3 ms·

Really? RocketLab are going great guns. There's nothing outlandishly novel with their Neutron design (bar the 007 style fairing). If you've not seen the recent

by _joel 5y ago

Really? RocketLab are going great guns. There's nothing outlandishly novel with their Neutron design (bar the 007 style fairing). If you've not seen the recent interviews with Peter Beck, I'd highly recommend you to do so.

jacquesm 5y ago
Their payload masses are a joke, and they are more than a decade behind SpaceX at this point in terms of development and experience. Falcon 1 was retired more than a decade ago, and they are still flying the equivalent today. I don't think they realistically stand a chance to outcompete SpaceX within the next ten years on any dimension, after all, SpaceX is a fast moving target itself. But that's just my opinion, so we'll have to wait to see how it plays out. It would be great to have a real competitor to SpaceX, that can't come soon enough, I do give them better chances than Bezos and his toy factory.
- _joel 5y ago
  For space telescopes (which this topic is about) doesn't need super heavy lift capability, just larger diameter. Neutron is planned to be 7m diameter. Please, just watch the interview. It might change your opinion by listening to the plan, I know I felt much more optimistic about more serious players in the field.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I agree in principle, I think they are the #5 player right now in the commercial lift arena, SpaceX first, ArianeSpace second, ULA third, the Russians fourth and then Neutron. Which is quite an achievement. There are other players but those are not commercially available. So they are in excellent company but they still have a very long way to go, which given their funding is only to be expected. Once they start to fly heavier payloads and more complex engine configurations they will be a player to be reckoned with.
    - _joel 5y ago
      I'd be interested to see what the Arianne 6 turns out like given A5 is now sold out, but it still won't be reusable so high cost despite half an A5, but that doesn't matter as their main customer is ESA and they're pretty wedded to them politically. I'm not aware of any reusable vehicles by ULA and all the current flights are fully booked, they're sold out of their current block. There were only a handful of launches last year, I think Electron actually flew more. For the new, they're waiting for engines from Blue Origin but they'll probably end up using RS as it doesn't look like BO will deliver. The Russians (and Chinese) are basically copying anything SpaceX in terms of reusable heavy lift, which might be a good plan in the long-term but it's not that innovative.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Better a good copy than a bad original. Copying the leader is smart. Innovation is expensive and risky, something the Chinese are not very well equipped to do (yet) and the Russians can't afford. I think long term if Ariane Space and ULA don't adapt that they'll die unless they keep being subsidized. But if SpaceX manages to reduce cost even further then that will make no sense, it is already very hard to justify.

by _joel 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

Their payload masses are a joke, and they are more than a decade behind SpaceX at this point in terms of development and experience. Falcon 1 was retired more than a decade ago, and they are still flying the equivalent today. I don't think they realistically stand a chance to outcompete SpaceX within the next ten years on any dimension, after all, SpaceX is a fast moving target itself. But that's just my opinion, so we'll have to wait to see how it plays out. It would be great to have a real competitor to SpaceX, that can't come soon enough, I do give them better chances than Bezos and his toy factory.

_joel 5y ago
For space telescopes (which this topic is about) doesn't need super heavy lift capability, just larger diameter. Neutron is planned to be 7m diameter. Please, just watch the interview. It might change your opinion by listening to the plan, I know I felt much more optimistic about more serious players in the field.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I agree in principle, I think they are the #5 player right now in the commercial lift arena, SpaceX first, ArianeSpace second, ULA third, the Russians fourth and then Neutron. Which is quite an achievement. There are other players but those are not commercially available. So they are in excellent company but they still have a very long way to go, which given their funding is only to be expected. Once they start to fly heavier payloads and more complex engine configurations they will be a player to be reckoned with.
  - _joel 5y ago
    I'd be interested to see what the Arianne 6 turns out like given A5 is now sold out, but it still won't be reusable so high cost despite half an A5, but that doesn't matter as their main customer is ESA and they're pretty wedded to them politically. I'm not aware of any reusable vehicles by ULA and all the current flights are fully booked, they're sold out of their current block. There were only a handful of launches last year, I think Electron actually flew more. For the new, they're waiting for engines from Blue Origin but they'll probably end up using RS as it doesn't look like BO will deliver. The Russians (and Chinese) are basically copying anything SpaceX in terms of reusable heavy lift, which might be a good plan in the long-term but it's not that innovative.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Better a good copy than a bad original. Copying the leader is smart. Innovation is expensive and risky, something the Chinese are not very well equipped to do (yet) and the Russians can't afford. I think long term if Ariane Space and ULA don't adapt that they'll die unless they keep being subsidized. But if SpaceX manages to reduce cost even further then that will make no sense, it is already very hard to justify.