New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket(abc.net.au)
abc.net.au
New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886
102 comments
They haven't made their first commercial launch yet. They've certainly received money for scheduled launches in the future, but I'd say they're definitely just getting started.
Some industries have longer incubation periods =)
Some industries have longer incubation periods =)
I think this launch was commercial - it put three satellites from two private companies (Planet Labs / Spire Global) into orbit.
> The company is over ten years old; I don't think it's quite a startup anymore.
The age of a company has nothing to do with it being a startup. There's a good description of 'startup' in PG's essay here: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
Startups are businesses that are designed to grow quickly. Rocket Lab is. Just because it's been 10 years doesn't mean it's not a startup.
Also, both SpaceX and Tesla are startups. Tesla recently pivoted from being a car company to an energy company, and is only about 1% or so of their way along to their goals. SpaceX has not even begun with their goals of colonizing Mars yet.
These are all startups because they are designed to grow quickly and are nowhere near their goals yet.
The age of a company has nothing to do with it being a startup. There's a good description of 'startup' in PG's essay here: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
Startups are businesses that are designed to grow quickly. Rocket Lab is. Just because it's been 10 years doesn't mean it's not a startup.
Also, both SpaceX and Tesla are startups. Tesla recently pivoted from being a car company to an energy company, and is only about 1% or so of their way along to their goals. SpaceX has not even begun with their goals of colonizing Mars yet.
These are all startups because they are designed to grow quickly and are nowhere near their goals yet.
It's interesting seeing the difference between the publicity that SpaceX gets, and the publicity of other rocket companies like RocketLab get.
It shows how effective the PR machine for SpaceX is. RocketLabs launch is pretty significant, considering it's the first orbital launch of a rocket designed and built in a small nation.
This has barely hit the news. I guess part of the reason is that it's not in the USA, and that New Zealand isn't capable of putting nuclear warheads on top of one, unlike North Korea.
It shows how effective the PR machine for SpaceX is. RocketLabs launch is pretty significant, considering it's the first orbital launch of a rocket designed and built in a small nation.
This has barely hit the news. I guess part of the reason is that it's not in the USA, and that New Zealand isn't capable of putting nuclear warheads on top of one, unlike North Korea.
Seems par for the course don't you think, SpaceX didn't receive much coverage for their grasshopper tests or Falcon 1 flights either? In fact, most of their coverage has just come in the last couple of years after working diligently for ~13 years prior to that.
Ironically I was led to watch RocketLabs launch by r/SpaceX.
Ironically I was led to watch RocketLabs launch by r/SpaceX.
With SpaceX, I find it hard to fault them for this.
Public interest in spacetech is inevitably tied to futurism, idealism, idealism, big ideas and such.
SpaceX is building the biggest ever rockets, declaring mars as a goal, landing rockets on rafts like a sci-fi flick... Build the future stuff. They also launch geostationary satelites and supply the ICC, in fact that's what they do as a business.
Whether you want to call this PR, vision, culture or whatever... SpaceX calls satelites and ICC transport "routine" work. It's how they do what they do, not what they do. What they do is the stuff that sounds like breakthroughs, breaking through the limitations keeping us stuck on earth.
It's hard to rate psace companies on a coolness scale. Any space company is already way up on the scale. SpaceX... is like the hollywood version.
In any case, huge congratulations toRocket Lab. A rocket company with weekly scheduled flights on a shoestring is a feat.
Public interest in spacetech is inevitably tied to futurism, idealism, idealism, big ideas and such.
SpaceX is building the biggest ever rockets, declaring mars as a goal, landing rockets on rafts like a sci-fi flick... Build the future stuff. They also launch geostationary satelites and supply the ICC, in fact that's what they do as a business.
Whether you want to call this PR, vision, culture or whatever... SpaceX calls satelites and ICC transport "routine" work. It's how they do what they do, not what they do. What they do is the stuff that sounds like breakthroughs, breaking through the limitations keeping us stuck on earth.
It's hard to rate psace companies on a coolness scale. Any space company is already way up on the scale. SpaceX... is like the hollywood version.
In any case, huge congratulations toRocket Lab. A rocket company with weekly scheduled flights on a shoestring is a feat.
minor nitpick: I think you meant ISS [0] not ICC.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
oops! Yep, ISS.
Even though... launching war criminals to an off-world prison would be a great addition to Musk's comic book character persona. ..c Can you imagine the prison break edition!
Even though... launching war criminals to an off-world prison would be a great addition to Musk's comic book character persona. ..c Can you imagine the prison break edition!
You don’t generally make the news for doing things others have done before you. Don’t get me wrong, this company is cool and their success is super exciting, but I see no reason for them to get any press coverage outside of specialty media.
SpaceX was pretty quiet too when they were first starting out, and when they’re all over the news now it’s generally because they’re doing something new.
I doubt nukes have anything to do with it. The Falcon 9 would be an atrociously bad ICBM.
SpaceX was pretty quiet too when they were first starting out, and when they’re all over the news now it’s generally because they’re doing something new.
I doubt nukes have anything to do with it. The Falcon 9 would be an atrociously bad ICBM.
RocketLab's doing incredibly innovative things. They're using an entirely new kind of rocket engine power cycle. This is the first new power cycle invented since the Full Flow Staged Combustion Cycle in the 1960s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_pump-fed_engine
They're using entirely 3d printed rocket engines and also full carbon composite rocket bodies - another first for a rocket of this scale.
Where it comes to "doing things others haven't done before you" they're doing an amazing job. SpaceX is doing great but nothing close to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_pump-fed_engine
They're using entirely 3d printed rocket engines and also full carbon composite rocket bodies - another first for a rocket of this scale.
Where it comes to "doing things others haven't done before you" they're doing an amazing job. SpaceX is doing great but nothing close to this.
Agree with everything you said, except
>SpaceX is doing great but nothing close to this.
This isn't just false, it's unnecessary. It takes nothing away from RocketLab to acknowledge that SpaceX has also done "incredibly innovative things," such as propulsive first stage landings.
>SpaceX is doing great but nothing close to this.
This isn't just false, it's unnecessary. It takes nothing away from RocketLab to acknowledge that SpaceX has also done "incredibly innovative things," such as propulsive first stage landings.
> This is the first new power cycle invented since the Full Flow Staged Combustion Cycle in the 1960s
Yes, battery pump engines aware new for this scale of a rocket. No, it’s not the first new cycle since the 1960s.
Yes, battery pump engines aware new for this scale of a rocket. No, it’s not the first new cycle since the 1960s.
Ok, I'm curious. What rocket engine power cycle was invented between the Full Flow Staged Combustion Cycle (1962) and the Electric Pump-Fed Cycle (2010)?
A new combustion cycle and new construction techniques are really cool, but nothing I’d expect average people to care about, thus nothing I’d expect to be reported on outside of specialty media.
don't know why this was down voted, it was informative.
Thanks.
It's a new country launching a rocket though. That seems like reasonably big news to me.
Not front page, stop the press news, but still news.
Not front page, stop the press news, but still news.
Technically, New Zealand's a "country", but to call it a "new country" is pushing it. It's a cultural appendage to the U.K. and the U.S. West Coast, with a bit of Hong Kong thrown in. It's the unitary state that never joined Australia in 1901, being listed in the Australian Constitution as one of its 7 candidate states. It would have joined the Australian Federation if refrigerated shipping hadn't have been invented a year before, meaning they could ship their meat products to London instead of relying on a guaranteed open market at Sydney. Meat and other primary production is NZ's main industry, what with the banks and most other large corps being owned by their larger Australian counterparts. The only other industry in NZ of note is "Human Arrivals", which not only includes Tourism and International Education but also Immigration (despite being on the country's capital rather than current account). Of course, New Zealanders refer to Australia as "the 52nd state", so calling Australia a "new country" is also pushing it.
I'm pretty sure that toomanybeersies means new country as in, "a country from which an orbital rocket has never been launched before", rather than "a country which is new".
Edit: Also, as far as I can tell, agriculture including meats is only 8% of New Zealand's economy. Hardly the "main industry". Like most high-income industrialized economies, most of the economy is in services.
Edit: Also, as far as I can tell, agriculture including meats is only 8% of New Zealand's economy. Hardly the "main industry". Like most high-income industrialized economies, most of the economy is in services.
Whoops, I should've read that phrase "new country" in context.
As for your edit about NZ's economy being mainly "services", if you subtract industries owned/controlled by Australia/US/UK (e.g banks, TV content), re-apportion industries servicing the Ag/Meat/Milk/Wool/Forestry/Fisheries industry as being part of that industry, and do similar for industries servicing "Human Arrivals" (e.g. house construction being part of Immigration/International Ed), then you end up with the two big drivers of New Zealand's economy: Human Arrivals and Primary Production. They don't fit into the official categories in the govt's accounting system, but they're the real engines of NZ's economy. The rest are just hangers-on.
As for your edit about NZ's economy being mainly "services", if you subtract industries owned/controlled by Australia/US/UK (e.g banks, TV content), re-apportion industries servicing the Ag/Meat/Milk/Wool/Forestry/Fisheries industry as being part of that industry, and do similar for industries servicing "Human Arrivals" (e.g. house construction being part of Immigration/International Ed), then you end up with the two big drivers of New Zealand's economy: Human Arrivals and Primary Production. They don't fit into the official categories in the govt's accounting system, but they're the real engines of NZ's economy. The rest are just hangers-on.
The fact that certain industries have a lot of foreign ownership doesn't mean that they're not part of the actual economy. They produce in NZ, they employ in NZ, they buy inputs in NZ - they're part of NZ's GDP economy.
And the rest of your statement makes no sense. Some tertiary industries service primary industries, but most don't. Some housebuilding and education services immigrants, but the vast majority isn't, and regardless of that fact, it still counts as part of the local GDP. Services are no less "real" than resource industries.
And the rest of your statement makes no sense. Some tertiary industries service primary industries, but most don't. Some housebuilding and education services immigrants, but the vast majority isn't, and regardless of that fact, it still counts as part of the local GDP. Services are no less "real" than resource industries.
Beyond not having nuclear weapons to put on a rocket - we're quite disinterested in having anything to do with them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone
Disinterested with a touch of virulent hatred for them.
There's an element in New Zealand that has a blindly hysterical anti-nuclear stance. Then there are others who understand that nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy, and that refusing to admit American naval vessels into our waters is just a pointless diplomatic affront to our strongest ally.
There's an excellent reason to not have nuclear energy in New Zealand, which is that we don't need it. We already have 80% renewable electricity production, and we could realistically bridge that gap with cheaper methods than a nuclear power plant. However, just being "anti-nuclear" for the sake of being "anti-nuclear" isn't one of them.
There's an excellent reason to not have nuclear energy in New Zealand, which is that we don't need it. We already have 80% renewable electricity production, and we could realistically bridge that gap with cheaper methods than a nuclear power plant. However, just being "anti-nuclear" for the sake of being "anti-nuclear" isn't one of them.
New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with nuclear power. The reason we don't allow American warships into our waters is because we disapprove of nuclear weapons, whether powered by or as a payload.
>New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with nuclear power.
This is absolutely false.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/...
>Labour campaigned against nuclear propulsion and weapons
>Labour announced its decision to ban ships that were either nuclear-powered or -armed.
>party activists were unwilling to draw distinctions between nuclear propulsion and nuclear weapons. The mood of the nation was also turning against such political manoeuvring.
>Following confidential discussions over the selection of an acceptable ship, in late 1984 the United States requested that the ageing guided-missile destroyer USS Buchanan visit New Zealand. The Americans hoped that a perception that it was not nuclear-armed would be enough for it to slip under the political radar, and believed they had Lange’s agreement. But on 4 February 1985 the government said no. ‘Near-uncertainty was not now enough for us,’ Lange later explained. ‘Whatever the truth of its armaments, its arrival in New Zealand would be seen as a surrender by the government.’ In response, Washington severed visible intelligence and military ties with New Zealand and downgraded political and diplomatic exchanges. George Shultz confirmed that the United States would no longer maintain its security guarantee to New Zealand, although the ANZUS treaty structure remained in place.
In any case, even if your claim was true (and it quite clearly isn't), rejecting the alliance with our strongest and one of one of our closest allies over the issue isn't a good move, no matter what way you look at it.
This is absolutely false.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/...
>Labour campaigned against nuclear propulsion and weapons
>Labour announced its decision to ban ships that were either nuclear-powered or -armed.
>party activists were unwilling to draw distinctions between nuclear propulsion and nuclear weapons. The mood of the nation was also turning against such political manoeuvring.
>Following confidential discussions over the selection of an acceptable ship, in late 1984 the United States requested that the ageing guided-missile destroyer USS Buchanan visit New Zealand. The Americans hoped that a perception that it was not nuclear-armed would be enough for it to slip under the political radar, and believed they had Lange’s agreement. But on 4 February 1985 the government said no. ‘Near-uncertainty was not now enough for us,’ Lange later explained. ‘Whatever the truth of its armaments, its arrival in New Zealand would be seen as a surrender by the government.’ In response, Washington severed visible intelligence and military ties with New Zealand and downgraded political and diplomatic exchanges. George Shultz confirmed that the United States would no longer maintain its security guarantee to New Zealand, although the ANZUS treaty structure remained in place.
In any case, even if your claim was true (and it quite clearly isn't), rejecting the alliance with our strongest and one of one of our closest allies over the issue isn't a good move, no matter what way you look at it.
Lange’s Oxford Union speech defending NZs rejection of nuclear weapons is worth watching if you haven’t heard it before. The second link provides some background and the transcript.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/sound/oxford-union-debate
https://publicaddress.net/great-new-zealand-argument/nuclear...
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/sound/oxford-union-debate
https://publicaddress.net/great-new-zealand-argument/nuclear...
> In any case, even if your claim was true (and it quite clearly isn't), rejecting the alliance with our strongest and one of one of our closest allies over the issue isn't a good move, no matter what way you look at it.
This is a really interesting point. I'm no social scientist, but my naive viewpoint is that not being armed hopefully makes us a less interesting target. Whether or not that matters is hopefully something that would never be put into practice.
This is a really interesting point. I'm no social scientist, but my naive viewpoint is that not being armed hopefully makes us a less interesting target. Whether or not that matters is hopefully something that would never be put into practice.
Nuclear power is currently extremely expensive, and only operates in countries that provide massive subsidies. Even excluding cleanup, waste storage, security, and insurance. The difficulty in terms of peaking power make it a poor fit for lower cost, but intermittent renewables.
In theory it could be fairly cheap, but no country has pulled it off. France for example provided over 2 billion euros / year in direct subsides along side many indirect subsidies.
In theory it could be fairly cheap, but no country has pulled it off. France for example provided over 2 billion euros / year in direct subsides along side many indirect subsidies.
Ah, some are blindly hysterical, thankfully others understand. That's a remarkably question-begging and arrogant way of writing. Opinion masquerading very unsuccessfully as fact.
> New Zealand isn't capable of putting nuclear warheads on top of one
I'm pretty sure we could if we actually wanted to. But we have a staunch anti-Nuclear policy :)
I'm pretty sure we could if we actually wanted to. But we have a staunch anti-Nuclear policy :)
..and we also know that it's not how big your button is, but how you use it. We'd rather use ours to push human kind forward.
Isn't Rocket Lab a US start-up, funded almost entirely by US money, operated by US executives, with headquarters in Huntington Beach CA and a New Zealand subsidiary?
It was started in New Zealand, and got its initial investment from New Zealand, but the majority of funding now comes from America and the majority of ownership is American.
However, most of the R&D, operations, and manufacturing are done in New Zealand. I almost applied for a job there, but it would've required relocating to Auckland, which I wasn't willing to do.
However, most of the R&D, operations, and manufacturing are done in New Zealand. I almost applied for a job there, but it would've required relocating to Auckland, which I wasn't willing to do.
Come on over - life is amazing here in Auckland.
I actually recently emigrated over the ditch to Melbourne from Wellington.
If I do go back to New Zealand, it would be to Christchurch, where I went to university. The lifestyle in Christchurch is a lot more laid back, more outdoor activities (great skiing and hunting), and rent is a lot cheaper.
Unfortunately the market for Ruby developers is practically non-existent in New Zealand, so I don't think it would be practical for me to move back to NZ for the next 5 years or so.
If I do go back to New Zealand, it would be to Christchurch, where I went to university. The lifestyle in Christchurch is a lot more laid back, more outdoor activities (great skiing and hunting), and rent is a lot cheaper.
Unfortunately the market for Ruby developers is practically non-existent in New Zealand, so I don't think it would be practical for me to move back to NZ for the next 5 years or so.
Interesting. I was a Ruby developer in Wellington from 2013 to 2016 and felt demand was huge compared to the size of the city.
Unless you'd like to buy a house there or drive anywhere ;)
IIRC a big benefit of having the rockets and launch pad in New Zealand is that it's possible to scale up and launch nearly-continuously from eastern New Zealand (if necessary) due to the lack of air traffic, while finding launch pad space in the US requires scrounging around and waiting.
And the shipping cost of moving things to New Zealand by boat to put on a rocket is obviously a rounding error compared to that of moving those things to orbit.
And the shipping cost of moving things to New Zealand by boat to put on a rocket is obviously a rounding error compared to that of moving those things to orbit.
I'm pretty sure they recently restructured by creating Rocket Lab US and making the existing Rocket Lab NZ a subsidiary to get more flexibility regarding some arms restrictions.
Yep, and our government passed laws around "What happens if a rocket crashes" (no-one can take photos) to fit in with US regulations.
American money paying for New Zealand operations.
Source: Me; I was almost a customer.
Source: Me; I was almost a customer.
It’s a little more complex than that. But that’s not a bad summary.
I'm sure it will get plenty of coverage here tonight. I think the news channels are over the PM getting pregnant and there are no rugby matches on :-)
Careful where you go for that news as talkback radio will be (more) deadly for the next year or two. Overheard at a grey power cuppa yesterday, ‘She was pregnant when negotiating to be Prime Minister did you know? It’s unbelieveable’.
This is the go to conspiracy theory - and that the only reason Winston agreed to the coalition was so that he could be gasp acting Prime Minister when she went on maternity leave. For six whole weeks.
I'm not entirely sure what they expect Winnie to get up to in six weeks.
I'm not entirely sure what they expect Winnie to get up to in six weeks.
> New Zealand isn't capable of putting nuclear warheads on top of one, unlike North Korea.
North Korea couldn't put a warhead on top of this one either. The nominal payload of the Electron is 150kg. While there are nuclear warheads that small (the W80 is in that range), it's very unlikely North Korea has achieved anything close to that level of miniaturization.
North Korea couldn't put a warhead on top of this one either. The nominal payload of the Electron is 150kg. While there are nuclear warheads that small (the W80 is in that range), it's very unlikely North Korea has achieved anything close to that level of miniaturization.
This is this company's first launch and as such the company is not known for the general public. Moreover, no Elon Musk-like legend has showed up for RocketLab yet. Therefore, it is pretty comprehensible that this launch has received less coverage.
It was their second launch with the Electron.
Wired (https://www.wired.com/story/rocket-lab-still-testing/), has an article about them.
If you're curious about the PR machine associated with SpaceX... see Tesla's stock price and news versus the very real and known issues with their debt/liabilities and production.
Do remember that there may be interested parties painting a bleaker "production issues"/ "liabilities" picture than the truth. See e.g. this review [1].
[1] http://www.thedrive.com/new-cars/17280/tesla-model-3-the-fir...
[1] http://www.thedrive.com/new-cars/17280/tesla-model-3-the-fir...
Im trying to imagine what would happen if nuclear capable launches were proposed in NZ. It wouldn’t be insurrection, but some something in that ballpark would happen.
Also this is a cryogenic rocket which has to be kept cold and launched soon after fueling. Not terribly good for nuclear launches.
yep, it's quite amazing how little reporting of this there has been from US sites. news sites from other countries had much more coverage.
reusability; spaceships landing upright like they were always supposed to; mars
What they’ve accomplished is amazing engineering. I’m sort of scratching my head at the economics though. Their cost to orbit is about $15,000/kg. That’s more expensive than the Space Shuttle was. And the CEO has said they’re not working on reusability.
Their goal of rapid manufacturing and frequent launches seems laudable in an expendable launch vehicle world. I’m not sure how they plan to survive when SpaceX and Blue Origin achieve rapid reusability though.
Their goal of rapid manufacturing and frequent launches seems laudable in an expendable launch vehicle world. I’m not sure how they plan to survive when SpaceX and Blue Origin achieve rapid reusability though.
Their differentiation is the ticket price: $5M, for now. A SpaceX F9 is $60M. The cost per kg may be an order of magnitude greater, but so is the ticket price.
Much faster time to launch is the value proposition. It can take years waiting to piggyback on a larger launch, especially given how often the large launches are delayed.
How long are our careers, really? Random years-long delays are a real problem. It's easier to make a satellite really light than to wait for the cheapest price per kg.
How long are our careers, really? Random years-long delays are a real problem. It's easier to make a satellite really light than to wait for the cheapest price per kg.
This is only really useful if you want to put a tiny satellite in an unusual orbit. For frequently trafficked orbits, you can just hitch a ride on a larger launch.
Could be a successful business niche, but it doesn’t seem likely to revolutionize anything.
Could be a successful business niche, but it doesn’t seem likely to revolutionize anything.
SpaceX simply doesn’t have the launch cadence to be anywhere near as useful to certain markets as Rocketlabs will be.
Specifically, RL is ideal for a series of small satellites launched at a regular cadence to perform e.g. atmospheric studies. For this niche, booking ride shares requires booking a seat years in advance through a launch broker and then accepting whatever delays eventuate for the entire payload.
If a company or government wants to get a small satellite into space quickly or with tighter constraints on launch windows, RL will be the launcher of preference since their aim is to reduce the time from launch booking to orbital deployment. Being the only payload and customer means using the same payload adaptor each launch, which means lower integration costs. Reducing time from booking to orbit means satellites aren’t sitting in a clean room for years waiting for launch.
Launch costs measured in terms of $/kg are only part of the feasibility of a particular launch platform. It is a (very roughly) similar scenario to commuters using private vehicles rather than public transport.
Specifically, RL is ideal for a series of small satellites launched at a regular cadence to perform e.g. atmospheric studies. For this niche, booking ride shares requires booking a seat years in advance through a launch broker and then accepting whatever delays eventuate for the entire payload.
If a company or government wants to get a small satellite into space quickly or with tighter constraints on launch windows, RL will be the launcher of preference since their aim is to reduce the time from launch booking to orbital deployment. Being the only payload and customer means using the same payload adaptor each launch, which means lower integration costs. Reducing time from booking to orbit means satellites aren’t sitting in a clean room for years waiting for launch.
Launch costs measured in terms of $/kg are only part of the feasibility of a particular launch platform. It is a (very roughly) similar scenario to commuters using private vehicles rather than public transport.
>RL will be the launcher of preference
Probably, a launcher of preference. There are companies that target similar niche, e.g. http://www.maritimelaunch.com/
Probably, a launcher of preference. There are companies that target similar niche, e.g. http://www.maritimelaunch.com/
The timescale point is fine, but it doesn't support the suggestion that RL will go beyond niche (which private road vehicles obviously do). The reason is that the overwhelming limiting factor on launching more satellites is cost, not slow pace.
Do you know of projections for RL future market share? I conjecture less than 5% of total satellite launch market.
Do you know of projections for RL future market share? I conjecture less than 5% of total satellite launch market.
I am speculating that RL will carve out a niche which is launches for satellites that need a regular cadence at a pace faster than SpaceX can afford.
So for example rather than spending $50M launching 1 x $150M satellite to slowly gather outer atmospheric studies over a period of decades, launch 50 x $3M satellites with $1M launch costs to gather more data over a shorter period of time.
So for example rather than spending $50M launching 1 x $150M satellite to slowly gather outer atmospheric studies over a period of decades, launch 50 x $3M satellites with $1M launch costs to gather more data over a shorter period of time.
For comparison, SpaceX now as about half of the global satellite launch market.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-SpaceXs-market-share
https://www.quora.com/What-is-SpaceXs-market-share
If you want a rideshare launch you have to wait, usually for years. And these guys can launch quickly, and still usually be cheaper or same price as rideshares. Non quite good for nanosats/cubesats, but fine for microsats.
Cheaper? Do you have a source on the claim that the per-kg launch cost of a rideshare is really an order of magnitude larger than the primary payload?
> Could be a successful business niche, but it doesn’t seem likely to revolutionize anything.
Since SpaceX is late to fulfill orders, having more options for smaller payloads is probably a pretty good idea even if the market is smaller.
Since SpaceX is late to fulfill orders, having more options for smaller payloads is probably a pretty good idea even if the market is smaller.
Purely scale / number of launches. They're certified to launch up to 120 times per year.
Once Blue Origin and SpaceX have rapid-turnaround, their rockets will be able to fly, land, refuel, and fly again within a day or two. It's not just a cost thing. Rapid reusability also increases the launch cadence.
The electron is a really cool rocket. It's constructed using carbon composite tanks and uses Rocketlab's Rutherford engine. The engine is constructed using a large amount of 3d printing and uses battery powered electrically driven fuel pumps.
It's worth mentioning that while electric turbopumps are a lot better that pressure-fed designs, for larger engines they aren't as effective as using pre-burners (due to the weight of the batteries).
It does make the design much simpler, though.
It does make the design much simpler, though.
The weight is an issue here too. It's something like 200kg of battery in the first stage. The second stage is designed to use its batteries one by one, and them drop them as they're expended.
One bit I remember from reading about rocket systems design is first stage performance is less critical than second and follow on stages. The cost of lower ISP/Mass ratio on the first stage is linear, you just make the it proportionately bigger. Where with higher stages the cost is exponential.
Which makes me wonder if electric pumps might make sense for larger rockets even though their performance is lower. You'd need a larger first stage, question then is how much bigger vs cost savings from a simpler design. I don't have an out of my keister answer for that though.
Which makes me wonder if electric pumps might make sense for larger rockets even though their performance is lower. You'd need a larger first stage, question then is how much bigger vs cost savings from a simpler design. I don't have an out of my keister answer for that though.
That seems... Really bad for the environment? Nobody said launching rockets was environmentally friendly but that sounds particularly egregious.
>The batteries had a low auto-ignition temperature of 150 degrees Celsius, which meant they were highly likely to burn up in the atmosphere before reaching Earth's surface, MfE said. The batteries contained no lead, acid, mercury, cadmium, or other toxic heavy metals.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/83804825/360kg-motor-assem...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/83804825/360kg-motor-assem...
[deleted]
As always, Scott Manley is an excellent source of commentary:
https://youtu.be/U5k1mlu6A7I
No transcript, but it's a short video.
https://youtu.be/U5k1mlu6A7I
No transcript, but it's a short video.
Thanks for the link. Super informative commentary. That might have to become a goto YouTube channel of mine seeing as how the frequency of rocket launches is ramping up.
Brilliant video, thanks! Scott Manley's videos are most excellent - this includes but is not limited to his Elite Dangerous and Kerbal Space Program ones.
Though the launch was only a test, Rocket Lab managed to launch three satellites into orbit for tracking shipping, weather and imaging.
Orbital class rocket, not bad. Also, made it to orbit on the second attempt, beat Spacex by two launches :P The Rutherford engine sea level Isp of 303 on RP1/LOX is damn impressive.
Orbital class rocket, not bad. Also, made it to orbit on the second attempt, beat Spacex by two launches :P The Rutherford engine sea level Isp of 303 on RP1/LOX is damn impressive.
Isp is awesome, TWR... not so much. The electric turbopumps are a big propellant efficiency win, but aren't without other costs.
I'd mostly worry about mass ratio, though they do drop off some of the batteries half way on the second stage.
Batteries are heavy, but the system can make up for it. More precise control of propellant volume means the combustion chamber and nozzle don't have to be engineered for such high peak stresses due to a turbopump surging.
I was surprised to hear they were using LION packs, dropped mid second-stage. I'm not sure why but I expected super-capacitors or maybe flywheels arranged gyroscopically within the stages. Batteries are heavy - but must be the best fit for now.
> beat Spacex by two launches
Cute, yes, but they were also not sued by their competitors and forced at the last minute to relocate to a salty small island that caused epic issues for those launches, as SpaceX was by ULA.
Cute, yes, but they were also not sued by their competitors and forced at the last minute to relocate to a salty small island that caused epic issues for those launches, as SpaceX was by ULA.
Planet Money recently did a series on the satellite market. Rocket Lab was one of the companies they interviewed. Pretty fascinating stuff.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/12/01/567267573/plan...
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/12/01/567267573/plan...
Does anyone have a decent "Explain like I'm five" explanation for their choice of launch site? My (admittedly layman) understanding of rocket launching was the being near the equator was good, because you pick up a tonne of free velocity that way, and this launch site seems very far south to me.
Edit: Punctuation
Edit: Punctuation
A)being close to equator helps but not dramatically, logistics are still more important
B)few satellites are actually launched to an equatorial orbit, most of the time you want an inclined or a polar one. If you want your orbit to have around 40 degree inclination NZ is perfect.
Thank you, clearly I need to read up on this a bit more!
I was surprised at how weird it felt to have AU/NZ accents on the mission control (or whatever you call it) channel in the video at the end of that page.
I say this as an Australian.
I say this as an Australian.
My favorite part of the aborted Friday (EST) launch was when the Kiwi controller was asking the American launch director whether he wanted any pre-determined halts in the launch sequence. It took them 3 goes for the American to understand what he was asking :)
> "Instead of paying hundreds of millions for a very big satellite in geostationary orbit, we now have new constellations of smaller — what we call nano satellites — in low earth orbit at much lower cost," he said.
So, what about earth orbit congestion/pollution caused by these "nano satellites"? Tracking a few thousand big objects is easier than tracking a few million small objects, I would suspect.
And if the cheaper launchers mean that smaller businesses or wealthy individuals will be able to launch their own nano-fleets, there's an increased risk of operator error or just malevolent operators as well.
Won't this just lead to more quickly exhausting the capacity of earth-orbiting space?
So, what about earth orbit congestion/pollution caused by these "nano satellites"? Tracking a few thousand big objects is easier than tracking a few million small objects, I would suspect.
And if the cheaper launchers mean that smaller businesses or wealthy individuals will be able to launch their own nano-fleets, there's an increased risk of operator error or just malevolent operators as well.
Won't this just lead to more quickly exhausting the capacity of earth-orbiting space?
Yes, it's a real problem. Satellites should either be shot to a low enough orbit so they decay soon (5 years or so for small satellites), or then they should have a deorbit mechanism.
At least for the planet labs Dove satellites, the orbits are low enough that they decay within a year or two.
The trajectory of the first stage seems very vertical compared to other launches; anyone have any explanations?
I think they were launching due south, directly away from the camera
Also most launches are essentially go straight up to get out of the atmospheric drag asap, then hang a turn into orbit - the optimal parameters for when you make that turn is going to be a trade off of a bunch of things - drag, the orbit you want, air pressure that day, .....
Also most launches are essentially go straight up to get out of the atmospheric drag asap, then hang a turn into orbit - the optimal parameters for when you make that turn is going to be a trade off of a bunch of things - drag, the orbit you want, air pressure that day, .....
Is there no adverse environmental impact from dumping battery packs into the atmosphere to burn up?
It caused grumbling. Not sure where it all go to though as I can’t find any conclusion as it seems they calculated an amount of waste that exceeds that launched. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...
Is there any startup currently investigating cheaper alternatives to reuseable fireworks?
is "fireworks" literal or figurative there?
Minor quibble: The company is over ten years old; I don't think it's quite a startup anymore.