6 ms·

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

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqxJw5ISdk&feature=youtu.be

xoa 6y ago
>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 6y ago
  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.
  - xoa 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - fiftyfifty 6y ago
      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-rocket-competitor-to-spacexs-falcon-9.html 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.
      - NortySpock 6y ago
        Thanks for posting this. I was unaware they had shifted their strategy towards reusability.
sandworm101 6y ago
>> 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 6y ago
  Conversely, if it gets ITAR-free, it might just pay off for not having DoD as customer.
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    I believe rockets are under ITAR regardless.
    - p_l 6y ago
      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 6y ago
        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 6y ago
        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?

xoa 6y ago

>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 6y ago
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.
- xoa 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - fiftyfifty 6y ago
    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-rocket-competitor-to-spacexs-falcon-9.html 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.
    - NortySpock 6y ago
      Thanks for posting this. I was unaware they had shifted their strategy towards reusability.

sandworm101 6y ago

>> 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 6y ago
Conversely, if it gets ITAR-free, it might just pay off for not having DoD as customer.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  I believe rockets are under ITAR regardless.
  - p_l 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      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 6y ago
      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?