[HN Gopher] Rocket Lab Unveils Plans for New 8-Ton Class Reusabl...
___________________________________________________________________
Rocket Lab Unveils Plans for New 8-Ton Class Reusable Rocket
Author : james_pm
Score : 188 points
Date : 2021-03-01 12:25 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.rocketlabusa.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.rocketlabusa.com)
| abledon wrote:
| Until spaceX goes public (if they ever do), this company seems
| pretty close in their intentions of providing a great space
| service in the 2030s, (they are also exposed via a SPAC deal
| announced just this morning).
| sputr wrote:
| Regarding the SPAC deal. How does that work? Do the two
| companies merge into one and then are renamed, while also
| renaming the ticker from VACQ to RKLB.
|
| Does that mean that VACQ stock owners will become RKLB owners
| when the deal goes through?
| pmorici wrote:
| Correct.
| everyone wrote:
| We seem to be throwing greater and greater quantities of
| frivolous shit into LEO. Are people in the industry not worried
| about Kessler syndrome?
| unwind wrote:
| Cool, but rather boring (as in, devoid of rocket images) PR page.
|
| The page about the actual rocket [1] is more fun for armchair
| space dreamers like myself.
|
| [1]: https://www.rocketlabusa.com/rockets/neutron/
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Cool, a rather stocky rocket, with dense propellants! Lots of
| room for growth by simple stretching.
|
| 4.5 m diameter vs Falcon 9's 3.7 means 50 m rocket for same
| volume as Falcon's 70 meters.
|
| They could design it for really high flight rate off the bat.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I've been waiting for this for a while. This is a really good
| market niche. And being human spaceflight capable is also really
| good.
|
| Peter Beck, who once claimed he'd eat his hat if they made a
| reusable rocket, sure made a big 180 on the topic, and I couldn't
| be happier! Speaking of, watch the announcement video:
| https://youtu.be/agqxJw5ISdk
|
| I'm also GLAD they copied the Falcon 9 design (which is as old as
| scifi and was demonstrated by DC-X and Masten Space Systems and
| Armadillo Aerospace) for the first stage landing concept. Better
| to use what works instead of just making a novel approach just
| for the sake of novelty or Not Invented Here. Rockets ought to
| land on a pillar of flame like God and Heinlein (EDIT: and
| apparently the Soviet Cosmists) intended:
| https://youtu.be/TdSxDNnqRlo
|
| Also, RocketLab has a TON of ex-SpaceXer employees... I've long
| said that the high churn (for aerospace, but not any higher than
| typical tech company) of SpaceX, while not necessarily really
| good for SpaceX, is really good for the industry as a whole.
| [deleted]
| inglor_cz wrote:
| It is pretty risky publicly betting on some technological
| progress not happening :) At least if no known laws of physics
| would be broken by achieving said progress.
| njarboe wrote:
| Elon Musk is really shooting for a self-sustaining city on Mars
| and SpaceX is his part of working towards that goal. He really
| is happy for competition and wishes there was more of it. He
| has stated that he is sometimes concerned that SpaceX has too
| many of the best people. With these other rocket companies
| doing well and drawing top talent, he is probably less
| concerned about that at this point.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| > He really is happy for competition and wishes there was
| more of it.
|
| Only if the competition is mediocre. If the competition takes
| away money, attention and admiration from Elon, he will not
| be happy.
| anonisko wrote:
| I've got a feeling that Elon is the kind of person who
| would only be happy with death on a battlefield, bested by
| a worthy opponent.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I doubt it.
|
| RocketLab has already been doing that, and he still has
| praised it.
|
| Musk doesn't have to be your villain to be an imperfect
| person.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Something tells me he's going to be perfectly content to
| settle for richest man on Earth.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I really don't agree.
|
| Anyone motivated by money would have stopped working that
| hard many, many Billions ago.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Look at all the other billionaires: This is just simply
| not true. They can never have enough. Their net worth is
| a high score to them and is an end unto itself.
|
| I'm sure he's motivated by other stuff too but he's very
| clearly also motivated by wealth accumulation to some
| degree.
| imdsm wrote:
| I think what Elon wants, money alone can't buy. It's taking
| him time and effort, as well as money, to help humans to
| become a multi-planetary species. This drive is why I've
| been a fan of Elon for so long.
| jiofih wrote:
| What's that something? His recent getting rid of
| possessions says he doesn't care much...
| mempko wrote:
| If he didn't care much, he wouldn't be the richest man on
| earth.
| testnew2 wrote:
| Absolutely no one would have ever suggested that electric
| cars and rockets were the way to become rich. Instead
| back when he invested in and or started these companies
| people would have told him it was a quick way to become
| poor. I really dont think he was ever seeking becoming
| the richest person in the world.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Honestly it was a lazy comment and I should've deleted
| it. Rather than derail this thread with an argument about
| Musk, I genuinely encourage you to downvote that comment
| (if you hadn't already replied to it I'd delete it).
| croddin wrote:
| I've never seen anyone big enough to actually follow through on
| eating a hat. Props Peter Beck.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| I doubt he ate a whole hat. He probably just put a bit of a
| hat into his mouth without eating it.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| He showed it. I take the video to be accurate (he really
| did eat a small part, but not the whole thing), and not
| misleading. I've eaten much worse. Now if only more people
| would be as willing to correct course when their previous
| opinion was proven incorrect. This alone is one reason I
| really like Peter Beck.
| geenew wrote:
| Werner Herzog ate his shoe:
|
| "In 1979, Les Blank took a detour to film German filmmaker
| Werner Herzog honoring a vow he made to Errol Morris that he
| (Herzog) would eat his shoe if Morris ever actually made one
| of his films he was forever talking about. Stung to action,
| Morris directed Gates of Heaven and Herzog, true to his word,
| returned to Berkeley to consume one of his desert boots at
| the UC Theater. Blank's film documents Herzog's strongly
| expressed belief that people must have the gutts to attempt
| what they dream of."
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGcWTIWYDMQ (just the lead-
| up..)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kii4jQ7XHuY (shoe-eating..)
| potench wrote:
| I think you intended to link to a different video showing
| rockets landing on pillars of flames. Can you edit your comment
| or drop the real video link because I'm very intrigued?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I fixed it. :) https://youtu.be/TdSxDNnqRlo
| imglorp wrote:
| And Buck Rogers comics from the 30's had tail-sitters before
| Heinlein. Some were rockets (tractor, from the nose) and some
| "ultronium" antigravity.
|
| http://nick-stevens.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/buck-
| roge...
| [deleted]
| GoOnThenDoTell wrote:
| I'm sad that they're not building and launching it from New
| Zealand like the Electron rocket
| yholio wrote:
| It's nothing yet except for a statement of intention: we aspire
| to become the next SpaceX and hope to raise the interest of
| investors that can't access SpaceX stock. There is no talk about
| the engines, it's quite clear that the Rutherford won't cut it
| (Electron already uses 9 of them). So they have to either buy or
| develop an engine, expensive in time or money.
|
| The mega-constellation sweet spot argument is not really
| convincing, if you have a reusable mega rocket with a relightable
| second stage (like SpaceX plans), you can hit multiple planes in
| a single launch. The 8 ton class is probably just the largest
| they can afford to plan at this stage.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I disagree. For mega constellations it's about cost per kg to
| orbit, and for reusable it's about launch rate. If you build
| too big, your launch rate isn't high enough to get the full
| advantage of reuse.
|
| I think Starship is awesome, but even Falcon 9 is so big it
| leaves some room for something a bit smaller.
|
| 8 tons is in the Soyuz/R7 range, which is what the other
| megaconstellation is using. And it has had well over 1000
| launches and still holds the record (in the 70s and 80s) of the
| most number of launches per year for a single rocket type,
| which makes it a good target class for size of a reusable
| rocket.
|
| 8 tons is about where Falcon 9 v1.0 started out, by the way.
| How many customers wish they had that built the smaller falcon
| 5.
|
| Additionally, a smaller rocket is useful for some human
| spaceflight applications. If you only need to launch two
| astronauts in orbit to fix a satellite, it'd be nice to have a
| smaller rocket option. An 8 ton first stage reusable rocket is
| also big enough to eventually have a reusable _upper_ stage and
| still carry a a couple astronauts, their space suits, a small
| (Gemini-sized) vehicle (possibly integrated with the reusable
| upper stage), and some tools and parts to repair the satellite.
| Launch costs could in principle be less than $1 million, which
| is about the propellant costs alone for Starship.
|
| Starship is awesome. But we don't have JUST 757s and 777s. We
| also have smaller utility aircraft. I've long thought that
| something just under 10 tons, partially or fully reusable, is a
| good market opportunity. Makes a lot more sense than tiny
| rockets for megaconstellations.
| CarVac wrote:
| > If you build too big, your launch rate isn't high enough to
| get the full advantage of reuse.
|
| But if you throw away second stages, your rate of reuse goes
| waaay down.
|
| I don't think an 8-ton lift vehicle is going to achieve
| second stage reuse.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| On the contrary, there are MORE viable methods for reuse
| with a smaller vehicle. They can do mid-air recovery with
| such an upper stage, for instance, but no hope of that with
| a Starship-sized upper stage.
| CarVac wrote:
| More ways to land, but the performance penalty of heat
| shielding will be crippling on a smaller stage.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I doubt that. SpaceX was going to make Falcon 9 fully
| reusable, and it wouldn't have been crippling. Might be
| too small to launch a full crewed Dragon or 60 Starlinks,
| but I doubt if its payload would've even been halved
| compared to partial reuse.
| Diederich wrote:
| > Starship is awesome. But we don't have JUST 757s and 777s.
| We also have smaller utility aircraft.
|
| This, and the rest of your comment, is quite reasonable.
|
| What it mostly comes down to is $/kg -> orbit. I know Musk
| constantly over-promises, but there's at least a good chance
| that Starship/Superheavy will get their total per launch cost
| below a million dollars. Perhaps well below that. Gwynne
| Shotwell, someone known for being almost infinitely more
| realistic than Musk, has stated multiple times that she
| firmly believes Starship will become a viable on-Earth
| passenger/cargo carrier.
|
| And _that_ can only happen if a Starship /Superheavy total
| launch/mission cost is on the order of a long-haul aircraft.
| That is, well less than a million dollars.
|
| It's also possible that the fundamental physics of Earth
| surface -> LEO in a fully re-usable way can only be done with
| large machines. As an analogy: I'm not aware of any 'not
| large' machines that can transport anything economically
| across Earth's oceans. The physics, as I understand it, just
| don't allow it.
|
| Having said all that, I love the hell out of all of the
| innovation and potential competition coming around in this
| area. That's the best way to really test the assumptions
| (many of which I've just stated) that might be holding us
| back.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| An Airbus A380 is the closest comparable aircraft to
| Starship. It can handle about 82,000 liters of fuel. Until
| the last 5 years or so, jet fuel fuel was $3/gallon
| (peaking at $4/gallon) in the US, higher in Europe and
| Asia. It'd need about 3 or 4 refuelings to travel to the
| other side of the world and back with about the same
| payload as Starship. That's about $1 million worth of fuel.
|
| The rental price to charter an A380 to the other side of
| the world and back is about $1.3million not counting fuel
| or the time spent on the ground fueling and going to/from
| charter location.
|
| So I'd say a couple million per Starship launch would be on
| the order of a long-haul aircraft price. Still has plenty
| of room for smaller and cheaper per-launch fully reusable
| rockets.
| Diederich wrote:
| Thanks for the specific numbers.
|
| > Still has plenty of room for smaller and cheaper per-
| launch fully reusable rockets.
|
| Upon further reflection, I'm getting more on board with
| this, with two big relevant factors: first, how quickly
| can these new companies work out the fully reusable mojo.
| SpaceX is clearly many years ahead, but having a
| predecessor company actually demonstrating a technology
| surely makes it _somewhat_ easier to re-implement.
| Second: back to the physics. I don 't have a good
| intuition for this, but I do hope that it's physically
| possible to efficiently do small scale orbital transport.
|
| One way or another, I'm happy as can be that there are
| smart people (outside of SpaceX/Blue Origin) really
| pressing into this problem.
| DennisP wrote:
| But we do have just airplanes that are 100% reusable. So far,
| Rocket Lab only talks about reusing the first stage; second-
| stage reuse is hard, and a huge cost savings.
|
| But maybe until Starship gets the launch rate to reach its
| potential, there's room for smaller rockets with disposable
| upper stages. SpaceX is banking on the space industry
| expanding well beyond megaconstellations, but that will take
| a few years. By the time we get there, maybe other companies
| will manage reusable upper stages too.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Right. Having a decent sized reusable first stage on
| Neutron gives RocketLab the option of a reusable upper
| stage down the road. It's pretty tough to justify going for
| full reuse before you have even accomplished partial reuse.
| Something similar to the recovery method of Electron's
| first stage would be appropriate for a reusable upper
| stage. (And at one time, SpaceX was planning it for Falcon
| 9's upper stage... ballute/heatshield and parachute for
| Falcon 9 upper stage recovery).
| vkou wrote:
| Ninety nine times out of ten, launching two humans into orbit
| to fix a satellite is going to cost you a lot more than just
| launching a replacement satellite.
|
| The number of one-off, irreplaceable, you-have-to-fix-them-
| if-they-break satellites currently in orbit can be counted on
| one finger.
|
| As launch costs go down, this is not going to change.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Yes it will. When costs change by orders of magnitude,
| trades change. Space hardware will always have some non-
| trivial cost, just like how equipment on the ground still
| has significant cost in spite of low logistics costs. As
| reuse lowers cost of space access by orders of magnitude,
| the relative cost of trashing vs fixing changes
| dramatically. When the space hardware costs 100x more than
| the launch, then it makes sense to fix than to trash.
|
| Also, astronauts are MUCH faster at assembly than robots.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > Ninety nine times out of ten
|
| I know this was an accident but I'm stealing this.
| codercotton wrote:
| I do not believe this was an accident. Or am I
| accidentally misreading..? :p
| api wrote:
| Rutherford is really reliable. Why not use like 27 of them? Is
| there some reason that this is inherently bad?
|
| It would probably be less efficient to use lots of small
| engines, but perhaps the reduced cost of using an already
| existing engine that you can mass produce would make up for it.
| vermontdevil wrote:
| Batteries. Imagine all the weight.
| yholio wrote:
| Rutherford is only a 26 KN engine. An original Merlin 1
| engine was 340 KN, so you would need 15 Rutherfords for each
| Merlin.
|
| A total of 135 engines for a rocket comparable to the
| original Falcon 9 which they are targeting.
| api wrote:
| Yeah I guess we tried lots of engines once, though that was
| a long time ago:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)
| cnlevy wrote:
| The N1's first stage had 30 engines, not much more than
| the Falcon Heavy which has 27
| Already__Taken wrote:
| Read the launch history most of it the engines weren't
| the problem. *edit control was the problem, it just
| happens to be connected to parts of the engines.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> The mega-constellation sweet spot ... multiple planes in a
| single launch.
|
| Mega-constellations are exactly the type of project that
| doesn't need multiple planes. They require multiple sat in each
| plane, meaning one rocket full of small sats can go to one
| plane and dump them all. I suspect something has been lost in
| translation. I think they mean to say that the relightable
| engines will allow access to different _altitudes_ on a single
| launch, multiple orbits within a single plane.
| Sanzig wrote:
| Depends on the plane.
|
| Inclination changes are expensive, so if you want different
| inclinations, it almost always makes sense to use a separate
| launch vehicle for each inclination you want to target.
|
| However, the longitude of the ascending node (O) is perturbed
| by the earth's oblateness, and the rate of O precession is a
| function of the semi-latus rectum (p) and the inclination
| (i). If you adjust the orbit altitude to tweak p, you can
| adjust the precession rate to swing the plane around to where
| you want it.
|
| This takes a while (months), and you of course need some sort
| of propulsion on the spacecraft to return you to your target
| altitude after the maneuver, but if the launch vehicle can
| drop you into the higher/lower altitude above/below the
| target plane rather than doing that on-board the spacecraft,
| the delta-v cost is halved.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I would call that on-orbit maneuvers rather than part of
| the launch process. This rocket will drop the sat off at
| the contracted orbit and fly away. Multiple engine firings
| will mean separate customers can get at best separate
| altitudes.
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| interesting if the Neutron will use electric-pump-fed engines,
| is this a concept that is scalable to bigger engines?
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I read a paper that indicated you can build them to any
| arbitrary size. Electric feed pump designs don't get worse as
| they get bigger. But turbo pumps have better performance at
| large sizes than electric feed pumps.
|
| However the paper also assumed a fixed weigh battery pack. On
| the second stage electron tosses one of it's battery packs
| overboard. Also raw performance isn't as critical for the
| first stage.
|
| One other thing, electric feed has much simpler plumbing than
| a turbo pump feed.
|
| Ans: Maybe, but I have no idea.
| syntaxing wrote:
| I've always been a big fan of rocket lab (Carbon Fiber layup +
| Metal 3D printing + electric rocket turbo sound amazing). But
| this announcement seems to coincide to their SPAC merger
| announcement so not sure what to think of it.
| jiofih wrote:
| Marketing, clearly. Doesn't mean it's not a good opportunity.
| hourislate wrote:
| It's exciting to hear about all these companies trying to bring
| more to the table but while they (Rocket Lab, Blue Origin, Virgin
| Galactic) talk about what their plans are, SpaceX continues to
| push forward with real world results. It's the dollar short and
| the day late scenario.
|
| Maybe at some point these B and C companies (Rocket Lab, Blue
| Origin, Virgin Galactic) can take over the low tier/mundane
| stuff, while SpaceX is taking us to the Moon/Mars or beyond on a
| daily/weekly/monthly schedule.
| rrss wrote:
| Rocketlab does have "real world results" - they've launched
| customer payloads to orbit 18 times in the last few years.
| AFAIK, blue origin has not achieved orbit, and virgin orbit is
| still doing (years-delayed?) demonstration missions (which have
| achieved orbit), so I don't think it makes sense to lump all
| "not spacex" together.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Interesting thing to me is they haven't had any failures of
| primary components either. 18 launches, 10 engines per
| rocket, 180 total, no failures as far as I've read.
|
| Don't know if they are going to stay with the electric pump-
| fed engine design or not for the neutron.
| shazmosushi wrote:
| Virgin Orbit launches their LauncherOne to orbit from a 747
| Jumbo Jet. Virgin Galactic aspires to launches people for
| suborbital tourism on SpaceShipTwo. Different companies.
| solarkraft wrote:
| As far as I know SpaceX don't offer substantially low prices
| for launching reused rockets yet. Why should they - there's no
| competitor forcing them to do it.
|
| While the extra money is certainly well invested in SpaceX,
| there's still the potential to lower prices through
| competition, if nothing else. The different approaches are also
| great to see. So far the pie looks big enough for everyone.
| Azrael3000 wrote:
| Not quite as capable as Falcon 9 (16.kT to LEO, 5.2m fairing
| diameter) but it will certainly cut into SpaceX's cake once it is
| online.
|
| While they are currently spending a lot of effort on recovering
| the 1st stage of the Electron via parachute the Neutron is going
| to land on a drone ship just like SpaceX does it. Clearly due to
| the different size of these two first stages.
|
| Looking forward to their design, particularly the engines they
| will be using. Is there any info out there yet?
|
| Finally a video by Rocket Lab:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqxJw5ISdk&feature=youtu.be
| xoa wrote:
| > _but it will certainly cut into SpaceX 's cake once it is
| online._
|
| Doubtful. And that isn't a knock against Rocket Lab, targeting
| a different niche is smart business, but still doubtful.
| Because the target of any rocket under development right now
| that wants to directly compete with SpaceX can't be F9, it
| needs to be Starship. The fundamentals along with the iterative
| capability and in-house demand built into the core of the
| design plan indicate they're going to be about to push costs
| below $200/kg and eventually even below $100/kg, along with
| enormous other sets of capabilities. That will represent just a
| mind blowing paradigm shift in cost to LEO, and SpaceX will
| probably want to retire F9 completely as soon as they're done
| with contracts and SS/SH is fully certified.
|
| Rocket Lab should still be able to find a healthy market, like
| now, for customers who want specific orbits and times for
| smaller payloads that don't line up well with ride sharing on a
| big rocket. But it just won't be in the same market slice at
| all. Which is fine! The entire space market is set to grow a
| lot, no zero-sum games for a good long while, and in a growing
| market there can be room for many players to grow together. But
| everyone not on the leading edge is going to have to stay
| nimble.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Neutron is fully reusable, just like Starship. It'll have
| similar price efficiencies. I expect Neutron eventually to be
| cheaper than Electron.
|
| Edit: acd10j says I misread. I still think they're working on
| full reusability, but that's just my guess, not an
| announcement.
| acd10j wrote:
| I Just read this press release, Only first stage of Neutron
| is reusable like Falcon 9. So No it will not be fully
| reusable like Star-ship.
|
| Relevant paragraph: The medium-lift Neutron rocket will be
| a two-stage launch vehicle that stands 40 meters (131 feet)
| tall with a 4.5-meter (14.7 ft) diameter fairing and a lift
| capacity of up to 8,000 kg (8 metric tons) to low-Earth
| orbit, 2,000 kg to the Moon (2 metric tons), and 1,500 kg
| to Mars and Venus (1.5 metric tons). Neutron will feature a
| reusable first stage designed to land on an ocean platform,
| enabling a high launch cadence and decreased launch costs
| for customers. Initially designed for satellite payloads,
| Neutron will also be capable of International Space Station
| (ISS) resupply and human spaceflight missions.
| xoa wrote:
| There is a lot more to Starship than just full reusability,
| and "full reusability" encompasses a lot of variables too.
| How quick is turnaround? What sort of refurb is required?
| How many times is it reusable? For SS/SH construction is
| also cheap, the raptor is a really efficient engine, they
| will have high cadence given a lot of room for mass
| manufacturing efficiency gains, they're intended to be
| durable, and even the fuel is really cheap. Methalox is
| really economical to work with, and fuel definitely matters
| for a fully reusable design aimed at lowering costs as much
| as possible. RP-1 isn't cheap, and also has coking issues
| unlike methane.
|
| Of course with Neutron not expected to launch, even under
| Rocket Lab's target, before 2024 they may have answers for
| a lot of this. I see nothing about fuel for example, maybe
| they've been working on their own great methalox design.
| But either way, F9 isn't going to be the comparison by the
| time they really get going.
| [deleted]
| fiftyfifty wrote:
| I've got to think that Rocket Lab's announcement came
| earlier than planned because of this announcement by
| Relativity Space a few days ago:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/relativitys-reusable-
| terran-...
|
| Relativity is claiming to be working on a fully reusable,
| Methalox burning, competitor to the Falcon 9. Of course
| Relativity has yet to put something into space so Rocket
| Lab seems better positioned but these companies are all
| competing for the same funding and launch contracts so
| they can't sit back and let another company steal the
| lime light for long. Really exciting times in the space
| industry, the US could have four different companies
| making reusable rockets in the next 5-10 years.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> but it will certainly cut into SpaceX's cake once it is
| online.
|
| Not until it is certified for national security launches and/or
| becomes man-rated. Spacelaunch is about more than cost per
| pound to orbit. Security, insurance, even politics often trumps
| cost.
| p_l wrote:
| Conversely, if it gets ITAR-free, it might just pay off for
| not having DoD as customer.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> ITAR-free
|
| Not likely. Everything to do with misses/rockets is very
| restricted. Put GPS guidance on your model rocket and you
| can expect a visit from the FBI. Sell rockets with
| GPS/FLIR/INS/TV guidance and you should expect swat teams.
| p_l wrote:
| Their very public use of New Zealand launch site led me
| to incorrect assumption they were less married to USA.
|
| And yes, ITAR-Free is becoming a bigger and bigger
| selling point both in military and space industries
| (also, besides ITAR, such high-profile contracts with USA
| entities are generally bad for you...)
| GoOnThenDoTell wrote:
| Launch companies specifically need the anchor customers
| of nasa/airforce, or the equivalent in their own country.
| This is, I assume, why Rocket Lab eventually became a USA
| company
| p_l wrote:
| Commercial clients are very interested in "ITAR-free"
| solutions though
| Thlom wrote:
| But rocket lab is based in New Zealand, so does US
| regulations even matter as long as they don't launch from
| US soil?
| p_l wrote:
| They are registered in USA and apparently do a bunch of
| US-based development.
| CDSlice wrote:
| They recently built a launch site in the US so I think
| ITAR is still going to apply to them
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| I believe rockets are under ITAR regardless.
| p_l wrote:
| Their choice of NZ launch location confused me a bit.
|
| But ITAR-free (effectively "USA-free") is a big important
| thing to offer if possible.
| mrDmrTmrJ wrote:
| I'd argue the opposite.
|
| The revenue potential of selling to the entire US
| government far outweighs the revenue potential of the
| rest of the world combined as Europe, China, and Russian
| already have national champions and closed launch
| markets.
|
| Going with ITAR, and US sales, and US investors, is
| exactly why RocketLab became a US company. If you look at
| their flight manifest so far, it's certainly worked out
| for them!
|
| Indeed, you can argue that ITAR is the single most
| effective industrial policy in the US by comparing the
| health of the US rocket manufacturing base to the
| relative health of all other US manufacturing industries.
| myself248 wrote:
| Why is that?
|
| I've understood that the US places restrictions on
| payloads that carry cameras, and from that alone, I could
| see that getting out from under those restrictions could
| be valuable.
|
| But what else?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> But what else?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Ar
| ms_...
|
| IV: Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles,
| Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs and Mines
|
| V: Explosives and Energetic Materials, Propellants,
| Incendiary Agents and Their Constituents
|
| XII: Fire Control, Range Finder, Optical and Guidance and
| Control Equipment
|
| XV: Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
| idx?SID=86008bdffd1fb2e79c...
|
| (1) Rockets, SLVs, and missiles capable of delivering at
| least a 500-kg payload to a range of at least 300 km
| (MT);
|
| (2) Rockets, SLVs, and missiles capable of delivering
| less than a 500-kg payload to a range of at least 300 km
| (MT);
|
| [...]
|
| (12) Thrusters (e.g., spacecraft or rocket engines) using
| bi-propellants or mono-propellant that provide greater
| than 150 lbf (i.e., 667.23 N) vacuum thrust (MT for
| rocket motors or engines having a total impulse capacity
| equal to or greater than 8.41 x 10^5 newton seconds);
|
| (13) Control moment gyroscope (CMG) specially designed
| for spacecraft;
|
| And lots more stuff.
| cnlevy wrote:
| Exactly half the Starship diameter.
|
| I wonder if they're planning for a 9m Neutron 2.0, like the 18m
| Starship 2.0 Musk has alluded to.
| justaguy88 wrote:
| Electron -> Neutron -> Proton...ohwhat
| wffurr wrote:
| So what changed to make re-usable rockets reality? Is there a
| specific advance in materials science or computing that made this
| possible not just for SpaceX but other companies too? Or is it
| just an array of advances in a variety of fields that came
| together?
|
| Reading about the DC-X, it seems like this was possible in the
| 1990s but NASA had no interest in funding it for whatever
| mysterious reason:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
| outworlder wrote:
| It was possible. Like others have commented already, it's much
| more affordable to do that today, given sensors, computing and
| advances on our understanding of the whole field. But given
| large enough pockets, I'm pretty sure by the time we had the
| capability to build Space Shuttles, we could do reusable
| rockets instead.
|
| There's one point I would like to add. This is something that's
| very difficult to do for well established companies. They tend
| to have their workhorse rockets - which were NOT designed with
| reusability in mind. Modifying these rockets is not feasible in
| many cases. Even when it is, it may not be cost effective. So
| the usual solution is to design a new "reusable rocket
| program".
|
| Now, the problem with such a program is: the success criteria
| is reusability. If the new rocket cannot be put into service
| quickly enough and demonstrates reusability successfully, it
| will be scrapped. If it delivers payloads just fine but can't
| land (or can land but refurbishment is costly), it will be a
| failure. After all, on one hand you have a working system,
| which is generating revenue. On the other, you have a
| problematic R&D program that's draining resources and
| engineering cycles for the promise of potential savings. They
| end up getting scrapped on the first resource crunch.
|
| SpaceX was developing their rocket. Their success criteria was
| that it would deliver payloads into orbit. Given that they
| started from scratch and had no existing workhorse, they also
| added reusability as a goal and designed the rocket to allow
| for that. If it achieved reusability, great! If not, it's just
| another single-use rocket. They also got "early" adopters,
| companies that were willing to launch their payloads on SpaceX,
| on new rocket designs, that only had a handful of flights. So
| they were, by definition, a little less risk-averse.
|
| On every flight, SpaceX got closer and closer to the
| reusability goal. But that didn't matter to most customers
| (they would pay for new boosters anyway), because that part of
| the mission happened after their payload was already on its way
| by the second stage, so who cares what happens to the first.
| All the while cementing their reputation.
|
| In essence, SpaceX got companies to finance the R&D for the
| reusable boosters, because they only had one rocket. If they
| tried to start with a single-use rocket, and then created a
| "Falcon 9-reuse" version, they would have faced the same
| difficulties. Namely, who would fly on the untested new design?
|
| Rocketlabs might be able to pull it off still, because - while
| it's a new booster - it's also one that's intended to increase
| their capabilities (much like Spaceship), it's not just a
| "reusable rocket program". If it can't be reused, then it's a
| more expensive rocket, but one that still adds value.
| cma wrote:
| Shuttle was fully reusable. The boosters came back down on
| parachutes.
| dnautics wrote:
| Main tank
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Main tank is lost and side booster and shuttle required
| extensive refurbishing. It sorta counts, but against the
| point of reusability
| cma wrote:
| Starship moved to tiles too, instead of transpirational
| cooling, it will likely require refurbishment.
|
| If shuttle had continued on tile inspection could have
| likely moved to machine vision based approaches, maybe they
| will be able to use something like that to keep refurb
| costs down on spacex's shuttle/starship.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| They are created with better materials and also do not
| require special one offs for every single tile, unlike
| the shuttle.
|
| Replacement is supposed to be "break it and attach a new
| one" without needing special glues, curing times which
| was the reason why shuttle heat shield refurbishment took
| so long at high cost.
| cma wrote:
| That sounds like an improvement, but not enough for
| passenger air travel replacement between the cost of
| coach and business class (New York to shanghai), promised
| for 7 years from now. They need many orders of magnitude
| of reliability improvements over shuttle for that, though
| it would be slightly suborbital reentry.
|
| The Dear Moon mission in a couple years will have full
| reentry at extreme speeds, assuming they weren't just
| ripping off that Japanese billionaire guy. I think they
| still planned transpirational cooling at that point?
|
| Dragon was supposed to have at least one mission to Mars
| every transfer period from 2020 onwards and that seems to
| have been scrapped.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| I dont understand where this comment is coming from. What
| sources are you using the make the cost claims you are
| making and/or the reliability requirements and/or
| heatshield requirements?
| cma wrote:
| > Shotwell estimated the ticket cost would be somewhere
| between economy and business class on a plane -- so,
| likely in the thousands of dollars for transoceanic
| travel. "But you do it in an hour."
|
| https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17227036/flight-spacex-
| gwynne-...
|
| I based reliability requirements on passenger jet travel
| and the risk people would be willing to take for non
| space-tourism transport.
|
| Also, I don't see how the tiles can be fully uniform
| except on the cylindrical part. The geometry of the nose
| part I don't think would allow it mathematically. Shuttle
| tiles often only differed in thickness based on needed
| heat withstanding, and could be generated by cnc
| processes automatically. Spacex may want something
| similar to optimize weight, especially since they are
| planning computer controlled install as well for most of
| them.
| outworlder wrote:
| The shuttle required refurbishments on the thermal protection
| system. Every single one had to be inspected.
|
| The engines also required refurbishment.
|
| The boosters had to be fished out of the ocean. Those same
| boosters that used solid fuel and that could not (and cannot)
| be shutdown in case of issues. And the Shuttle happened to
| have two of them, with a decent moment arm on each, so a
| solid booster failure (even a partial one, with less thrust
| than expected) meant a mission failure. They had to be highly
| scrutinized. Given that the Shuttle was also a jobs program,
| they were built in segments, to allow for transport across
| long distances. So the o-ring seals were also problematic.
|
| All in all, the Shuttle was very brittle. If they could have
| been mass-produced, it would have probably been more
| economical to just throw them away on every flight and rely
| on economies of scale. At least, that way, one would only
| have to account for manufacturing issues, not every
| conceivable stress that could happen during a mission.
| 0x64 wrote:
| The orbiter was reusable, the boosters were refurbishable,
| and the external tank basically crashed into the ocean.
| thedrbrian wrote:
| Always thought it was a shame they didn't push the main
| tank into orbit. Just think of an ISS made from a few of
| them rather than what we have now or the Ares from Red
| Mars.
| jandrese wrote:
| There were some orbital concepts that basically inflated
| a living space inside of an orange tank and stuck a few
| solar panels and radiators on the side. Shuttle trips
| were just too expensive to make it practical and with the
| ISS it would have been redundant.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Alternative designs could have worked, but the Shuttle
| used the OMS after main engine cutoff, so keeping the
| tank would have eaten a ton of delta-vee
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Better CFD, better knowledge of engine design, limited scope of
| requirements/capabilities, better material science.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The Space Shuttle was reusable, and it was designed in the 70s.
| Even it's side boosters were partially reusable.
|
| It wasn't _usefully_ reusable, refurb costs were too high, but
| that was as much due to design mistakes as it was to technology
| limitations in the 70s.
| adolph wrote:
| NASA is a government agency. It isn't in governments' interest
| to lower the cost to orbit since the space-capable large
| governments enjoy a monopoly on space when it is expensive.
| Once NASA opened up commercial resupply contracting, a door
| opened a crack for people and organizations without a similar
| monopoly interest and with ideas for cost reduction.
| jccooper wrote:
| Propulsive landing has been _possible_ since the 70s. But cheap
| and easily available sensors (especially but not exclusively
| navigation--gyroscopes, accelerators, altimeters, GPS), cheap
| and light high-performance compute hardware, and existing
| packaged software and other advances in stuff like convex
| optimization and fluid dynamics make a real difference in
| practicality of doing so, both on the rocket and during design.
|
| There's also significant improvements in metallurgy that make
| it easier to do things like long-life turbopumps, carbon-fiber
| composites help with mass fraction, CNC machining and additive
| manufacturing that make complicated parts affordable, and other
| such things that also help. But really it's pocket-sized sense-
| and-compute that really kicked off the low-cost retro-
| propulsion thing.
| wffurr wrote:
| Thanks - sounds like it was a lot of things but mainly low
| cost compute and sensors. Not to mention Elon's deep pockets
| and appetite for risk.
| NortySpock wrote:
| Also, SpaceX being the first to demonstrate it was feasible.
| There were naysayers even after they landed their first
| booster in December of 2015. ("refurbishment will cost too
| much!")
|
| Now that SpaceX regularly flying a booster 5 times or more
| and have at least 10 boosters in the fleet, the only people
| arguing that reusable space hardware is not worth doing are
| people with a vested interest in old-space-hardware designs.
| gok wrote:
| > Neutron will feature a reusable first stage designed to land on
| an ocean platform, enabling a high launch cadence and decreased
| launch costs for customers
|
| 10 years ago this was totally crazy and is now table stakes.
| Exciting times.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| That page is a triumph of design over usability. My 55 year old
| eyes couldn't get past the colour scheme and font. Ugh.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| IMO the reason that Rocket Lab is doing an eight tonne rocket is
| not because of the market for mega constellations. It's because 8
| tonnes is about the minimum size for a fully reusable rocket. You
| need a rocket big enough to launch all the propellant and shields
| needed for landing and still have room for payload. And so the
| bigger the rocket, the more margin you have.
|
| Once fully reusable, costs drop dramatically, so I wouldn't be
| surprised if the price of Neutron is similar to that of Electron.
| Who would use a small launch vehicle when a medium one is the
| same price, giving you a lot more room for maneuver propellant.
|
| This is the size of Falcon 9 v1.0, and they once believed full
| reusability was possible.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sWFFiubtC3c&feature=youtu.be
|
| Edit: they haven't announced full reusability. But I believe
| they're working on it.
|
| Edit 2: I still don't believe mega-constellations are the reason
| for Neutron. It being the minimum size for full reusability could
| be one, but another explanation is it being the minimum size for
| human space flight.
| darknavi wrote:
| > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sWFFiubtC3c&feature=youtu.be
|
| Wow I forgot SpaceX originally wanted a reusable second stage
| on F9. Would have been pretty cool.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-01 23:01 UTC)