
Rocket Lab vehicle lost during second stage burn on 13th mission - SergeAx
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1279531664759091200
======
noway421
Something happened just before the fuel pump battery hot-swap on the second
stage. Here's some visualisation of the acceleration drop-off scraped from the
web stream:
[https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1279583677890965504](https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1279583677890965504)

~~~
rydre
If the engines were shut down, the acceleration would be instantly negative.
The decay happens faster, no shutdown until it hits zero.

~~~
SergeAx
For negative acceleration the body needs a force applied in opposite
direction. Atmosphere density @ 190 km is nine orders of magnitude less than
at sea level, so the drag is negligible.

~~~
rydre
Gravity is the negative acceleration force.

~~~
SergeAx
Gravity vector was at the moment directed about 70-75 degrees relativе to
speed. You may see the speed decreasing slightly while altitude still
increasing, meaning vehicle gone ballistic.

------
cameldrv
Can someone comment on the economics of this? Rocket Lab is charging $5m for
150kg to SSO. SpaceX offers 150kg to SSO on the smallsat rideshare for $1m.
What sorts of payloads would not be suitable for rideshare or would be worth
5x the cost for better scheduling or a better orbit?

~~~
swatkat
There are a few companies such as Spaceflight[1] that partner with launch
providers such as ISRO[2][3] to offer rideshare and dedicated launches at much
cheaper prices.

[1] [https://spaceflight.com/pricing/](https://spaceflight.com/pricing/)

[2] [https://www.isro.gov.in/launchers](https://www.isro.gov.in/launchers)

[3] [https://www.nsilindia.co.in/launch-
services](https://www.nsilindia.co.in/launch-services)

~~~
tigershark
They are cheaper only for nano satellites. From your first link it costs 295k$
for 10kg to LEO. With spaceX you can send up to 200 kg to LEO for 1M$. It’s 20
times the payload for ~3 times the price.

------
bryanlarsen
IIRC, this breaks a record that no other rocket has achieved. Prior to this
mission, every single Rocket Lab flight with a paying customer has been a
success. Many other rockets have had 11 successes in a row, but no other
rocket has had their first 11 launches with payloads be a success.

(Rocket Lab's first mission was also a failure, but it did not have a payload.
That failure was with ground equipment, so this current failure is their first
rocket failure).

~~~
Rebelgecko
I don't think that's quite right

The Minotaur is currently 11/11 (with a 12th launch planned later this year).

Space Shuttle had 24 consecutive launches before a failure

The standard Delta IV has also had 24 consecutive successes.

~~~
vosper
I'll preface this by saying I don't know much about space launches...

> Space Shuttle had 24 consecutive launches before a failure

The Space Shuttle system was not "a rocket", so possibly GP wasn't counting
it?

> The standard Delta IV has also had 24 consecutive successes.

Were those consecutive successes from the first launch without a dummy
payload?

~~~
Rebelgecko
>The Space Shuttle system was not "a rocket", so possibly GP wasn't counting
it?

I don't see why the space shuttle wouldn't be considered a rocket? It had 3
rocket engines coming out the back of it.

>Were those consecutive successes from the first launch without a dummy
payload?

Yes, although I goofed the math and it was actually 29. If we're excluding
launches with dummy payloads, you could actually add in the Delta IV Heavy,
which brings the total up to 39.

~~~
vosper
> I don't see why the space shuttle wouldn't be considered a rocket? It had 3
> rocket engines coming out the back of it.

Duh, you're right, of course - I somehow was thinking just of the boosters.

------
SergeAx
Webcast:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZcZoDFYjXc&feature=youtu.be](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZcZoDFYjXc&feature=youtu.be)

~~~
numpad0
Is it just me or does S2 appears rolling to the right in camera?

------
p1mrx
At least we know Rocket Lab's webcast uses real telemetry, unlike Blue Origin,
where they break the laws of Physics by pausing at 0 MPH:
[https://youtu.be/sUEj4dxPMbI?t=2658](https://youtu.be/sUEj4dxPMbI?t=2658)

~~~
danbr
New Shepard is a suborbital rocket. It reaches apogee (velocity drops to
zero), and drops back to land propulsively.

It’s possible it experiences zero-G for more than just a few milliseconds at
its apogee. Hence the 0mph velocity.

~~~
p1mrx
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders: conflating velocity with its
derivative.

The (approximately) zero-G period lasts for minutes, not milliseconds, and
during that time, the velocity changes by 9.8 m/s (22 MPH) every second. The
velocity should not pause at 0, or any other value.

~~~
dmurray
22 mph per second is an abomination of a mixed unit I'd never heard before,
but it's actually much more intuitive to me than the standard 9.8 metres per
second per second.

Maybe we can compromise on 35 km/h per second though.

~~~
p1mrx
I wouldn't normally use MPH/s, but it fits the units in the Blue Origin video.

------
st_goliath
Obligatory analysis video by Scott Manley:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayYgPdk0VVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayYgPdk0VVc)

