-
#40
by
ZachF
on 01 Mar, 2021 14:31
-
2000kg to the moon and 1500kg to Venus means it could probably loft a ~2500kg all-Electric propulsion sat to GTO, with a ~2,250kg BOL mass. (most Geo stats have an on-orbit mass between 2-4 tonnes)
That would be an attractive option for many.
The small GEO sat one is interesting and would work extremely well for Rocket Lab to offer as an end to end service with an electric kick stage and built in satellite bus just like photon.
I will wager this is the primary driver for the development of this new rocket. It puts them in the perfect position to dominate the small medium GEO sat market as a launcher and platform provider. That platform would work well in LEO of course.
Stacks of photons to LEO too? Rocket lab builds and launches the whole thing? Hot damn they are going to crush it.
~2,200kg BOL mass isn't super small either. A 5,500kg GTO sat launched by F9 using hypergolic orbit raising (most popular option) will weigh 3,000-3,100kg when it reaches geostationary. If they make the bus too and offer it as a package deal it could be quite popular if the price is right.
-
#41
by
M.E.T.
on 01 Mar, 2021 14:31
-
"Capable of human spaceflight and crew supply to the ISS".
Seems to me that most rockets are built for a reason - the needs of a core customer. This seems to be an Antares competitor - or a flat out replacement. Question is, will Electron also build a cargo carrier, or launch some other builder's carrier? Maybe one that already exists?
Note that Neutron is too big to launch from the existing Electron pad at Wallops, but sure seems sized to fit the existing Antares infrastructure. Also note that the new rocket is claimed to be an alternative to Falcon 9, but no mention of Antares which is the obvious matching competitor. Does Rocket Lab know something we don't know?
- Ed Kyle
I think that it just means that RocketLab intends to compete for CRS3 and the commercial crew round after CCtCap. As you know, new entrants are allowed to enter each round.
Which crew capsule would they be launching?
-
#42
by
hektor
on 01 Mar, 2021 14:32
-
After Electron, Neutron, the next one will be Proton ?
-
#43
by
ZachF
on 01 Mar, 2021 14:33
-
As for the need for large scale manufacturing, well, neither Rocket Lab nor Blue Origin have much actual hypersonic reentry stage data. In fact, RL actually currently leads in this regard.
They are both bound to discover stuff that SpX undoubtedly discovered as well on their road to reuse.
Rocket Lab is ahead of SpaceX in one way - they've entered Electron's first stage without an entry burn. If they can do that on Neutron, that will save a good bit of propellant compared with Falcon 9.
It looks like it might be stainless steel too, perhaps the reason being to avoid or greatly reduce the entry burn.
-
#44
by
Davidthefat
on 01 Mar, 2021 14:36
-
After Electron, Neutron, the next one will be Proton ?
The Russians already claimed that name.
-
#45
by
loekf
on 01 Mar, 2021 14:49
-
As for the need for large scale manufacturing, well, neither Rocket Lab nor Blue Origin have much actual hypersonic reentry stage data. In fact, RL actually currently leads in this regard.
They are both bound to discover stuff that SpX undoubtedly discovered as well on their road to reuse.
Rocket Lab is ahead of SpaceX in one way - they've entered Electron's first stage without an entry burn. If they can do that on Neutron, that will save a good bit of propellant compared with Falcon 9.
Isn't that partly because of the difference in size of the 1st stage ? The SpaceX's fairings also just return unharmed via parachute. I wonder if that still holds if they size up the 1st stage.
-
#46
by
edzieba
on 01 Mar, 2021 14:52
-
The 'shiny' outer surface may well be a foil coating (or a chemical deposition like the 'chrome' parts of SpaceShipTwo) if radiative heating is expected to be a major contributor to re-entry heating. Rocket Lab now have live data from stage re-entry to analyse, after all.
-
#47
by
HVM
on 01 Mar, 2021 14:53
-
I think that shiny look is a trick. Neutron will be scaled-up version of the Electron; just very short development time points that direction. Maybe RL has found that Li-ion has matured enough for supersizing.
(Now I just wait to somebody actually calculate how electric-pump-fed engine can't be scaled near Merlin level.)
-
#48
by
Star One
on 01 Mar, 2021 14:56
-
Elon has mentioned in the past he welcomes competition... he will welcome this, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to just let his business be taken. It will be a competition between the two companies, both getting better and better. Peter Beck hasn’t picked the wrong fight, he’s the only one to take Elon up on his offer of real competition.
Precisely. Peter Beck doesn’t strike me as the sort of person to pick a wrong fight. I imagine they know precisely what they are doing. I take my hat off to them in their willingness to take on Space X. After all that’s how Space X got where they are today by willing to take on the market incumbents.
-
#49
by
Captain Crutch
on 01 Mar, 2021 15:08
-
The 'shiny' outer surface may well be a foil coating (or a chemical deposition like the 'chrome' parts of SpaceShipTwo) if radiative heating is expected to be a major contributor to re-entry heating. Rocket Lab now have live data from stage re-entry to analyse, after all.
Seeing as their last rocket is bare skin, I don’t think it’s a trick. They could be going with stainless to help get through reentry without a burn to save fuel, but I find that unlikely for weight reasons, it’s probably aluminum which they figure is a best of both worlds. All speculation at this point however.
Also I think this rocket is going to be more than a scaled up Electron. The short development cycle could be due to Neutron being something on the back burner since Electron first launched, maybe as a backup plan... they’ve clearly been working on it for a little while if they have a complete fairing half sitting around...
-
#50
by
M.E.T.
on 01 Mar, 2021 15:18
-
Elon has mentioned in the past he welcomes competition... he will welcome this, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to just let his business be taken. It will be a competition between the two companies, both getting better and better. Peter Beck hasn’t picked the wrong fight, he’s the only one to take Elon up on his offer of real competition.
Precisely. Peter Beck doesn’t strike me as the sort of person to pick a wrong fight. I imagine they know precisely what they are doing. I take my hat off to them in their willingness to take on Space X. After all that’s how Space X got where they are today by willing to take on the market incumbents.
Essentially, they have no choice, because SpaceX has squeezed their niche market ever smaller - demonstrated by their minuscule $40m revenue for 2020. They have to take a leap now or they are at a dead end.
That doesn’t mean this leap will succeed. But at the very least it got them some investor cash to delay the inevitable.
Consider that they are trying to master propulsive landing and booster reuse from scratch, when even China can’t do it. There is no guarantee that they will succeed. And even if they do, that it will be economical enough to compete with Spacex who is a decade ahead of them in this game, and far from slowing down, is innovating ever faster.
And no, Elon doesn’t really welcome competitors. Or did Nikola, Rivian and Lucid get a warm reception from him? The idea of competition, yes. But competitors are there to be outcompeted in turn. So he will go all out against the challenger, as he should. And he will win.
-
#51
by
ZachF
on 01 Mar, 2021 15:22
-
I think that shiny look is a trick. Neutron will be scaled-up version of the Electron; just very short development time points that direction. Maybe RL has found that Li-ion has matured enough for supersizing.
(Now I just wait to somebody actually calculate how electric-pump-fed engine can't be scaled near Merlin level.)
I'd bet on SS.
It's cheap (which will help for the US and PLF, which are expended) and it would allow the lower stage to skip or reduce the entry burn.
I'd also bet against electric fed engines for the lower stage, since it would increase dry mass, and therefor increase landing fuel requirements. I wouldn't rule out a single smaller electric-fed center engine for landing though...
-
#52
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 01 Mar, 2021 15:27
-
My reading is that RL intend to offer both Electron and Neutron for years to come.
F1 ended simply because SpaceX couldn’t find a market for F1 at the time. RL seem to think there’s an on-going market for Electron. I do agree though that competition from SpaceX rideshare, and potentially other small sat launch new entrants, is forcing RL to move beyond Electron to reach new launch markets.
[Edit: typo corrected]
-
#53
by
hektor
on 01 Mar, 2021 15:41
-
After Electron, Neutron, the next one will be Proton ?
The Russians already claimed that name.
Obviously my attempt at humor did not work out.
-
#54
by
TrevorMonty
on 01 Mar, 2021 15:42
-
Developing crew vehicle is huge expense unless they plan to work with likes of SNC.
Even ISS rated cargo vehicle isn't cheap option.
Engines will be to large for electric pump, studies suggest around 10klbs is max. This LV will need engines in 100-200klbs range. May still use Rutherford in 2nd station for orbital maneuvers. New engine or parts of it should be on test stand given their 2024 launch date.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
#55
by
Lee Jay
on 01 Mar, 2021 15:48
-
Developing crew vehicle is huge expense unless they plan to work with likes of SNC.
This thing is nowhere near big enough to launch Dream Chaser, unless I'm missing something.
-
#56
by
GWH
on 01 Mar, 2021 15:58
-
I’m just guessing that because reusability is such a big part of driving the cost of this vehicle down, the 8 tons is it’s recoverable specs. I might be wrong but for a vehicle designed from the beginning to be reused I don’t see why you’d list expendable specs...
Highly doubt that. It is virtually identical in size to Antares, which is an 8 ton expendable rocket. And if you list the class of a vehicle you want to show its maximum capability, just like F9 does, to showcase its full potential for customers who are willing to pay for an expendable launch.
8 tons is clearly the expendable payload to LEO.
It's nearly identical in
height not size.
Antares is 3.9 meters in diameter, Neutron is 4.5 meters. That's 11.9 m^2 cross sectional area for Antares vs Neutrons 15.9 m^2.
Neutron is 33% larger than Antares despite being the same height.
Then as others have already mentioned you have the
Castor 30XL's poor vacuum ISP of 294 seconds, if Rocketlab can match Merlin D's vacuum performance of 348 seconds that would get them another 1000kg worth of payload to LEO for the same total mass of 2nd stage and 8000 kg payload, all else being the same.
Their payload numbers seem perfectly reasonable for a reusable rocket of that size.
-
#57
by
ugordan
on 01 Mar, 2021 16:12
-
As for the need for large scale manufacturing, well, neither Rocket Lab nor Blue Origin have much actual hypersonic reentry stage data. In fact, RL actually currently leads in this regard.
They are both bound to discover stuff that SpX undoubtedly discovered as well on their road to reuse.
Rocket Lab is ahead of SpaceX in one way - they've entered Electron's first stage without an entry burn. If they can do that on Neutron, that will save a good bit of propellant compared with Falcon 9.
Different vehicle sizes, different ballistic coefficients. Different problems and economics considerations. Apples to oranges.
I'll defer judgement on the Electron reentry methodology until they actually refly one of those recovered boosters (preferably without replacing all the engines in the process). Even if it makes economical sense for them to put in brand new engines, it would disqualify their reentry method from being directly comparable to SpX.
-
#58
by
gin455res
on 01 Mar, 2021 16:20
-
Looking at the pic, it looks like 4-6 larger engines, maybe with a smaller electrically-powered middle engine for the landing burn (?)
Looks like 4, how does one land a 4 engine booster?
(assuming it is not a single engine with 4 nozzles. Wonder if this is their largest design or if there is anything bigger on the drawing board)
-
#59
by
Lars-J
on 01 Mar, 2021 16:21
-
I wonder how they will get 4.5m diameter stages to their launch site(s). F9 diameter is already pushing it for road transport, and it might be tricky to get such a stage to their NZ launch site. Ocean launch?
And we'll see how easy reuse is for them. Electron has given them some insight, but they are QUITE a ways from reusing one. And this forces them to do go to F9 style propulsive landing. A lot will carry over, but they'll need to learn a lot.
My biggest question about this is the engines. Are they scaling up their electric pumped engines, or jumping to turbopumps?