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) 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.