-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
RocketLab - Commercial Launch Company trying for Reuse
- Thread starter 30seconds
- Start date
As I recall, SpaceX had a price point less than $10m (I don’t remember exact price) for its Falcon 1. SpaceX didn’t try very hard for that market because they didn’t think there was much of a market for LEO small sats. Also, their strategic objective was Mars anyways, so playing around with small rockets didn’t fit their strategic roadmap.
But nice to see a company step in to fill the hole!
But nice to see a company step in to fill the hole!
The Everyday Astronaut has a lengthy discussion with the CEO/CTO of RocketLab.
A close look at their gorgeous facility:
A close look at their gorgeous facility:
Yeah, there was definitely a resource drain from falcon 1 that wasn’t going to serve the revenue needs of spaceX. That was also a different time where a launcher of that size was really a bit ahead of its time to see a lot of use. Not exactly a fair or equivalent comparison, but Minotaurs and Vegas and Pegasuses weren't exactly flying off the shelves. (In related news, the current Pegasus launch has been a years-long comedy of errors).
RL (and the others, like Firefly) being successful will be huge, because it means you won't need to go on a Falcon to get a low-cost small satellite on orbit. Its no coincidence that the cost of an Electron is basically the same as an equivalent piece of a Spaceflight Falcon, with the added benefit of having more control over when and most importantly to where you launch.
Tagging back into the direct inject discussion from one of the FH threads, when I talk to the RL (and the FF) folks I always push them to turn their upper stage into a satellite bus. So if you see that happen, it was my idea***.
***Its not my idea. I'm not that smart.
It was $6m. I've been watching some interviews with Gwynne the past few days, and the problem with Falcon 1 was that while they had a lot of interest, that interest dissolved when it came to actually booking flights. I think they were simply too early for the smallsat market to materialize, but as you say, in hindsight it was probably better for them to concentrate fully on F9.
I really hope Rocketlab succeed longterm (and I think they will).
I don’t think it would make sense for SpaceX to invest in the resources to recreate the F1 (it’s been a decade since the last one was built) to address the small sat market. There are far too many companies already in or trying to enter that market. And given that the F9 can launch a large number of small sats, and the BFR will be able to launch a huge number of small sats per mission, SpaceX may well be very competitive for many — but not all — of the small sat launches that companies are planning.
It’s much harder to return revenue on a smaller rocket because the cost does not scale linearly, and then to make similar total revenue from the lower price product you need to sell WAY more of them.
Competition is probably also a factor. Why play in the red ocean with a new product when there’s a bright blue ocean for your primary product as far as the eye can see...
Exactly--Having SpaceX serve heavy lifter demand while other players serve the light lifter market is actually a really cooperative relationship. SpaceX can still have the market cornered on constellation launches, where its feasible to really drive the per-unit cost of launch way down. That the price of an ~equivalent portion of a Spaceflight Falcon is ~equivalent to the new small launchers is only a factor for unique one-off type launches and that price point definitely gets thrown out the window when you're launching tens of the same exact thing on a big rocket.
Concurrently the smaller players can serve customers who are putting up pathfinders, constellations that are smaller in quantity and/or mass, and perhaps one-off replacements in larger constellations.
And then...there's still a market for aggregators like Spaceflight with the small launchers, because they can batch-buy launchers and provide cost savings through standardized processes. Small satellite companies typically don't actually have someone with launch expertise, so being able to leverage Spaceflight to fill the gaps is a major advantage.
The future of hucking things into space is definitely looking pretty solid.
And...
spacenews.com
CAPSTONE suffers communications problem
A NASA lunar cubesat mission has lost contact with Earth a day after its deployment, putting into jeopardy its plans to demonstrate a key lunar orbit.
spacenews.com
They should try just pinging the IP address directly...
Good to have it back on track and communicating. And, yes, the launch from Rocketlab was great.
If the engine can be reused after a dunking that might be very cost effective, much like water landed F9 fairings.
Rocketlab specifically mentioned that they did reuse some parts from a recovered booster in a new booster. So some reuse has happened.
Similar threads
