Jump to content

RocketLab Discussion Thread


Kryten

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Hilarious!

Oh yeah i want one! It was a realy funny moment because he had to repeat the question "do you want any hold points"  three times before he responded with that quote..

Edited by cypher_00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Kick it!

 

It looks a bit heavy for the tanks, I would like to leave the frame with the second stage as in drop the white part with second stage and move more to the base plate.
Lots of aluminium to keep it stable during launch and no longer needed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a shame they did not have a camera pointed at the payload.

Another i thing i noticed at the launch is that the nose cone was seperated in one piece instead of splitting it. Looked cool seeing its reflection on the battery pack before comming in full view.

@magnemoe: so the rocket is actualy a three stage rocket.. Cool!

Edited by cypher_00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PB666 said:

SpaceX and Electron are not really competing in the same market, in fact electron might make a keen purchase opportunity for Space X. With FH, space X is pushing in the direction of heavier payloads . . . .Which I have to reminde everyone those payloads will come if SX can drive the cost down, and the F9 market will eventually shrink and become more competitive with or without the Electron. SX needs to quickly move into markets which there competitors cannot service.

Considering that falcon 1 is canceled and reprieve has never been mentioned, it appears that spacex really isn't interested in moving downmarket.  I'd still expect them to be an acquisition target, if only for the carbon tank tech.  Of course, if somebody wanted to just buy the thing for any other tech, Bezos had sufficiently deep pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The monopropellant is probably the thixotropic VLM (Viscous Liquid Monopropellant) monopropellant they've helped develop with DARPA and ONR. From skimming the patent, it looks like it's a APCP-like solid suspended in a silicone carrier fluid*. If they did get that to work anywhere near the performance of solid APCP, it's a pretty spectacular monopropellant. Relative to hydrazine, it would have high density, high specific impulse, and low toxicity.

*Quoted from the patent: "The VLM mixture of claim 1 comprising 28.4% by mass polydimethylsiloxane, 0.6% by mass castor oil derivative, 1% by mass Amidomethicone, 10% by mass aluminium powder, and 60% by mass ammonium perchlorate"

https://www.google.com/patents/US20120234196

The major question is how much they may have lost formulating VLM. I don't know what silicon tends to go out as, but that's got to be killer on the mean exhaust molecular mass.

I believe research into thixotropics and other suspensions has been going for a very long time (it's old enough to be mentioned in Ignition!), with issues including the solids falling out of suspension, gels solidifying, etc. Kudos to Rocket Lab helping turn this into a reality.

Other possible "green" monopropellants: nitrous oxide, hydrogen peroxide, and AF-M315E, though AF-M315E is unlikely (too recent a development).

I'm not surprised that they would have gone this route for Electron. They don't have much payload capacity to spare, which tends to militate against bipropellants, and hydrazine is awfully toxic, not something you want to be working with if you want to launch rockets at a mere $5 million a pop. I'd love to get some information on the specific impulse available.

Edited by Starman4308
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

*looks closely*

Ahh, right thread. 

 

Of course, cloudy for the next 3 months here. :rolleyes:

 

It says that the website and tracker are coming soon. I so want to see this, hopefully it will fly over Iowa sometime soon. I wonder just how visible it will be, definitely not as much as the ISS, but hopefully still distinguishable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

It says that the website and tracker are coming soon. I so want to see this, hopefully it will fly over Iowa sometime soon. I wonder just how visible it will be, definitely not as much as the ISS, but hopefully still distinguishable.

They did have a website up for a minute, but apparently it died a quick death. Should be pretty visible depending on your local, considering how much stuff one can usually see that wasn’t inherently meant to be seen.  :wink: I’m guessing those facets will catch and reflect the sunlight similar to Iridum antennas, and those can be really bright. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

*looks closely*

Ahh, right thread. 

 

Of course, cloudy for the next 3 months here. :rolleyes:

 

I really wish they hadn't launched that. In addition to being a worthless piece of space junk, it gives people the idea of space-based advertising......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

I really wish they hadn't launched that. In addition to being a worthless piece of space junk, it gives people the idea of space-based advertising......

TheHumanityStar.com

It’ll only be up there for around nine months, anyway. Don’t know what you could advertise with a randomly blinking carbon fiber many-hedron...

Edited by CatastrophicFailure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PakledHostage said:

For me it says:

"You will not be able to see the satellite within the next 2087 hours. Please check again later."

87 days? Really?

I’m guessing it’s a glitch with the site. The satellite still hasn’t updated to my sat tracker app, that might be more accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/01/2018 at 6:31 PM, PB666 said:

SX needs to quickly move into markets which there competitors cannot service.

I had thought pretty much the opposite: that the commercial point of the Falcon is to bid on the same contracts as all the other medium-lift rockets, at a much lower price, and have enough availability/turnaround to do this on all the medium-lift requirements in the world, all at once. In my view, it's the other launch providers - most notably ULA, but also Ariane, GSLV, ... - who will now urgently be looking for markets that the Falcon cannot service.

(In other words, Rocket Lab's plan for bleeding-edge technology on a light lifter is looking like a wise choice.)

Edited by CSE
Probably should mention the Electron!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A recently concluded poll named the third flight of Electron, which may or may not launch very soon. We're basically expecting an announcement of a NET launch window any day now.

EDIT: it will launch a gaggle of cubesats for NASA's education outreach program.

Edited by Streetwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My mind just got onto the tangent of "how cheap does space flight have to get before people stop making custom mission patches for each flight?".

The $5M/flight cost of Electron would still probably cover enough for at least amateur art as a PR thing, but... when would that occur? When would making a mission patch for an orbital launch become as silly as making a mission patch for a trans-Atlantic 747 flight?

Anyways, here's to a successful flight of "It's Business Time"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...