I met Peter Beck (CEO/founder) at SmallSat 2014. Hat-tip for doing what he set out to do. He told me that a Ferrari was not much more than a bunch of carbon fiber, software, and fuel--and only costs $500,000. So there is no reason that a small rocket, which is also carbon fiber, software, and fuel, can't also be $500,000. Now that his launch vehicle is orbital, I'm looking forward to it someday being a half-million-dollar launch vehicle.
Minor quibble: The company is over ten years old; I don't think it's quite a startup anymore.
They haven't made their first commercial launch yet. They've certainly received money for scheduled launches in the future, but I'd say they're definitely just getting started.
> The company is over ten years old; I don't think it's quite a startup anymore.
The age of a company has nothing to do with it being a startup. There's a good description of 'startup' in PG's essay here: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
Startups are businesses that are designed to grow quickly. Rocket Lab is. Just because it's been 10 years doesn't mean it's not a startup.
Also, both SpaceX and Tesla are startups. Tesla recently pivoted from being a car company to an energy company, and is only about 1% or so of their way along to their goals. SpaceX has not even begun with their goals of colonizing Mars yet.
These are all startups because they are designed to grow quickly and are nowhere near their goals yet.
It's interesting seeing the difference between the publicity that SpaceX gets, and the publicity of other rocket companies like RocketLab get.
It shows how effective the PR machine for SpaceX is. RocketLabs launch is pretty significant, considering it's the first orbital launch of a rocket designed and built in a small nation.
This has barely hit the news. I guess part of the reason is that it's not in the USA, and that New Zealand isn't capable of putting nuclear warheads on top of one, unlike North Korea.
Seems par for the course don't you think, SpaceX didn't receive much coverage for their grasshopper tests or Falcon 1 flights either? In fact, most of their coverage has just come in the last couple of years after working diligently for ~13 years prior to that.
Ironically I was led to watch RocketLabs launch by r/SpaceX.
With SpaceX, I find it hard to fault them for this.
Public interest in spacetech is inevitably tied to futurism, idealism, idealism, big ideas and such.
SpaceX is building the biggest ever rockets, declaring mars as a goal, landing rockets on rafts like a sci-fi flick... Build the future stuff. They also launch geostationary satelites and supply the ICC, in fact that's what they do as a business.
Whether you want to call this PR, vision, culture or whatever... SpaceX calls satelites and ICC transport "routine" work. It's how they do what they do, not what they do. What they do is the stuff that sounds like breakthroughs, breaking through the limitations keeping us stuck on earth.
It's hard to rate psace companies on a coolness scale. Any space company is already way up on the scale. SpaceX... is like the hollywood version.
In any case, huge congratulations toRocket Lab. A rocket company with weekly scheduled flights on a shoestring is a feat.
You don’t generally make the news for doing things others have done before you. Don’t get me wrong, this company is cool and their success is super exciting, but I see no reason for them to get any press coverage outside of specialty media.
SpaceX was pretty quiet too when they were first starting out, and when they’re all over the news now it’s generally because they’re doing something new.
I doubt nukes have anything to do with it. The Falcon 9 would be an atrociously bad ICBM.
Isn't Rocket Lab a US start-up, funded almost entirely by US money, operated by US executives, with headquarters in Huntington Beach CA and a New Zealand subsidiary?
> New Zealand isn't capable of putting nuclear warheads on top of one, unlike North Korea.
North Korea couldn't put a warhead on top of this one either. The nominal payload of the Electron is 150kg. While there are nuclear warheads that small (the W80 is in that range), it's very unlikely North Korea has achieved anything close to that level of miniaturization.
This is this company's first launch and as such the company is not known for the general public. Moreover, no Elon Musk-like legend has showed up for RocketLab yet. Therefore, it is pretty comprehensible that this launch has received less coverage.
If you're curious about the PR machine associated with SpaceX... see Tesla's stock price and news versus the very real and known issues with their debt/liabilities and production.
Im trying to imagine what would happen if nuclear capable launches were proposed in NZ. It wouldn’t be insurrection, but some something in that ballpark would happen.
What they’ve accomplished is amazing engineering. I’m sort of scratching my head at the economics though. Their cost to orbit is about $15,000/kg. That’s more expensive than the Space Shuttle was. And the CEO has said they’re not working on reusability.
Their goal of rapid manufacturing and frequent launches seems laudable in an expendable launch vehicle world. I’m not sure how they plan to survive when SpaceX and Blue Origin achieve rapid reusability though.
Their differentiation is the ticket price: $5M, for now. A SpaceX F9 is $60M. The cost per kg may be an order of magnitude greater, but so is the ticket price.
Once Blue Origin and SpaceX have rapid-turnaround, their rockets will be able to fly, land, refuel, and fly again within a day or two. It's not just a cost thing. Rapid reusability also increases the launch cadence.
The electron is a really cool rocket. It's constructed using carbon composite tanks and uses Rocketlab's Rutherford engine. The engine is constructed using a large amount of 3d printing and uses battery powered electrically driven fuel pumps.
It's worth mentioning that while electric turbopumps are a lot better that pressure-fed designs, for larger engines they aren't as effective as using pre-burners (due to the weight of the batteries).
Thanks for the link. Super informative commentary. That might have to become a goto YouTube channel of mine seeing as how the frequency of rocket launches is ramping up.
Brilliant video, thanks! Scott Manley's videos are most excellent - this includes but is not limited to his Elite Dangerous and Kerbal Space Program ones.
Though the launch was only a test, Rocket Lab managed to launch three satellites into orbit for tracking shipping, weather and imaging.
Orbital class rocket, not bad. Also, made it to orbit on the second attempt, beat Spacex by two launches :P The Rutherford engine sea level Isp of 303 on RP1/LOX is damn impressive.
Cute, yes, but they were also not sued by their competitors and forced at the last minute to relocate to a salty small island that caused epic issues for those launches, as SpaceX was by ULA.
Does anyone have a decent "Explain like I'm five" explanation for their choice of launch site? My (admittedly layman) understanding of rocket launching was the being near the equator was good, because you pick up a tonne of free velocity that way, and this launch site seems very far south to me.
A)being close to equator helps but not dramatically, logistics are still more important
B)few satellites are actually launched to an equatorial orbit, most of the time you want an inclined or a polar one. If you want your orbit to have around 40 degree inclination NZ is perfect.
I was surprised at how weird it felt to have AU/NZ accents on the mission control (or whatever you call it) channel in the video at the end of that page.
My favorite part of the aborted Friday (EST) launch was when the Kiwi controller was asking the American launch director whether he wanted any pre-determined halts in the launch sequence. It took them 3 goes for the American to understand what he was asking :)
> "Instead of paying hundreds of millions for a very big satellite in geostationary orbit, we now have new constellations of smaller — what we call nano satellites — in low earth orbit at much lower cost," he said.
So, what about earth orbit congestion/pollution caused by these "nano satellites"? Tracking a few thousand big objects is easier than tracking a few million small objects, I would suspect.
And if the cheaper launchers mean that smaller businesses or wealthy individuals will be able to launch their own nano-fleets, there's an increased risk of operator error or just malevolent operators as well.
Won't this just lead to more quickly exhausting the capacity of earth-orbiting space?
Yes, it's a real problem. Satellites should either be shot to a low enough orbit so they decay soon (5 years or so for small satellites), or then they should have a deorbit mechanism.
I think they were launching due south, directly away from the camera
Also most launches are essentially go straight up to get out of the atmospheric drag asap, then hang a turn into orbit - the optimal parameters for when you make that turn is going to be a trade off of a bunch of things - drag, the orbit you want, air pressure that day, .....
[+] [-] syedkarim|8 years ago|reply
Minor quibble: The company is over ten years old; I don't think it's quite a startup anymore.
[+] [-] cptaj|8 years ago|reply
Some industries have longer incubation periods =)
[+] [-] cryptoz|8 years ago|reply
The age of a company has nothing to do with it being a startup. There's a good description of 'startup' in PG's essay here: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
Startups are businesses that are designed to grow quickly. Rocket Lab is. Just because it's been 10 years doesn't mean it's not a startup.
Also, both SpaceX and Tesla are startups. Tesla recently pivoted from being a car company to an energy company, and is only about 1% or so of their way along to their goals. SpaceX has not even begun with their goals of colonizing Mars yet.
These are all startups because they are designed to grow quickly and are nowhere near their goals yet.
[+] [-] toomanybeersies|8 years ago|reply
It shows how effective the PR machine for SpaceX is. RocketLabs launch is pretty significant, considering it's the first orbital launch of a rocket designed and built in a small nation.
This has barely hit the news. I guess part of the reason is that it's not in the USA, and that New Zealand isn't capable of putting nuclear warheads on top of one, unlike North Korea.
[+] [-] Denzel|8 years ago|reply
Ironically I was led to watch RocketLabs launch by r/SpaceX.
[+] [-] dalbasal|8 years ago|reply
Public interest in spacetech is inevitably tied to futurism, idealism, idealism, big ideas and such.
SpaceX is building the biggest ever rockets, declaring mars as a goal, landing rockets on rafts like a sci-fi flick... Build the future stuff. They also launch geostationary satelites and supply the ICC, in fact that's what they do as a business.
Whether you want to call this PR, vision, culture or whatever... SpaceX calls satelites and ICC transport "routine" work. It's how they do what they do, not what they do. What they do is the stuff that sounds like breakthroughs, breaking through the limitations keeping us stuck on earth.
It's hard to rate psace companies on a coolness scale. Any space company is already way up on the scale. SpaceX... is like the hollywood version.
In any case, huge congratulations toRocket Lab. A rocket company with weekly scheduled flights on a shoestring is a feat.
[+] [-] mikeash|8 years ago|reply
SpaceX was pretty quiet too when they were first starting out, and when they’re all over the news now it’s generally because they’re doing something new.
I doubt nukes have anything to do with it. The Falcon 9 would be an atrociously bad ICBM.
[+] [-] bacon_waffle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ioquatix|8 years ago|reply
I'm pretty sure we could if we actually wanted to. But we have a staunch anti-Nuclear policy :)
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boznz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JshWright|8 years ago|reply
North Korea couldn't put a warhead on top of this one either. The nominal payload of the Electron is 150kg. While there are nuclear warheads that small (the W80 is in that range), it's very unlikely North Korea has achieved anything close to that level of miniaturization.
[+] [-] juanmirocks|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erdle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostlogin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snrplfth|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimjimjim|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperpallium|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmcusick|8 years ago|reply
Their goal of rapid manufacturing and frequent launches seems laudable in an expendable launch vehicle world. I’m not sure how they plan to survive when SpaceX and Blue Origin achieve rapid reusability though.
[+] [-] syedkarim|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mwilcox|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmcusick|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirrent|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmiranda|8 years ago|reply
It does make the design much simpler, though.
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|8 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/U5k1mlu6A7I
No transcript, but it's a short video.
[+] [-] igravious|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sundvor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marktangotango|8 years ago|reply
Orbital class rocket, not bad. Also, made it to orbit on the second attempt, beat Spacex by two launches :P The Rutherford engine sea level Isp of 303 on RP1/LOX is damn impressive.
[+] [-] JshWright|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptoz|8 years ago|reply
Cute, yes, but they were also not sued by their competitors and forced at the last minute to relocate to a salty small island that caused epic issues for those launches, as SpaceX was by ULA.
[+] [-] smnrchrds|8 years ago|reply
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/12/01/567267573/plan...
[+] [-] sapphire_tomb|8 years ago|reply
Edit: Punctuation
[+] [-] arctor_bob|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismorgan|8 years ago|reply
I say this as an Australian.
[+] [-] bspn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sspiff|8 years ago|reply
So, what about earth orbit congestion/pollution caused by these "nano satellites"? Tracking a few thousand big objects is easier than tracking a few million small objects, I would suspect.
And if the cheaper launchers mean that smaller businesses or wealthy individuals will be able to launch their own nano-fleets, there's an increased risk of operator error or just malevolent operators as well.
Won't this just lead to more quickly exhausting the capacity of earth-orbiting space?
[+] [-] Gravityloss|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twtw|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pseudolus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nyokodo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] askvictor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Taniwha|8 years ago|reply
Also most launches are essentially go straight up to get out of the atmospheric drag asap, then hang a turn into orbit - the optimal parameters for when you make that turn is going to be a trade off of a bunch of things - drag, the orbit you want, air pressure that day, .....
[+] [-] DrScump|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostlogin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WillReplyfFood|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twic|8 years ago|reply