SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
After a failure to reach orbit last year and several delays, Rocket Lab has successfully launched an Electron rocket into orbit:
Rocket Lab has returned to action with the second launch of its Electron rocket from the Māhia Peninsula from the North Island of New Zealand's eastern coast. Several attempts to launch at the end of last year were scrubbed before regrouping for a new attempt – which was also scrubbed, due to a wayward boat, a technical issue and then the weather – before finally launching at 01:43 UTC on Sunday and appears to have been a success.
Much like Vector Space – which is currently in small-scale suborbital testing with aims to enter the launch market next year – Rocket Lab caters to much the same market, offering small satellite users a dedicated launch system to eliminate ride-sharing requirements on the larger, more established launchers.
According to the company's website, Rocket Lab lists its launch services with Electron as costing $4.9 million (USD) per flight.
Rocket Lab has two more upcoming launches planned for Q1 2018, including a lunar lander for Moon Express. The Electron rocket will deliver the Moon Express payload into low-Earth orbit, where the lander will use its own thrusters to get to the Moon:
Once in low-Earth orbit, the MX-1E will need to complete a translunar injection (TLI) burn, cruise through space, conduct a breaking[sic] burn to enter lunar orbit, and finally complete descent and landing burns—all by itself. It would be an unprecedented accomplishment, a single-stage spacecraft that can make it all the way to the surface of the moon from low-Earth orbit.
How will a cheap disposable rocket fare against reusable rockets?
Also at Wired.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Monday January 22 2018, @03:00PM (10 children)
This is a fantastic achievement, good on you RocketLab. Getting it right on your second launch is awesome.
>> How will a cheap disposable rocket fare against reusable rockets?
The market segments for these are different enough that I don't think a legitimate comparison exists yet. The Electron would be 1.7 million dollars per launch cheaper than the non-reusable end-of-life Falcon 1. SpaceX's doesn't fly that now and the next smallest system, the Falcon 9, is huge by comparison. For scale, with a taller fairing a single Falcon 9 could carry a pair of Electron rockets (the whole rocket, not just the payload) to LEO. The $5 million question is "is there a market for small-payload launches that isn't filled by the current secondary payload system?"
It's definitely a company to keep an eye on. Being outside the US (and free of the ITAR bollocks) is a good thing, imho.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Monday January 22 2018, @03:26PM (8 children)
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities [spacex.com]
Falcon 9 launch price is $62 million. This price could go down by 10-30% depending on reusability factors (will you use a "flight-proven" Falcon 9 and use it in partially reusable rather than fully expendable mode).
Falcon 9 gets 22,800 kg to LEO.
Big Falcon/Fucking Rocket launches are expected to be cheaper than Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy launches due to complete reusability of both stages. With a payload of 150,000 kg to LEO in fully reusable mode.
Electron can get 225 kg to LEO [spacelaunchreport.com] for $4.9 million.
Let's say the BFR costs $50 million (it might end up closer to $10 million). What if the BFR ends up reserving a significant amount of propellant in order to change its orbit several times and deploy CubeSats in the appropriate orbits? Maybe it could release 100x 250 kg payloads, and still have enough propellant to land both stages.
The logistics of reserving a seat with 99 other payloads could be annoying. But you could have a few big ones and CubeSats.
Now we have had people estimating that BFR will cost $7 million per launch:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3343/1 [thespacereview.com]
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/spacex-bfr-to-be-lower-cost-than-falcon-1-at-7-million-per-launch.html [nextbigfuture.com]
So now we're talking $4.9 million for 225 kg vs. $7 million for 150,000 kg. This is the "Oh, shit" moment for human space activities.
SpaceX will have to launch a lot of reused BFRs to get down to that price, but it can be done. The U.S. government could purchase a huge dedicated fleet of BFRs and still save money in comparison to some of their other activities (e.g. Space Launch System).
Electron is only the first launch vehicle from Rocket Lab, and they might increase thrust and payload while reducing price. But their ability to make their rockets reusable is hindered by their small size. Smaller rocket means less fuel can be reserved for landing. The fuel is relatively cheap compared to the rocket. That's why the larger-than-Falcon-Heavy BFR could end up launching at prices cheaper than even the Falcon 1 (when adjusted for inflation). And that's why I added the comment to the summary and have some doubts about the ultimate viability of Rocket Lab, although I commend them for their initial success. BFR will probably be flying within 6-10 years, so that's when we should expect the bloodbath.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @05:08PM (4 children)
at a price somewhere between $50M and $7M... depending.
RocketLab launched just the other day, and is projecting costs of $5M. With 6-10 more years of development, who knows what this landscape will look like.
Certainly, BFR is making some convincing "own the world" noises, but they're still unproven.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 22 2018, @05:17PM (3 children)
How much are university customers paying to get there CubeSats launched alongside larger payloads on Falcon 9 rockets? Answer that and we'll see how viable the $4.9 million price tag is. Remember that Rocket Lab says they want to launch around 50 per year.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @05:46PM (2 children)
I'm guessing that their marketing department has worked out this number as a price point to shoot for, not the true cost of operations. If they manage to get up to 50 launches per year, I'd expect those launches to cost quite a bit less than $4.9M each. And, I'm even more sure that this launch cost far more than $4.9M to-date to accomplish.
They make a big deal about the sun-synchronous orbit as a sort of high-value trajectory, probably attempting to justify the $1.65M/cubesat price point.
I think it's exciting and encouraging that they are able to chart a different technological course and at least potentially succeed in the space market. I hate homogeneous global systems, monoculture crops, and all their like. Even if RocketLabs ultimately fizzles on the business end, hopefully some of the tech they develop can cross-pollinate with other programs to make the whole ecosystem more robust. Even better if the business end works and we can operate several different kinds of launch vehicles, instead of one booster to rule them all (one booster to find them, one booster to bring them all and in the darkness... yeah.)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Alphatool on Tuesday January 23 2018, @01:41PM (1 child)
$4.9 million is a significant reduction in current launch costs. Spaceflight Industries operate in the secondary payload market and they publish their prices [spaceflight.com]. Basically, it looks like Rocket Lab will be noticeably but not dramatically cheaper than current services, but the services are different enough to complicate the comparison. Rocket Lab also allows some payloads to switch from secondary status to their own rocket which offers more flexibility and eliminates the compromises that must be made as a secondary payload, so there is an added advantage there too.
I hope that BFR (or any rocket) slashes the cost of orbit so much that $4.9 million is an expensive launch, but until then it looks like Rocket Lab have a very competitive place in the market.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:43PM
After all, they do have rocket scientists in engineering, hopefully the marketing and accountants can project their window of opportunity and amoritize the cost of development across the competitive life of the launch vehicle. +/- 50% maybe, marketing isn't as precise as orbital trajectories.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday January 22 2018, @10:03PM (2 children)
It's going to be a really really long time before FH of BFR get down in price, if they ever do.
I don't believe that you can conduct such a big operation for only $7M, period. Not now, and certainly not after another 10 years of inflation.
Even $50M feels unnecessarily aggressive target for so much weight.
How much of the number is the fuels? How much are the range, the pad? How much is the legalese, the insurances, the safety, even the launch camera/radar infrastructure?
There is no commercial reason to go so far (per kg) below your competitors. And there is no way the math works under $20M, if you count amortizing the dev costs, engineers, accidental losses, interest on years of financing... after those fixed launch costs, even if the rocket's metal was free to build.
Is it cheaper to tag along on a reusable rocket with a big sat which pays most of the cost? Sure, like it's cheaper to operate a full bus than a bunch of cars (especially if you sink the cars at destination). But there is a market for "not having the overhead of being the tiny sat next to the big important one".
Like all engineering, it's a matter of tradeoffs. The small guys can have a profitable niche, and could pick up enough market share that they have progressed in cost or reuse by the time the big guys deliver on their lofty promises (late. looking at you, Elon).
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 22 2018, @10:30PM (1 child)
Falcon Heavy won't have a long time to get down in price before being replaced by BFR. Falcon Heavy is not fully reusable, but the 2 boosters and the first stage are. It can also reuse the 2 boosters while expending the center - first stage. The second stage is always going to be expendable, practically.
The only reason why Falcon Heavy is kind of a good idea is because the boosters and first stage are interchangeable with the Falcon 9 first stages. So there's already a supply of them and they are proven (as Falcon 9s anyway).
There were actually some good reasons to delay Falcon Heavy so much... the Falcon 9 gradually evolved, and still is as it will fly as Falcon 9 Block 5 soon (the final version?).
SpaceX can gradually bring prices down with reusable rockets, and BFR launch won't debut at $7 million. But they could face competition as ULA and others are now working on partially reusable rockets and in-orbit refueling so they have an incentive to bring prices down. BFR launch price of $7 million is eventually reasonable because it will be built to be reused up to 1,000 times each, with no part thrown away (well, I'm not sure about the fairing). Fuel cost is about $500,000. And if they are only launching payloads every 1-2 weeks, they could use the same BFR every week. One single rocket launching ~30 times per year. Few customers would need expendable mode BFR since 250 ton payloads have never launched in history (Saturn V did just 140 tons).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday January 22 2018, @10:45PM
Using your numbers: 30 launches at $7M, with $500k fuel ... $210M income, minus $15M fuel ... $195M / year gross profit .... minus all those costs I listed in my previous post.
Not happening.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @05:03PM
I'm not fully acquainted with the details, but I did read that RocketLab took significant US investment in part to ease regulatory approvals.
🌻🌻 [google.com]