system.
No, they aren’t. Just receivers with encryption
-
#118
by
Jrcraft
on 05 Jan, 2022 21:03
-
-
#119
by
TrevorMonty
on 12 Jan, 2022 17:50
-
-
#120
by
Robotbeat
on 12 Jan, 2022 18:15
-
I really hope that happens… I’d LOVE to be able to watch Neutron launches and RTLSes from my backyard, with a short drive to the actual launch site… It’s a continuation from Antares launch vehicle (also 8 tonne to LEO, altho expendable not reusable) but hopefully a LOT more common plus those RTLS views and possible human spaceflight!
Florida, California, Virginia, and Texas. Each with major orbital spaceports. Starting to feel like the future again.
This is also the only launch site right on the border of the NorthEast Megalopolis, the largest Megalopolis in the US and thus the best access to talent within a single day’s drive. Shorter distance to DC, Philadelphia, and NYC than the distance from San Francisco to LA, or Boca Chica to Austin, let alone the short <100 mile trip from Wallops to Norfolk.
Goddard, Langley, and NASA headquarters also will have good views of the launches…
(I hope this happens…)
-
#121
by
sanman
on 12 Jan, 2022 20:55
-
Electron, at niiiiight🌙🚨 #LC2
⚙️/⬇️/🖼: tmahlmann.com/photos/Rockets…
No offense - but why is everything so red? Is that just their corporate color, or is there some technical reason for it?
-
#122
by
trimeta
on 12 Jan, 2022 21:46
-
Electron, at niiiiight🌙🚨 #LC2
⚙️/⬇️/🖼: tmahlmann.com/photos/Rockets…
No offense - but why is everything so red? Is that just their corporate color, or is there some technical reason for it?
I think it's just the bright overhead lights which are red, everything else is normal. As to
why those lights are red in particular, normally I'd say something about "not impacting night vision," but the white lights lower down probably ruin that anyway for the crew. So maybe it's about not impacting the night vision of local wildlife, since the white lights appear smaller and more focused.
-
#123
by
whitelancer64
on 13 Jan, 2022 19:45
-
Jan 5, 2022
NASA Releases Autonomous Flight Termination Unit Software to Industry
NASA has provided an advance release of its NASA Autonomous Flight Termination Unit (NAFTU) software code to the launch industry, a critical milestone toward the final certification of NAFTU, which is on-track for February 2022.
NAFTU is a game-changing command and control system available to launch vehicle providers for use at all U.S. launch ranges in ensuring public safety during launch operations. Among the companies that are working with the NAFTU software is Rocket Lab, which has a launch pad at Virginia Space’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility.
“This is a major milestone that enables Rocket Lab and other U.S. launch companies to integrate the software now with their launch vehicle’s hardware and run performance simulations,” said David L. Pierce, Wallops Flight Facility director. “This is a key achievement toward enabling Rocket Lab launches from Wallops, in parallel with the NASA teams’ final safety certification steps, which are currently underway. Rocket Lab’s use of the NASA software will enable a high degree of confidence moving forward toward launch.”
NASA enlisted corporate partners ASRC Federal, Axient/MEI and KBR to assist the agency in the development of the software’s test procedures and also to support certification testing.
To ensure the ultimate success of the final safety certification of the software, NASA conducted formal software dress rehearsals, or “official timed dry runs,” of the test procedures in late December. These dry runs at NASA Wallops and at Axient facilities in Melbourne, Florida, went well and show the software test procedures and the software are performing as designed, said Pierce.
“I am very proud of the entire NAFTU team for reaching these critical milestones of releasing the software to industry, as well as completing the test procedure official dry runs,” said Pierce. “With these dry runs completed, we have greater than 99% confidence that the official ‘run for record’ witness testing of the software and procedures in January will be successful. This, in turn, will lead to the flight safety certification of the software by the end February 2022.”
NASA Wallops, in collaboration with NASA Headquarters, the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Space Force, and the Federal Aviation Administration, began development of the NASA Autonomous Flight Termination System in 2020, when the program became fully funded. The NAFTU system is more complicated than other, proprietary automated flight safety systems (AFSS) in that it’s designed to be customizable and support a wide array of launch vehicles at any launch range. “While more challenging, the effort overall will provide the single largest impact and the greatest economic benefit by allowing commercial launch providers a common, certified system for flight termination,” said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Ted Mercer, CEO and Executive Director, Virginia Space.
Virginia Space owns and manages three orbital launch pads at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility, which includes Rocket Lab’s LC-2.
Autonomous Flight Termination Systems like NAFTU are a key component of the launch range of the future and a mandatory requirement for Department of Defense (DOD) launches beginning in 2025. The system provides a number of benefits, such as wider launch windows, smaller downrange safety corridors that enhance area clearance operations, and reduced need/expense of ground-based systems. AFSS will be a game changer for enabling launches from Wallops and decreasing cost for access to space in the future, and NAFTU will be the system that leads this effort for many years to come.
“Automated flight safety systems are a game changer for enabling launches from Virginia’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA Wallops and decreasing cost for access to space in the future,” said Mercer. “NAFTU will be the system that leads this effort for many years to come.”
Source:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/wallops/2021/nasa-releases-autonomous-flight-termination-unit-software-to-industryI don't understand the many months of delays.
It feels like there has to have been some kind of significant issues getting the NASA box to work with Rocket Lab's systems. Which doesn't make any sense if they've been developing it together, and Rocket Lab's been flying with AFTS since Dec. 2019.
And I feel like it doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
-
#124
by
edzieba
on 13 Jan, 2022 20:28
-
I don't understand the many months of delays.
It feels like there has to have been some kind of significant issues getting the NASA box to work with Rocket Lab's systems.
No. The 'delays' have been in certifying the NASA software the AFTS box runs, not in the integration. AFTS is the main safety system protecting the public, so it has extremely high standards to meet to ensure it triggers reliably when required.
-
#125
by
Zed_Noir
on 13 Jan, 2022 22:36
-
....doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
Other launch provider will avoid using the NAFTU for a while unless mandated by NASA. Since this avionic software AIUI currently have zero flight heritage along with a strange prolong certification period. Some low value payloads on relatively low cost launchers will have to hot test the NAFTU a few times first.
-
#126
by
edzieba
on 14 Jan, 2022 07:51
-
....doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
Other launch provider will avoid using the NAFTU for a while unless mandated by NASA. Since this avionic software AIUI currently have zero flight heritage along with a strange prolong certification period. Some low value payloads on relatively low cost launchers will have to hot test the NAFTU a few times first.
No. The NAFTU certification is for flight use, and will fly on an operational mission with Rocketlab as the sole FTS at Wallops. Once the flight software is certified, it's certified, and the only additional testing for a new vehicle is to integrate it with that vehicle (which you'd have to do with any FTS system).
-
#127
by
Zed_Noir
on 15 Jan, 2022 02:41
-
....doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
Other launch provider will avoid using the NAFTU for a while unless mandated by NASA. Since this avionic software AIUI currently have zero flight heritage along with a strange prolong certification period. Some low value payloads on relatively low cost launchers will have to hot test the NAFTU a few times first.
No. The NAFTU certification is for flight use, and will fly on an operational mission with Rocketlab as the sole FTS at Wallops. Once the flight software is certified, it's certified, and the only additional testing for a new vehicle is to integrate it with that vehicle (which you'd have to do with any FTS system).
Are you suggesting flying NAFTU on an operational mission without being flight tested on non-operational mission first for certification?
-
#128
by
sanman
on 15 Jan, 2022 03:27
-
And I feel like it doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
Are you worried a common standardized AFTS could become an opportunity for sabotage, or something?
-
#129
by
trimeta
on 15 Jan, 2022 04:50
-
And I feel like it doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
Are you worried a common standardized AFTS could become an opportunity for sabotage, or something?
Worst-case would be security vulnerabilities which could be exploited (e.g., sending it malicious signals from the ground which it interprets as triggers to explode), but one would hope that the years of scrutiny have rid it of those.
-
#130
by
edzieba
on 15 Jan, 2022 12:15
-
....doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
Other launch provider will avoid using the NAFTU for a while unless mandated by NASA. Since this avionic software AIUI currently have zero flight heritage along with a strange prolong certification period. Some low value payloads on relatively low cost launchers will have to hot test the NAFTU a few times first.
No. The NAFTU certification is for flight use, and will fly on an operational mission with Rocketlab as the sole FTS at Wallops. Once the flight software is certified, it's certified, and the only additional testing for a new vehicle is to integrate it with that vehicle (which you'd have to do with any FTS system).
Are you suggesting flying NAFTU on an operational mission without being flight tested on non-operational mission first for certification?
It's been flying in shadow-mode for years on Electron launches. The software needs certification to operate as the primary AFTS, but it's hardly untested.
-
#131
by
whitelancer64
on 16 Jan, 2022 01:33
-
....doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
Other launch provider will avoid using the NAFTU for a while unless mandated by NASA. Since this avionic software AIUI currently have zero flight heritage along with a strange prolong certification period. Some low value payloads on relatively low cost launchers will have to hot test the NAFTU a few times first.
No. The NAFTU certification is for flight use, and will fly on an operational mission with Rocketlab as the sole FTS at Wallops. Once the flight software is certified, it's certified, and the only additional testing for a new vehicle is to integrate it with that vehicle (which you'd have to do with any FTS system).
Are you suggesting flying NAFTU on an operational mission without being flight tested on non-operational mission first for certification?
It's been flying in shadow-mode for years on Electron launches. The software needs certification to operate as the primary AFTS, but it's hardly untested.
Not in shadow mode, it's been the ONLY FTS on Electron launches since Dec. 2019
And that's the real question. If it's been flying for 2 years on Electron, then what are these delays with certification? What's actually the problem here?
-
#132
by
Zed_Noir
on 16 Jan, 2022 02:12
-
....doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
Other launch provider will avoid using the NAFTU for a while unless mandated by NASA. Since this avionic software AIUI currently have zero flight heritage along with a strange prolong certification period. Some low value payloads on relatively low cost launchers will have to hot test the NAFTU a few times first.
No. The NAFTU certification is for flight use, and will fly on an operational mission with Rocketlab as the sole FTS at Wallops. Once the flight software is certified, it's certified, and the only additional testing for a new vehicle is to integrate it with that vehicle (which you'd have to do with any FTS system).
Are you suggesting flying NAFTU on an operational mission without being flight tested on non-operational mission first for certification?
It's been flying in shadow-mode for years on Electron launches. The software needs certification to operate as the primary AFTS, but it's hardly untested.
Not in shadow mode, it's been the ONLY FTS on Electron launches since Dec. 2019
And that's the real question. If it's been flying for 2 years on Electron, then what are these delays with certification? What's actually the problem here?
AIUI the hardware (the avioncs box) have flown on the Electron. However AFAIK the NAFTU software wasn't ready for certification for operational uses until the recent announcement of the near completion of the certification process FWIW.
-
#133
by
2megs
on 01 Mar, 2022 22:00
-
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220228006048/en/Rocket-Lab-Selects-Virginia-for-Neutron-Launch-Site-Extensive-Manufacturing-ComplexRocket Lab Selects Virginia for Neutron Launch Site & Extensive Manufacturing Complex
Construction to Begin on Neutron Manufacturing, Operations, and Launch Facilities in Accomack County, Bringing As Many As 250 New Jobs to Eastern Shore
LONG BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rocket Lab USA, Inc (Nasdaq: RKLB) (Rocket Lab), a leading launch and space systems company, today revealed it has selected Wallops Island, Virginia, as the location for its first launch site and extensive manufacturing and operations facilities, for its 8-ton payload class reusable Neutron rocket.
The Neutron Production Complex and launch pad for its Neutron rocket will be located adjacent to and within the NASA Wallops Flight Facility and Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. The complex will be home to a rocket production, assembly, and integration facility, as well as a dedicated launch pad for the Neutron rocket located on the southern end of Wallops Island. The estimated 250,000 square foot state-of-the-art complex will be constructed on a 28-acre site adjacent to the Wallops Island Flight Facility and will include a Launch Control Center, Rocket Lab’s fifth global operations center for launch activities and on-orbit operations. To support rapid production of the Neutron rocket, current plans for the complex include automated fiber placement robotic production systems capable of laying up meters of Neutron’s new, specially formulated carbon composite structures in minutes. As a reusable rocket, Neutron is designed to land back on the launch pad after a mission and from there it would be returned to the production complex for refurbishment and re-flight.
The manufacturing complex will be located within proximity of Rocket Lab Launch Complex 2, the Company’s launch site for the Electron launch vehicle, the second most frequently launched U.S. rocket annually since 2019. Rocket Lab’s Neutron Production Complex is expected to create as many as 250 jobs in Virginia.
Rocket Lab founder and CEO, Peter Beck, says: “Neutron is a new generation of rocket that will advance the way space is accessed, and Virginia makes perfect sense as a significant site for Neutron’s early development. Its position on the eastern seaboard is the ideal location to support both Neutron’s expected frequent launch cadence and the rocket’s return-to-Earth capability of landing back at its launch site after lift-off; and as one of only four states in the United States with an FAA spaceport license for missions to Earth orbit or on interplanetary trajectories, Virginia is home to an active and experienced aerospace workforce we can pull from to support Neutron’s development and launch. I’m thankful for the Commonwealth’s enthusiasm and backing of Neutron which, combined with the state’s rich heritage as an aerospace state, made it difficult to see anywhere else but Virginia to begin Neutron’s journey.”
Neutron is Rocket Lab’s next generation launch vehicle in development, designed to lift 8-tons of payload and to provide a tailored launch solution for satellite mega-constellations. Neutron’s unique design, materials, propulsion, and reusability architecture also make the launch vehicle ideal for assured access to space for the nation’s most critical missions, deep space exploration, and potentially human spaceflight. Neutron will be the world’s first carbon composite large launch vehicle, powered by in-house designed and manufactured Archimedes reusable rocket engines and an advanced upper stage to enable high performance for complex satellite deployments.
Rocket Lab selected Virginia as the location of its Neutron expansion on the strength of the extensive support from the Commonwealth of Virginia, in particular the Virginia Economic Development Partnership working alongside Accomack County, the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (Virginia Space), and the General Assembly’s Major Employment and Investment (MEI) Project Approval Commission. As part of the Commonwealth’s proposal, $30 million has been set aside for infrastructure and operational systems improvements to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport where the Neutron launch site will be located, along with $15 million from the MEI Project Approval Commission in site improvements and building construction in support of Neutron.
Rocket Lab Vice President – Launch Systems, Shaun D’Mello, thanks the Commonwealth of Virginia and Accomack County for its enthusiasm and support to bring Neutron to the Eastern Shore. “We’ve enjoyed a solid partnership with Virginia for years that will no doubt be strengthened with Neutron. We have a shared mission to develop Rocket Lab’s presence at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport into a strategic national asset that provides responsive, reliable, reusable space launch through Neutron and Electron, and breaking ground on the site soon is a significant and impelling step toward that future.”
Rocket Lab expects to begin construction on the Neutron Production Complex in Virginia promptly. Commercial and government interest in Neutron is strong and includes a recent $24 million development contract granted by the U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command (SSC) in support of Neutron’s capability to aid national security and defense missions ranging from scientific and experimental satellites to the largest and most critical national security payloads. Further Neutron expansion will continue throughout the United States as the program develops toward first launch.
-
#134
by
Craigles
on 02 Mar, 2022 22:08
-
Where might we look for an update on the NASA Autonomous Flight Termination Unit?
As context, last January 2, NASA's Jeremy Eggers quoted David Pierce, the Wallops Flight Facility Director as saying “With these dry runs completed, we have greater than 99% confidence that the official ‘run for record’ witness testing of the software and procedures in January will be successful. This, in turn, will lead to the flight safety certification of the software by the end February 2022.”
Source:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/wallops/2021/nasa-releases-autonomous-flight-termination-unit-software-to-industry
-
#135
by
Robotbeat
on 04 Mar, 2022 17:51
-
NASA takes forever to do this kind of stuff, particularly software. There’s nothing particularly surprising about that.
-
#136
by
Craigles
on 20 Apr, 2022 13:35
-
NASA takes forever to do this kind of stuff, particularly software. There’s nothing particularly surprising about that.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220419006088/en/Encouraged by NASA’s recent progress in certifying its Autonomous Flight Termination Unit (NAFTU) software, which is required to enable Electron launches from Virginia, Rocket Lab has scheduled the mission from Launch Complex 2 no earlier than December 2022.
-
#137
by
trimeta
on 20 Apr, 2022 15:00
-
-
#138
by
TrevorMonty
on 20 Apr, 2022 20:39
-
NASA takes forever to do this kind of stuff, particularly software. There’s nothing particularly surprising about that.
This is critical range safety SW the development and testing process can't be rushed.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
#139
by
2megs
on 22 Apr, 2022 14:43
-
https://spacenews.com/space-force-looking-at-u-s-needs-for-responsive-space/WASHINGTON – The U.S. Space Force plans to conduct in 2023 a “responsive space” demonstration where private launch companies will be challenged to deploy satellites on short notice.
The demonstration is part of a congressionally directed effort to create a “tactically responsive launch” program. Congress inserted $50 million in the 2022 defense budget, arguing that DoD should figure out how to use commercial launch services during a conflict to replace damaged satellites or deploy new ones quickly if needed.
Depending on how late in 2023 this happens, I wouldn't be surprised if Rocket Lab Wallops sees a piece of this. DoD is the one big customer out there that has lots of payloads and will pay a premium to see them launched on their own schedule to their own orbit without random co-manifested rideshares. Putting a launch site on U.S. soil, right across the bay from the Pentagon (and all the Northern Virginia defense contractors), might be the thing that finally closes the business case for Electron.
-
#140
by
Robotbeat
on 23 Apr, 2022 14:18
-
NASA takes forever to do this kind of stuff, particularly software. There’s nothing particularly surprising about that.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220419006088/en/
Encouraged by NASA’s recent progress in certifying its Autonomous Flight Termination Unit (NAFTU) software, which is required to enable Electron launches from Virginia, Rocket Lab has scheduled the mission from Launch Complex 2 no earlier than December 2022.
Why did you quote me? Are you trying to make a point?
-
#141
by
Robotbeat
on 23 Apr, 2022 14:18
-
NASA takes forever to do this kind of stuff, particularly software. There’s nothing particularly surprising about that.
This is critical range safety SW the development and testing process can't be rushed.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Who said anything about rushing? Literally just talk to anyone who has to do software at NASA.
-
#142
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 08 Aug, 2022 19:35
-
-
#143
by
2megs
on 14 Oct, 2022 12:50
-
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1580132104595156992October 12, 2022 05:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
WALLOPS ISLAND, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (Nasdaq: RKLB) (“Rocket Lab” or “the Company”), a leading launch and space systems company, today announced the Electron rocket to be launched in the Company’s first mission from U.S. soil has arrived at Launch Complex 2 in Virginia.
The mission will deploy satellites for radio frequency geospatial analytics provider HawkEye 360 and will be Rocket Lab’s first lift-off from Launch Complex 2 at Virginia Space’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport within NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility – a launch pad developed to support Electron missions from U.S. soil for government and commercial customers. Encouraged by NASA’s recent progress in certifying its Autonomous Flight Termination Unit (NAFTU) software, which is required to enable Electron launches from Virginia, Rocket Lab has scheduled the mission from Launch Complex 2 in December 2022.
With Electron now at Launch Complex 2, Rocket Lab will begin final launch preparations including a standard launch dress rehearsal and payload integration at Rocket Lab’s dedicated Integration and Control Facility near the launch site.
Launch Complex 2 supplements Rocket Lab’s existing site, Launch Complex 1 in New Zealand, from which 31 Electron missions have already launched. The two launch complexes combined can support more than 130 launch opportunities every year, delivering unmatched flexibility for rapid, responsive launch for government and commercial satellite operators. The launch pad and production complex for Rocket Lab’s large reusable Neutron launch vehicle will also be located at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, streamlining operations across small and large launch.
“We are looking forward to seeing Electron take to Virginia skies for the first time very soon,” said Rocket Lab founder and CEO Peter Beck. “Rocket Lab has been providing reliable and responsive access to orbit for more than four and a half years with Electron and we’re excited to build on that strong heritage by unlocking a new path to orbit from right here on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. We are delighted to be working with the dedicated teams at NASA, Virginia Space, Accomack County and HawkEye 360 to launch this historic mission and begin a new era of space access.”
The mission will be the first of three Electron launches for HawkEye 360 in a contract that will see Rocket Lab deliver 15 satellites to low Earth orbit between late 2022 and 2024. These missions will grow HawkEye 360’s constellation of radio frequency monitoring satellites, enabling the company to better deliver precise mapping of radio frequency emissions anywhere in the world. Supporting Rocket Lab’s vertical integration strategy, Rocket Lab will also supply HawkEye 360 with separation systems produced by Planetary Systems Corporation, a Maryland-based space hardware company acquired by Rocket Lab in December 2021.
-
#144
by
whitelancer64
on 17 Dec, 2022 01:53
-
....doesn't bode well at all for this NASA AFTS box to be rapidly and easily used by any rocket launching from anywhere....
Other launch provider will avoid using the NAFTU for a while unless mandated by NASA. Since this avionic software AIUI currently have zero flight heritage along with a strange prolong certification period. Some low value payloads on relatively low cost launchers will have to hot test the NAFTU a few times first.
No. The NAFTU certification is for flight use, and will fly on an operational mission with Rocketlab as the sole FTS at Wallops. Once the flight software is certified, it's certified, and the only additional testing for a new vehicle is to integrate it with that vehicle (which you'd have to do with any FTS system).
Are you suggesting flying NAFTU on an operational mission without being flight tested on non-operational mission first for certification?
It's been flying in shadow-mode for years on Electron launches. The software needs certification to operate as the primary AFTS, but it's hardly untested.
Not in shadow mode, it's been the ONLY FTS on Electron launches since Dec. 2019
And that's the real question. If it's been flying for 2 years on Electron, then what are these delays with certification? What's actually the problem here?
AIUI the hardware (the avioncs box) have flown on the Electron. However AFAIK the NAFTU software wasn't ready for certification for operational uses until the recent announcement of the near completion of the certification process FWIW.
"At a Dec. 14 online briefing, David Pierce, director of NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility, said
the final safety certification of what’s called the NASA Autonomous Flight Termination Unit (NAFTU) was originally scheduled in time to support a mid-2020 first launch from LC-2.
During final checks of the software, engineers discovered numerous errors in the code.In the fall of 2020, NASA established a “cross-agency” team that included the U.S. Space Force and Federal Aviation Administration to fix the software and go through a certification process, he said.
It took more than a year to develop the test procedures and scripts needed to ensure the software met range safety requirements.By early 2022, NAFTU was ready for independent certification testing. “As part of that, as normally happens in I&T [integration and testing], you find errors or bugs that needed to be fixed, and that’s what we did,” he said. “We knocked down each one of those challenges, one by one, and we completed independent testing in the summer of 2022.”
The system completed an independent certification led by the chief engineer of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in October. “As soon as we completed that, we turned to supporting Peter [Beck] and the fabulous Rocket Lab team” as the company modified NAFTU for use on Electron.
Rocket Lab’s implementation of NAFTU, which the company calls Pegasus, has received approval from the FAA for the upcoming launch. Pierce said NASA still needs to complete “cleaning up some of the paperwork” for full certification of NAFTU from the FAA, which he expects to be complete by the end of the month.He said there is some additional final paperwork to complete for the Electron launch, in the form of additional analyses by a joint NASA-Rocket Lab team. “What we’ve been doing over the past couple weeks is following up with answers to questions to show how NASA Wallops validated the combined response to our flight safety plan to the FAA,” he said. That work will be complete before a Dec. 15 launch readiness review.
NAFTU will be available to other range users to reduce the number and cost of traditional range safety assets and support higher flight rates. Eighteen companies have requested access to the software, Pierce said, but Rocket Lab will be the first to use it on the upcoming Electron launch.
Rocket Lab has been using its own AFTS for more than 20 Electron launches from its original launch site, LC-1 in New Zealand. “It is a significant reduction in range costs and range equipment,” Beck, chief executive of Rocket Lab, said at the briefing. “AFTS is a huge game-changer.”"
https://spacenews.com/nasa-and-rocket-lab-ready-for-first-electron-launch-from-wallops/
-
#145
by
Asteroza
on 19 Dec, 2022 23:36
-
Wait, was NAFTU software derived from the Rocket Lab AFTS? That would imply Rocket Lab were flying a flawed AFTS for some time, plus presumably they would want to fix theirs after the flaws were identified. I would assume their insurance provider would be very keen about that...
-
#146
by
Zed_Noir
on 20 Dec, 2022 03:45
-
Wait, was NAFTU software derived from the Rocket Lab AFTS? That would imply Rocket Lab were flying a flawed AFTS for some time, plus presumably they would want to fix theirs after the flaws were identified. I would assume their insurance provider would be very keen about that...
AIUI the NAFTU software was developed in house by NASA for use by new launch providers at the Wallops launch site. Rocket Lab implement their own flight termination software with the same NAFTU compatible hardware installed on the Electron launching from Mahia New Zealand.
-
#147
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 14 Jan, 2024 13:17
-
-
#148
by
Tywin
on 23 Jan, 2024 14:03
-
RL have 23 launch left this year, after the next launch...
Somebody know how many from Wallops this year?
-
#149
by
catdlr
on 23 Jan, 2024 22:49
-
-
#150
by
the_big_boot
on 23 Jan, 2024 23:20
-
RL have 23 launch left this year, after the next launch...
Somebody know how many from Wallops this year?
Rocket lab’s only planning on having 22 electron launches this year, and according to RLs Q3 earnings call 2-3 of those will be from wallops
-
#151
by
catdlr
on 25 Jan, 2024 04:48
-
-
#152
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 25 Jan, 2024 18:18
-
-
#153
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 18 Mar, 2024 20:39
-
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1769840689737855447Neutron’s launch site is taking shape.
While we’re gearing up for the next Electron launch from @NASAWallops in the coming days, here’s what the Neutron team have been up to on the new pad right next door.
Neutron's water tower has arrived at LC-3! The 283 ft / 86 m tall tower has a 200,000-gallon capacity to feed Neutron’s deluge system which protects the pad from the intense heat and vibration from the Archimedes engines on lift-off.
Edit to add:
Concrete is flowing fast on the launch mount, a dedicated new pad for Neutron designed to enable rapid turnaround between missions.
Just a 5-minute drive from the pad, the Neutron Integration Facility is under construction. It’s from this facility that completed Neutron rockets will roll out to the pad before taking to the skies.
-
#154
by
TrevorMonty
on 20 Mar, 2024 16:55
-
Last post in Neutron development thread talked about a RUD on or above pad would setback program.
In case of Wallops there is good chance other launch pads nearby would be damaged. Electron(LP-0C) for one, Minotaur ( LP-0B) to south of Neutron ( LP-OD) and possibly Antares (LP-0A) just north of LP-0C.
Also goes other way, MLV/Antares RUD could damage Electron and Neutron facilities. This would've been case when Antares exploded above pad before Electron's was built.
Given Electron's size an RUD isn't likely to do to much damage to its neighbours.
-
#155
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 21 Mar, 2024 06:11
-
-
#156
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 09 Apr, 2024 04:02
-
-
#157
by
catdlr
on 23 Apr, 2024 03:10
-
-
#158
by
c4fusion
on 24 Apr, 2024 02:33
-
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1782565733580591402
Rocket Lab
@RocketLab
Up we go! 🏗️
Installation of LC-3's water tower for Neutron is underway at
@NASAWallops
@Virginia_Space
Wow that puts in perspective on how small that plot of land is, almost feels like the launch pad is touching the water tower. Was there no other places they could have gone to with a bit more space. After all we are talking about a vehicle that masses nearly as much as a falcon 9 and is 7 meters wide. It just feels comically small.
But then again since they are building it there, it must fit and no one there seems to mind/worry about the risk of RUD.
-
#159
by
Rik ISS-fan
on 25 Apr, 2024 00:17
-
All four orbital launch installations at MARS LP-0 will probably be distroyed, when a large anomaly occurs, at or close to the ground, with Antares 330/ Firefly MLV or Neutron. It's only a single launch zone after all.
Awarding 4 launch zones and a landing zone to SpaceX left hardly any facilities for competitors. ...
-
#160
by
AmigaClone
on 25 Apr, 2024 03:54
-
All four orbital launch installations at MARS LP-0 will probably be distroyed, when a large anomaly occurs, at or close to the ground, with Antares 330/ Firefly MLV or Neutron. It's only a single launch zone after all.
Awarding 4 launch zones and a landing zone to SpaceX left hardly any facilities for competitors. ...
There are two launch providers that currently use MARS - Northrop Grumman with their Antares and Minotaur LVs and Rocket Lab. Orbital Sciences Corporation (which later was acquired by NG) selected their launch sites prior to the first launch of a F9.
Rocket Lab decided to build their launch sites there at least in part because of the low cadence at MARS compared to launch sites in Florida. At the time Rocket Lab made their selections, ULA had two launch complexes in Florida and two in Vandenberg.
-
#161
by
trimeta
on 25 Apr, 2024 04:40
-
All four orbital launch installations at MARS LP-0 will probably be distroyed, when a large anomaly occurs, at or close to the ground, with Antares 330/ Firefly MLV or Neutron. It's only a single launch zone after all.
Awarding 4 launch zones and a landing zone to SpaceX left hardly any facilities for competitors. ...
There are two launch providers that currently use MARS - Northrop Grumman with their Antares and Minotaur LVs and Rocket Lab. Orbital Sciences Corporation (which later was acquired by NG) selected their launch sites prior to the first launch of a F9.
Rocket Lab decided to build their launch sites there at least in part because of the low cadence at MARS compared to launch sites in Florida. At the time Rocket Lab made their selections, ULA had two launch complexes in Florida and two in Vandenberg.
Also, the Space Force has given Cape Canaveral launch pads to Firefly, ABL, Relativity, Stoke, and Phantom Space/Vaya Space (the latter two are sharing a pad), and Vandenberg launch pads to Firefly, ABL (although that may be a multi-tenant thing too), Relativity, and Phantom Space. Presumably if Rocket Lab had pushed for one of those pads earlier, they'd have had a shot at getting them. They seem to think that sharing a site with just Northrop Grumman/Firefly (which will likely share a single pad...what's the point of Antares 330 and MLV having basically the same first stage if they don't share a majority of ground support equipment?) is preferrable to one of the larger sites.
-
#162
by
TrevorMonty
on 25 Apr, 2024 11:05
-
NASA has small LV pad facility at Canaveral that RL could've used for Electron. Wallop probably better suited the orbits Electron was targetting.
-
#163
by
edkyle99
on 26 Apr, 2024 03:17
-
All four orbital launch installations at MARS LP-0 will probably be distroyed, when a large anomaly occurs, at or close to the ground, with Antares 330/ Firefly MLV or Neutron. It's only a single launch zone after all.
Awarding 4 launch zones and a landing zone to SpaceX left hardly any facilities for competitors. ...
Antares A5 fell back and heavily damaged Pad 0A during October 2014. It was two years before the next Antares flew from the site. Despite the serious failure, nearby Pad 0B was not substantially affected, but damage would hardly have caused a problem because Minotaurs did not fly from 0B during 2014, 2015, or 2016. Pads 0A and 0B are 1,000 feet apart. The horizontal hangars at LC 40, and 41 are nearer to their pads than 1,000 ft. On the other hand, Pad's 0A and 0C ("LC-2" according to Rocket Lab) are only 275 feet apart.
- Ed Kyle
-
#164
by
trimeta
on 05 May, 2024 01:36
-
-
#165
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 08 May, 2024 06:36
-
Recently the @NASA_Wallops skyline received a new landmark in the form of Neutron’s water tower, but it’s not the only major step toward Neutron’s first launch.
Concrete works for the launch mount are now complete, and propellant and gas storage foundations are undergoing final concrete pour.
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1788059775504371745Meanwhile just a few kms from Neutron’s pad, the Neutron Assembly & Integration Complex is taking shape. At full production, this is where final integration of Neutron launch vehicles will take place before roll out to LC-3.
-
#166
by
jstrotha0975
on 08 May, 2024 13:02
-
Could someone pinpoint on a map the location of the Neutron hangar under construction, I'm having trouble visualizing it.
-
#167
by
Craigles
on 08 May, 2024 13:11
-
Could someone pinpoint on a map the location of the Neutron hangar under construction, I'm having trouble visualizing it.
32439 Causeway Rd, Wallops Island, VA 23337
Edit: 32439 Causeway Rd is about 100 m northwest of the intersection with Radar Rd. Causeway Rd is also Virginia Route 803.
My question would be where can they dock a landing barge? For example, the Old NASA Ferry Dock is pictured at
https://www.delmarvatrailsandwaterways.com/kayak-boat-launches/old-nasa-ferry-dock .
-
#168
by
edzieba
on 08 May, 2024 14:33
-
Could someone pinpoint on a map the location of the Neutron hangar under construction, I'm having trouble visualizing it.
32439 Causeway Rd, Wallops Island, VA 23337
Edit: 32439 Causeway Rd is about 100 m northwest of the intersection with Radar Rd. Causeway Rd is also Virginia Route 803.
My question would be where can they dock a landing barge? For example, the Old NASA Ferry Dock is pictured at https://www.delmarvatrailsandwaterways.com/kayak-boat-launches/old-nasa-ferry-dock .
Rocket Lab's early renders for the Neutron pad showed a jetty stretching offshore from the pad to a docked landing platform. No sign yet of any fill works to add such a jetty, but depending on demand for maximum-mass mission they could start launching operationally with RTLS-only (or even expandable-only) initially, and add downrange ops later - it's not necessarily a critical path item.
-
#169
by
Rik ISS-fan
on 08 May, 2024 15:44
-
)
