3 ms·

Are they pushing stuff to geo-synch orbit? Thats where the big business seems to lie. I thought the article was really vague and surprised it did not talk about

Are they pushing stuff to geo-synch orbit? Thats where the big business seems to lie. I thought the article was really vague and surprised it did not talk about Space X and other competitors.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rsynnott 12y ago
They're going for very small launches to LEO; they're probably targeting small scientific (NASA/ESA etc) payloads more than anything else. They're not really competing with Arianespace, SpaceX etc, whose major business involves launching multi-tonne payloads to GTO.
- syedkarim 12y ago
  Correct, but both SpaceX and Arianespace have rideshares on their large launch vehicles. The Electron is competing with those rideshare opportunities. The current market rate for getting a 1U cubesat to LEO is about $100,000. They will also be competing with NanoRacks.
  - rsynnott 12y ago
    My impression is that rideshares can be fairly restrictive in terms of timing, available orbits, and so forth. This seems like it could be useful for small research payloads with odd requirements; not a huge market, but not non-existent. The ESA designed the Vega for smaller-than-Soyuz-2 payloads; this would seem to slot in nicely under the Vega.
swatkat 12y ago
They're targeting 500km LEO. Here are some specs from their homepage[0]: Paylod: 110kg Orbit: 500km, Sun synchronous Stages: 3 1st stage: 9x "Rutherford"[1] RP/LOX engine 2nd stage: 1x "Rutherford" RP/LOX engine 3rd stage: Solid engine) Cost: $4.9M [0] http://www.rocketlabusa.com/ http://www.rocketlabusa.com/ [1] http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/ http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/
- kephra 12y ago
  Unfortunate they provide even less information to calculate the plausibility of claimed payloads and orbits then SpaceX. And we all know that SpaceX changed its specs and claims several times, and that none of those specs provide a plausible rocket, if you recalculate it. I hope Rocket Lab will do better. I just asked them for the missing specs like empty and loaded mass of each stage, maximum and minimum ISP of each stage, maximum and minimum thrust of each stage, burn time of each stage, inclination of launch site, payload, inclination, apogaeum and perigaeum of or proposed orbits.

Are they pushing stuff to geo-synch orbit? Thats where the big business seems to lie. I thought the article was really vague and surprised it did not talk about Space X and other competitors.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rsynnott 12y ago

They're going for very small launches to LEO; they're probably targeting small scientific (NASA/ESA etc) payloads more than anything else. They're not really competing with Arianespace, SpaceX etc, whose major business involves launching multi-tonne payloads to GTO.

syedkarim 12y ago
Correct, but both SpaceX and Arianespace have rideshares on their large launch vehicles. The Electron is competing with those rideshare opportunities. The current market rate for getting a 1U cubesat to LEO is about $100,000. They will also be competing with NanoRacks.
- rsynnott 12y ago
  My impression is that rideshares can be fairly restrictive in terms of timing, available orbits, and so forth. This seems like it could be useful for small research payloads with odd requirements; not a huge market, but not non-existent. The ESA designed the Vega for smaller-than-Soyuz-2 payloads; this would seem to slot in nicely under the Vega.

swatkat 12y ago

They're targeting 500km LEO. Here are some specs from their homepage[0]: Paylod: 110kg Orbit: 500km, Sun synchronous Stages: 3 1st stage: 9x "Rutherford"[1] RP/LOX engine 2nd stage: 1x "Rutherford" RP/LOX engine 3rd stage: Solid engine) Cost: $4.9M [0] http://www.rocketlabusa.com/ http://www.rocketlabusa.com/ [1] http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/ http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/

kephra 12y ago
Unfortunate they provide even less information to calculate the plausibility of claimed payloads and orbits then SpaceX. And we all know that SpaceX changed its specs and claims several times, and that none of those specs provide a plausible rocket, if you recalculate it. I hope Rocket Lab will do better. I just asked them for the missing specs like empty and loaded mass of each stage, maximum and minimum ISP of each stage, maximum and minimum thrust of each stage, burn time of each stage, inclination of launch site, payload, inclination, apogaeum and perigaeum of or proposed orbits.