
Rocket Launch in New Zealand Brings Quick, Cheap Space Access - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-11/rocket-launch-in-new-zealand-brings-quick-cheap-space-access
======
peatmoss
The years I spent in New Zealand painted a vivid picture of a society of
doers. I think there’s something to the idea that this comes in part from
being a landmass the size of Colorado, with not much more than 4 million
people, with the freedom and requirements to maintain the infrastructure of
being a sovereign nation.

Seeing a NZ rocket launch condures an image of a small group of doers dreaming
big. Way to go NZ!

~~~
curuinor
Wait, isn't Rocket Lab an american company, and they're just locating the
rocket in NZ?

Founders were Kiwis but HQ is in California...

~~~
greglindahl
The rocket uses a fair amount of ITAR-restricted technology, which means that
they needed a pretty robust US-based organization and engine manufacturing.
The company also sold a bunch of suborbital rocket launches to the US
government before they raised money to build an orbital rocket. And the money
mostly came from US-based VCs. All of these details feed into the company HQ
being in the US, but a majority of their employees appear to be in NZ.

~~~
wbl
ITAR restricts US parts. It does not apply to non US technology sources
although Wassenar and MTCR are multilateral. It would be possible to make
rockets with no ITAR covered parts. After all that's what Russia France and
China have.

~~~
sandworm101
Russian and Chinese rockets are definitely covered by ITAR. ITAR isn't a trade
barrier or patent protection. It doesn't care about national origin. It
applies to all export of relevant technologies from the US. So if you imported
a Russian rocket into the US, its further export would be a violation of ITAR
rules regardless of where that rocket first came from.

~~~
wbl
Right, but if you are importing a Russian rocket to somewhere not US, you
don't have to worry.

------
kibwen
I was about to say that launching so far from the equator sounds very fuel-
inefficient, but it turns out that their launchpad's latitude (39 degrees
south) is nearer the equator than Russia's primary launch site, the Baikonur
Cosmodrome (45 degrees north). For reference, Cape Canaveral is 28 degrees
north.

~~~
taneq
If you think about it, the added starting velocity from launching on the
equator is nice but is still only ~6% of the total velocity required to get
into low Earth orbit. (0.0625 = 1.5 / 24 given orbital period in LEO is ~90
minutes and rotation period is 24 hours). Even at 45 degrees latitude you're
only losing 0.707*6=4.4% of your target velocity.

~~~
masklinn
The problem is not the starting velocity (which is indeed minor, and not an
issue for LEO launches) it's the inclination burns you need to reach GTO/GEO.

With roughly equivalent rockets, there's a 30~40% difference in payload mass
between Kourou (5°N) and Baikonur (45°N): Proton can launch 23t to LEO and 7t
to GTO while Ariane 5 can send 21t to LEO and 10t to GTO.

~~~
taneq
That makes sense, I hadn't really thought about it in this context but I guess
geostationary orbits kind of have to be equatorial.

------
godelski
So there's an interesting context here. This isn't the first time there were a
bunch of small rocket companies around. It'll be interesting to see if RL can
cross the chasm.

In the past these companies have failed because they focused on providing a
launch platform. They said, "Build it and they will come". But no one did, so
good vehicles died.

But timing is (probably) different now. There are many more launches per year.
And not only that, but there's a few paradigm shifts that could help RL out.
Small sats are becoming much more common. Electronics got smaller and thus did
the satellites. But also, we've been finding that you can use off the shelf
electronics if you stay in LEO. Granted, you should use ECC CPUs and memory
(but don't have to), but that's a lot cheaper than silicon on sapphire.

This makes things a little different. Before there was little pressure to push
down the cost of a launch. If your satellite cost $250m, what's the difference
in a few million per launch? And why would you risk that on a newer company?
(Why Musk sent up his Tesla) BUT if your satellites are only a few hundred
thousand dollars, then there's A LOT of pressure to push down launch costs.
You can take more risks on these smaller companies that don't have a good (or
any!) track record.

There's a lot more going on too. But I think these small companies have a much
better chance of succeeding than their ancestors.

------
village-idiot
The most impressive thing about their rockets are the motors they use.

All modern liquid rocket motors use turbo pumps to pressurize liquid fuel and
drive it into the combustion chamber. All other rockets use some fuel to run a
turbine that powers the pumps, with the variations being how that entire
system is piped together.

The Rocket Lab motor, Rutherford, uses a lithium ion battery and electric
motor to power the pumps. This reduces the amount of fuel required to lift
cargo into space by about 10% compared to SpaceX’s already impressive Merlin
1D motors.

Also, they 3D print them in 24 hours, all in one part (sans electronics I
suppose). Which is incredibly impressive.

~~~
Gravityloss
A fuel burning turbine is much more mass efficient than a lithium battery
powered one. And hence also makes the whole vehicle more fuel efficient.

But a turbine is much harder to develop and manufacture. Especially at small
scale, the turbine is also inefficient so it has less advantage to a battery
there.

It wouldn't make sense to run the Falcon 9 pumps with batteries.

~~~
Kye
I wonder how a hybrid approach like they do with freight trains would work.
Generate electricity with energy-dense fuel, then use that to drive electric
motors.

~~~
Gravityloss
Hard to find any energy denser fuels than the ones they already use for main
propulsion.

But yes, with a hybrid one, you could decouple the rotation rate of the
turbine and the pumps. They have different optimal points. Or you could have
more pump stages with different speeds. Some engines use gears for this
purpose (NK-33). Some engines use two turbines, one for each pump (SSME). Also
startup would be nice and easy.

~~~
Kye
>> _" Hard to find any energy denser fuels than the ones they already use for
main propulsion."_

I phrased that poorly. I meant fuel as a class of things compared to
relatively sparse batteries.

~~~
Gravityloss
Ah yes. Still, Soyuz uses different fuel to drive the pumps from the main
propellants. Hydrogen peroxide monopropellant for pumps, liquid oxygen and
kerosene for main propellants.

This is V-2 heritage. Back then the turbine materials were not developed yet
that could take the high heat.

------
2trill2spill
My favorite thing about Rocket Lab is the rocket engine they use[1]. By
replacing the turbopump with a electric motor they were able to remove one of
the single most complicated and expensive parts of a rocket engine. As battery
densities keep increasing we should see electrically fed engines being used on
bigger and bigger rockets.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_\(rocket_engine\))

~~~
neaanopri
Electric turbopumps are an answer to the question: "how small can you make a
commercially viable orbital rocket?"

Atmospheric drag effects rocket performance less and less the larger a rocket
gets (square-cube law), so that a rocket like the Space Shuttle can
effectively ignore the atmosphere. Conversely, the smaller a rocket gets, the
harder and harder launch gets. This is the problem Rocket Lab has decided to
attack.

A decade ago, SpaceX launched the very similar Falcon 1. Falcon 1 was designed
a decade ago, and you can see a large amount of the tech advancements in the
last decade in Rocket Lab's design:

1\. Cheap, lightweight Lithium Polymer (LiPo) batteries.

2\. Cheap and performant brushless motor controllers.

3\. Additive manufacturing for cheaply making complex parts without
significant labor costs.

4\. Advances in composites to enable the first orbital-class composite-bodied
rocket.

Without any one of these advances, Rocket Lab would not be viable. It still
may end up not being viable. Rocket Lab can never compete on bulk orbital
cargo pricing. However, Rocket Lab's vision of applying recent tech
advancements to bring down the smallest possible launcher size is extremely
commendable.

~~~
trainingaccount
A variation of a couple of degrees during launch would rip the Shuttle's wings
off, so "ignore" is not the right word here.

~~~
neaanopri
True, but a quick look at the Space Shuttle launch configuration shows that
aerodynamics, while not totally irrelevant, were _not_ the dominant concern.

------
walterbell
From [http://www.nanosats.eu](http://www.nanosats.eu) (Oct 2018 stats)

    
    
      Nanosats launched: 966
      CubeSats launched: 878
      Countries with nanosats: 58
      Companies in database: 323
      Forecast: over 3000 nanosats to launch in 6 years
    

OMG is working on an open SysML reference model for CubeSats,
[https://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?space/18-09-04.pdf](https://www.omg.org/cgi-
bin/doc?space/18-09-04.pdf) (starts on page 20)

 _> A SysML compliant and tool-independent CubeSat template model that
provides building blocks that can be specialized to support MBSE CubeSat
design will lower the cost of development ... start-up and mature satellite
development organizations can benefit from ... common model structure and
framework to support increased production without jeopardizing successful
deployment and operation.

> Many of these organizations are university programs that combine aerospace
> engineering instruction with fundamental research while developing,
> launching, and operating a spacecraft. With a planned turnover of most of
> the engineering staff within a short period of time ... need a common
> engineering framework and knowledge base that stores the institutional
> knowledge acquired by previous space missions, so that incoming personnel
> can quickly contribute _

------
tychomaz
I’m pretty sure “It’s Business Time” refers to a Flight of the Conchords song:

[https://youtu.be/WGOohBytKTU](https://youtu.be/WGOohBytKTU)

~~~
dexterdog
Yup - that's what I assumed when I saw the name and that it's in NZ. It got a
pretty good chuckle out of me.

------
flyingkiwi44
For those asking if there is demand for small rockets that can be sent up
often.

"Australian start-up Fleet Space Technologies sent up two satellites ... Fleet
has spent all year waiting to hitch rides on rockets from SpaceX and the
Indian government ... About six weeks ago, it found out there was room on the
Rocket Lab rocket. Typically, it takes months or years to get satellites
ready, installed and certified for launch, but in this new era of cheap, fast
space, Fleet got its hardware on board in record time."

~~~
shirro
Good to see Fleet Space launching. They are Adelaide based.

We used to have one of the biggest missile/rocket ranges in the world once.
Kistler were thinking of bringing the range back in the 00s but didn't
survive. As NZ picks up the baton and charges forward it is good to see we
still have a role to play with payloads.

------
MichaelMoser123
Do these nano satellites turn into some form of space junk, when will the
orbit deteriorate / will they burn up?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris)

~~~
dtkav
As long as cubesat launch providers stick to ~500km orbits, they will
typically deorbit within a few years (depending on their ballistic
coefficient). The ITU guideline is a max lifetime of 25 years. They burn up in
the atmosphere on re-entry.

More info here: [https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/space/workshops/2015-prague-
sma...](https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/space/workshops/2015-prague-small-
sat/Presentations/MEW-Prague.pdf)

------
gersh
As launching satellites into space becomes cheaper, I'd imagine we will get
increasing issues of satellite collisions and interference. Do we need a
regulatory framework to address this?

I understand space is becoming increasingly militarized. I wonder what a war
will of shooting at satellites will look like. What would happen if all the
satellites were taken out?

~~~
geerlingguy
There is the Space Liability Convention[1], but it's not a solution, just a
'we promise not to harm the space environment intentionally and be
cooperative' kind of thing.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention)

------
14
I am approaching my 40's and wonder am I just a bit too old that by the space
flight is for the common person I will have missed my chance. I really hope I
can make it to space one day.

~~~
jcims
I’m a little older, I’m banking my hopes on an option in 30 years. Just
visited my grandpa yesterday for his 90th birthday, his body is slowing down
but his mind is as sharp as ever.

I’m not counting it out just yet.

~~~
sgc
I'm not convinced that they will allow the elderly to fly anyways. Too many
Gs.

~~~
jcims
Eh, Glenn flew on STS-95 at 77 years old. In ten years I go apeshit on TRT,
ride that lightning for 20 years and look like Sylvester Stallone in my mid
70's. I'm not worried about 4g's.

------
scottmsul
> SpaceX can take far more cargo to space, but Rocket Lab is pitching its
> nimbleness and low-cost as ways to give new customers access to space and to
> do so on a more convenient schedule.

Weren't small low-cost launches the original goal of SpaceX? I recall Elon
saying there wasn't actually that much demand, which is why they were forced
to scale up in the first place. Has the market changed recently for small low-
cost launches?

~~~
rory096
Yes, the smallsat market has grown immensely over the last decade.[0] The
propagation of larger CubeSat standards and the advent of rideshare in
particular have driven growth. Many companies (Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit,
Vector, Relativity...) are now betting that demand is sufficient to support at
least a handful of dedicated smallsat launchers to avoid the hassles & delays
that come from rideshare.

[0]
[http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/jatm/v9n3//2175-9146-jatm-...](http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/jatm/v9n3//2175-9146-jatm-09-03-0269-gf01.jpg),
via
[http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2175...](http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2175-91462017000300269)

------
nl
Fleet.space (a company local to me in Adelaide) had 2 satellites as they
payload. They only found out about the launch 6 weeks ago and had to build the
satellites in that time.

------
curtis
I can't help but wonder if there are some interesting applications for
electrically pumped rocket engines beyond just the small satellite market. For
example, could you attach 3 or 4 Electron-derived boosters to an Atlas V first
stage and use them to land it like a Falcon 9?

~~~
power78
That would be a lot of extra launch weight just to return the first stage, not
to mention the danger of having filled boosters on the rocket the whole
launch.

~~~
curtis
They're boosters, they can boost themselves, so it seems like you could make
them delta-V neutral.

Atlas V regularly launches with solid fuel boosters which are much larger and
more powerful than an Electron, so it seems like there's no fundamental reason
it wouldn't work. The economics is a different story, of course.

Atlas V is slated to be replaced by Vulcan sometime in the next few years
anyway. Vulcan has a re-use story, but it involves only re-using the engines,
not the entire stage. Full stage re-use like Falcon 9 has the same problem as
Atlas V, there's no way you could deep throttle the main engines enough to
land an empty stage.

It seems unlikely that anybody (most especially ULA who are very conservative)
will turn Electrons into bolt-on boosters for an existing stage design. But
integrating small electrically pumped rocket engines into a new design might
be considered a lot less risky. Especially with SpaceX having fundamentally
changed the economics of the heavy launch business.

------
gok
Very cool, but is there really a future for tiny expendable rockets in a world
of big reusable ones?

~~~
wepple
Yeah, RL are hoping to have weekly cadence. I suspect larger launch vehicles
won’t be able to match that kind of regularity or response time for smaller
payloads

------
ajmurmann
I'm really excited about space flight and wish we could make it to Mars
already, build space colonies etc. At the same time I'm also very excited
about electric vehicle and hope we can replace all combustion engines with
clean, sustainable, electric drives. Of course this goes had in hand with
green energy sources. So at times I try to consolidate these views and
struggle with it. What's going to be the carbon impact of ordinary people
going to space? Or worse what's the carbon impact of following Musk's vision
of using BFR for super quick international travel? I can only imagine it to be
catastrophic.

~~~
HeadsUpHigh
Methane based rockets can be carbon neutral if you use air co2 to produce
methane( which is possible btw).

------
auslander
Look up JAXAs SS-520-5. 10m height, 0.5m diam, got a cubesat to orbit year
ago. Smallest orbital rocket by far.

~~~
dtkav
It made it to orbit, but it was highly eliptical. They put it into an 180 km ×
1500 km orbit with 31° inclination. It had a lifetime of about 6 months before
re-entering.

------
electriclove
Very cool! Are these reusable?

~~~
twtw
No.

------
FlyingSideKick
While this is fantastic news on one hand, it is concerning that cheap launches
will lead to so much debris in low earth orbit that future generations will
find it difficult to orbit without significant risk of micrometeorite strikes.

~~~
devindotcom
Rocket Lab is being pretty good about this. Their rocket designs are super low
waste compared with older ones. It's one of Peter Beck's pet issues.

------
quadcore
I wish I could put software in one of those shoebox satellites.

~~~
Waterluvian
I just had a daydream of Satellites as a Service. "give us a docker image
extending our base image, no larger than x MB delta, and we will run it on a
chosen satellite for a certain time slice for $y"

I can see that future. Even if purely as a learning tool for students.

~~~
breischl
Would the satellites have some known set of sensors or something like that?
Just trying to figure out what would be the point, other than just the
coolness of running code in spaaaaaaaace.

~~~
Waterluvian
Yes, some common API for access to attitude sensors. Maybe a radio. But
honestly the point I envision is that it's cool. And teaches kids/teens that
this space stuff isn't that far out of reach.

I just remember growing up thinking that I'm a C student and so all this stuff
is to be left to the smart people. And that error in perspective drove my
thinking for a long time.

You never really know what will be the spark that helps someone discover their
passion. Maybe it's Nyancat Sputnik.

------
dwd
I'm still chuckling that they called the rocket "It's Business Time".

I'm guessing partly a hat tip to SpaceX and the naming of their drone ships,
but more so named after a song by the Flight of the Conchords.

~~~
nkurz
For the those wondering why he chuckles, here's the song in question:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGOohBytKTU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGOohBytKTU)

~~~
tambourine_man
Thanks for that, I had a good laugh.

I’m still amazed there are videos of something you’ve never heard of with 35
million views.

~~~
discoball
I remember Flight of the Conchords was a huge hit in the Bay area in 2007-2009
amongst the hipster-ish and nerdy crowd. We used to torrent it =) along with
HyperDrive (British comedy set in space) and the super popular IT Crowds. All
great shows.

I think HBO allows you to watch it for free now: [https://www.hbo.com/flight-
of-the-conchords](https://www.hbo.com/flight-of-the-conchords)

~~~
jamsch
Not in New Zealand apparently :(

------
tootie
> The rocket dubbed “It’s Business Time” took off just before 5 p.m.

We've advanced to the point of giving jokey pop culture names to space
vehicles. And if they wanted to promote New Zealand's prominence in the world,
they couldn't have made a better choice.

[https://youtu.be/WGOohBytKTU](https://youtu.be/WGOohBytKTU)

~~~
schoen
Compare the SpaceX barge names, which are taken from Iain M. Banks books:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_shi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship)

~~~
Qworg
The culture we have versus the Culture we want?

~~~
stcredzero
Those are among my favorite Sci-fi novels. However, I think being the pet of
higher powers only works out in fiction.

