RocketLab Discussion Thread

[tater]

live

 

[tater]

 

[Exoscientist]

7 hours ago, tater said:

 

 Thanks for that. There’s no such thing as a benevolent monopoly. SpaceX needs competitors to keep their prices low, and to have pressure to drive down prices lower.

   Robert Clark

[tater]

34 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 SpaceX needs competitors to keep their prices low, and to have pressure to drive down prices lower.

True, else why leave money on the table in what is a small market. Neutron is not terribly competitive, though. I might, it might be for some F9 payloads, but even that will be tough, they will need to get their launch cost down to well under $30M.

[Exoscientist]

 

https://www.tradealgo.com/news/rocket-labs-neutron-rocket-costs-50-million-to-launch-competing-with-spacexs-falcon-9-rocket

 Bob Clark

[tater]

2 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

 

https://www.tradealgo.com/news/rocket-labs-neutron-rocket-costs-50-million-to-launch-competing-with-spacexs-falcon-9-rocket

So too little, too late.

SpaceX cost is below $50M. Vid was pulled, cause maybe he wasn't supposed to say it, but a SpaceX engineer at a conference said that their internal cost with reuse was ~$25M (might have exact number wrong, it was in the ballpark). A $50M retail price is great, and will indeed lower launch costs—but SpaceX will just drop to $49M (or whatever <50) for the same payload.

Same is true of New Glenn. To proactively compete with SpaceX, a company needs to have something in place in case Starship actually works. Right now, that competitor is Stoke, IMO. Their vehicle, though smaller than Starship by a lot, promises a cost structure that like Starship is limited by vehicle amortization, plus operational cost, plus propellant costs.

Any design throwing away stage 2 is limited by vehicle amortization, plus operational cost, plus propellant costs—plus the entire cost of stage 2, every flight.

 

[Exoscientist]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

So too little, too late.

SpaceX cost is below $50M. Vid was pulled, cause maybe he wasn't supposed to say it, but a SpaceX engineer at a conference said that their internal cost with reuse was ~$25M (might have exact number wrong, it was in the ballpark). A $50M retail price is great, and will indeed lower launch costs—but SpaceX will just drop to $49M (or whatever <50) for the same payload.

…

 

 

 The cost new of the Falcon 9 is currently at $67 million. SpaceX was able to drop the price for the F9’s with reused boosters by about 1/3rd, to $40 million. Assuming the same for Rocket Lab, which also wants to focus on reusability, then the price with a reused booster would be $33 million.

   Robert Clark

[tater]

 

So of $50M retail, rocket would be ~$25M. Booster is probably more than half in this case since it includes fairings. Round to $15M? That makes stage 2 cost ~$10M? Whatever it is, that's their maneuver room on total price to customer, reducing stage 2 cost, and reducing launch services costs (profit is within that markup).

 

7 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 The cost new of the Falcon 9 is currently at $67 million. SpaceX was able to drop the price for the F9’s with reused boosters by about 1/3rd, to $40 million. Assuming the same for Rocket Lab, which also wants to focus on reusability, then the price with a reused booster would be $33 million.

That article suggests the cost to a customer will be $50M. " It implies Neutron is aiming for a "$50 million to $55 million launch service cost," according to Spice."

Current SpaceX pricing has nothing to do with their actual cost. It has to do with the competition's pricing. If Rocket Lab charges 50-55, SpaceX can simply charge less with F9.

So maybe they are both ~$25M in actual cost, the rest being services/markup. In which case it just competes with F9, and both charge about the same... even if SpaceX competes, they will not "over" compete, they want to make as much per launch as possible. So regardless, both cost about the same.

And F9 is hopefully soon to be deprecated.

Edited June 7, 2023 by tater

[tater]

 

[tater]

about 5.5 hours from now

[tater]

~30 min

 

[tater]

Nominal so far

 

[tater]

 

 

[sevenperforce]

16 hours ago, tater said:

I have to wonder if the use of electric pumps paradoxically makes the engines more amenable to being dunked in seawater, simply because there is no complex turbine plumbing which could be impacted by incursions.

Edited July 18, 2023 by sevenperforce

[tater]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

I have to wonder if the use of electric pumps paradoxically makes the engines more amenable to being dunked in seawater, simply because there is no complex turbine plumbing which could be impacted by incursions.

And presumably they have to be very well sealed to operate around fuel and oxidizer anyway.

Edited July 18, 2023 by tater

[tater]

 

[darthgently]

On 7/18/2023 at 3:05 PM, tater said:

And presumably they have to be very well sealed to operate around fuel and oxidizer anyway.

And the construction and maintenance techniques for sealing electricals from saltwater is very mature given a century plus doing it

[sevenperforce]

They have posted some updated images of Neutron with changes to the OML.

Differences:

Spoiler

Old design:

New design:

Same liftoff mass, so probably not a tank stretch, but they've done a height stretch and moved the fins up to the very top, shrinking the fairing relative to the rest of the vehicle. The upper stage is now even more fully contained inside the cylindrical portion of the vehicle:

Significant leg design change too, perhaps to allow for a more aggressive booster stage re-entry profile.

I'm just concerned about how much propellant they can reasonably have in that tiny upper stage.

[tater]

15 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Differences:

Those images are loading at dialup speed for me (maybe it's just me)

 

I have no idea on scale at this point, the tank dia could be the same—or not—the height could be the same—or not. Just an eyeball assuming the new one is slightly taller:

 

Now I realize I should have pixel counted the fairing dia to 5m.

[RCgothic]

According to the stats it's a height increase of 3m from 40m to 43m with a 2m fairing diameter decrease from 7m to 5m.

[sevenperforce]

25 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

According to the stats it's a height increase of 3m from 40m to 43m with a 2m fairing diameter decrease from 7m to 5m.

Smaller fairing means less articulated mass in the clamshell.

[tater]

 

[RCgothic]

The third is definitely growing on me.

[magnemoe]

13 hours ago, RCgothic said:

The third is definitely growing on me.

Agree, now I don't understand the spike on the end of the fin, I would expect the angle to be the other way so the fold out legs continues the fin then folded up. 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Agree, now I don't understand the spike on the end of the fin, I would expect the angle to be the other way so the fold out legs continues the fin then folded up.

Could be the creative license of the artistic rendition process of the way the engineers imagine the feet folding into that space. Will be interesting to see what eventually flies