
New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket - RachelF
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886
======
syedkarim
I met Peter Beck (CEO/founder) at SmallSat 2014. Hat-tip for doing what he set
out to do. He told me that a Ferrari was not much more than a bunch of carbon
fiber, software, and fuel--and only costs $500,000. So there is no reason that
a small rocket, which is also carbon fiber, software, and fuel, can't also be
$500,000. Now that his launch vehicle is orbital, I'm looking forward to it
someday being a half-million-dollar launch vehicle.

Minor quibble: The company is over ten years old; I don't think it's quite a
startup anymore.

~~~
cptaj
They haven't made their first commercial launch yet. They've certainly
received money for scheduled launches in the future, but I'd say they're
definitely just getting started.

Some industries have longer incubation periods =)

~~~
mappu
I think this launch was commercial - it put three satellites from two private
companies (Planet Labs / Spire Global) into orbit.

------
toomanybeersies
It's interesting seeing the difference between the publicity that SpaceX gets,
and the publicity of other rocket companies like RocketLab get.

It shows how effective the PR machine for SpaceX is. RocketLabs launch is
pretty significant, considering it's the first orbital launch of a rocket
designed and built in a small nation.

This has barely hit the news. I guess part of the reason is that it's not in
the USA, and that New Zealand isn't capable of putting nuclear warheads on top
of one, unlike North Korea.

~~~
adventured
Isn't Rocket Lab a US start-up, funded almost entirely by US money, operated
by US executives, with headquarters in Huntington Beach CA and a New Zealand
subsidiary?

~~~
toomanybeersies
It was started in New Zealand, and got its initial investment from New
Zealand, but the majority of funding now comes from America and the majority
of ownership is American.

However, most of the R&D, operations, and manufacturing are done in New
Zealand. I almost applied for a job there, but it would've required relocating
to Auckland, which I wasn't willing to do.

~~~
lancewiggs
Come on over - life is amazing here in Auckland.

~~~
toomanybeersies
I actually recently emigrated over the ditch to Melbourne from Wellington.

If I do go back to New Zealand, it would be to Christchurch, where I went to
university. The lifestyle in Christchurch is a lot more laid back, more
outdoor activities (great skiing and hunting), and rent is a lot cheaper.

Unfortunately the market for Ruby developers is practically non-existent in
New Zealand, so I don't think it would be practical for me to move back to NZ
for the next 5 years or so.

~~~
jashmatthews
Interesting. I was a Ruby developer in Wellington from 2013 to 2016 and felt
demand was huge compared to the size of the city.

------
bmcusick
What they’ve accomplished is amazing engineering. I’m sort of scratching my
head at the economics though. Their cost to orbit is about $15,000/kg. That’s
more expensive than the Space Shuttle was. And the CEO has said they’re not
working on reusability.

Their goal of rapid manufacturing and frequent launches seems laudable in an
expendable launch vehicle world. I’m not sure how they plan to survive when
SpaceX and Blue Origin achieve rapid reusability though.

~~~
syedkarim
Their differentiation is the ticket price: $5M, for now. A SpaceX F9 is $60M.
The cost per kg may be an order of magnitude greater, but so is the ticket
price.

~~~
jessriedel
This is only really useful if you want to put a tiny satellite in an unusual
orbit. For frequently trafficked orbits, you can just hitch a ride on a larger
launch.

Could be a successful business niche, but it doesn’t seem likely to
revolutionize anything.

~~~
manicdee
SpaceX simply doesn’t have the launch cadence to be anywhere near as useful to
certain markets as Rocketlabs will be.

Specifically, RL is ideal for a series of small satellites launched at a
regular cadence to perform e.g. atmospheric studies. For this niche, booking
ride shares requires booking a seat years in advance through a launch broker
and then accepting whatever delays eventuate for the entire payload.

If a company or government wants to get a small satellite into space quickly
or with tighter constraints on launch windows, RL will be the launcher of
preference since their aim is to reduce the time from launch booking to
orbital deployment. Being the only payload and customer means using the same
payload adaptor each launch, which means lower integration costs. Reducing
time from booking to orbit means satellites aren’t sitting in a clean room for
years waiting for launch.

Launch costs measured in terms of $/kg are only part of the feasibility of a
particular launch platform. It is a (very roughly) similar scenario to
commuters using private vehicles rather than public transport.

~~~
jessriedel
The timescale point is fine, but it doesn't support the suggestion that RL
will go beyond niche (which private road vehicles obviously do). The reason is
that the overwhelming limiting factor on launching more satellites is cost,
not slow pace.

Do you know of projections for RL future market share? I conjecture less than
5% of total satellite launch market.

~~~
manicdee
I am speculating that RL will carve out a niche which is launches for
satellites that need a regular cadence at a pace faster than SpaceX can
afford.

So for example rather than spending $50M launching 1 x $150M satellite to
slowly gather outer atmospheric studies over a period of decades, launch 50 x
$3M satellites with $1M launch costs to gather more data over a shorter period
of time.

------
kirrent
The electron is a really cool rocket. It's constructed using carbon composite
tanks and uses Rocketlab's Rutherford engine. The engine is constructed using
a large amount of 3d printing and uses battery powered electrically driven
fuel pumps.

~~~
bmiranda
It's worth mentioning that while electric turbopumps are a lot better that
pressure-fed designs, for larger engines they aren't as effective as using
pre-burners (due to the weight of the batteries).

It does make the design much simpler, though.

~~~
inamberclad
The weight is an issue here too. It's something like 200kg of battery in the
first stage. The second stage is designed to use its batteries one by one, and
them drop them as they're expended.

~~~
apcragg
That seems... Really bad for the environment? Nobody said launching rockets
was environmentally friendly but that sounds particularly egregious.

~~~
rory096
>The batteries had a low auto-ignition temperature of 150 degrees Celsius,
which meant they were highly likely to burn up in the atmosphere before
reaching Earth's surface, MfE said. The batteries contained no lead, acid,
mercury, cadmium, or other toxic heavy metals.

[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/83804825/360kg-motor-
assem...](http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/83804825/360kg-motor-assembly-to-
be-jettisoned-after-rockets-launched-from-Mahia-Peninsula)

------
LeifCarrotson
As always, Scott Manley is an excellent source of commentary:

[https://youtu.be/U5k1mlu6A7I](https://youtu.be/U5k1mlu6A7I)

No transcript, but it's a short video.

~~~
igravious
Thanks for the link. Super informative commentary. That might have to become a
goto YouTube channel of mine seeing as how the frequency of rocket launches is
ramping up.

------
marktangotango
_Though the launch was only a test, Rocket Lab managed to launch three
satellites into orbit for tracking shipping, weather and imaging._

Orbital class rocket, not bad. Also, made it to orbit on the second attempt,
beat Spacex by two launches :P The Rutherford engine sea level Isp of 303 on
RP1/LOX is damn impressive.

~~~
JshWright
Isp is awesome, TWR... not so much. The electric turbopumps are a big
propellant efficiency win, but aren't without other costs.

~~~
Symmetry
I'd mostly worry about mass ratio, though they do drop off some of the
batteries half way on the second stage.

~~~
tlb
Batteries are heavy, but the system can make up for it. More precise control
of propellant volume means the combustion chamber and nozzle don't have to be
engineered for such high peak stresses due to a turbopump surging.

------
smnrchrds
Planet Money recently did a series on the satellite market. Rocket Lab was one
of the companies they interviewed. Pretty fascinating stuff.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/12/01/567267573/plan...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/12/01/567267573/planet-
money-goes-to-space)

------
sapphire_tomb
Does anyone have a decent "Explain like I'm five" explanation for their choice
of launch site? My (admittedly layman) understanding of rocket launching was
the being near the equator was good, because you pick up a tonne of free
velocity that way, and this launch site seems very far south to me.

Edit: Punctuation

~~~
arctor_bob
A)being close to equator helps but not dramatically, logistics are still more
important B)few satellites are actually launched to an equatorial orbit, most
of the time you want an inclined or a polar one. If you want your orbit to
have around 40 degree inclination NZ is perfect.

~~~
sapphire_tomb
Thank you, clearly I need to read up on this a bit more!

------
chrismorgan
I was surprised at how _weird_ it felt to have AU/NZ accents on the mission
control (or whatever you call it) channel in the video at the end of that
page.

I say this as an Australian.

~~~
bspn
My favorite part of the aborted Friday (EST) launch was when the Kiwi
controller was asking the American launch director whether he wanted any pre-
determined halts in the launch sequence. It took them 3 goes for the American
to understand what he was asking :)

------
sspiff
> "Instead of paying hundreds of millions for a very big satellite in
> geostationary orbit, we now have new constellations of smaller — what we
> call nano satellites — in low earth orbit at much lower cost," he said.

So, what about earth orbit congestion/pollution caused by these "nano
satellites"? Tracking a few thousand big objects is easier than tracking a few
million small objects, I would suspect.

And if the cheaper launchers mean that smaller businesses or wealthy
individuals will be able to launch their own nano-fleets, there's an increased
risk of operator error or just malevolent operators as well.

Won't this just lead to more quickly exhausting the capacity of earth-orbiting
space?

~~~
Gravityloss
Yes, it's a real problem. Satellites should either be shot to a low enough
orbit so they decay soon (5 years or so for small satellites), or then they
should have a deorbit mechanism.

------
pseudolus
They have what has to be one of the most beautiful launch sites I've ever
seen. Does anyone know if they offer any onsite tours?

~~~
nyokodo
Not at the moment unfortunately. I checked recently.

------
askvictor
The trajectory of the first stage seems very vertical compared to other
launches; anyone have any explanations?

~~~
Taniwha
I think they were launching due south, directly away from the camera

Also most launches are essentially go straight up to get out of the
atmospheric drag asap, then hang a turn into orbit - the optimal parameters
for when you make that turn is going to be a trade off of a bunch of things -
drag, the orbit you want, air pressure that day, .....

------
DrScump
Is there no adverse environmental impact from dumping battery packs into the
atmosphere to burn up?

~~~
lostlogin
It caused grumbling. Not sure where it all go to though as I can’t find any
conclusion as it seems they calculated an amount of waste that exceeds that
launched.
[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11702310)

------
WillReplyfFood
Is there any startup currently investigating cheaper alternatives to reuseable
fireworks?

~~~
twic
is "fireworks" literal or figurative there?

