3 ms·

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

• apcragg 9y ago
  That seems... Really bad for the environment? Nobody said launching rockets was environmentally friendly but that sounds particularly egregious.
  • rory096 9y ago
    >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-assembly-to-be-jettisoned-after-rockets-launched-from-Mahia-Peninsula http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/83804825/360kg-motor-assem...
• Gibbon1 9y ago
  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.