This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

First Rocket Lab Launch Almost Reaches Orbit

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 25, 2017
Filed under
First Rocket Lab Launch Almost Reaches Orbit

Rocket Lab Makes It Into Space On Its First Launch (with videos)
“Rocket Lab broke new ground today when its Electron rocket reached space at 16:23 NZST. Electron lifted-off at 16:20 NZST from Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 on the Mahia Peninsula in New Zealand. It was the first orbital-class rocket launched from from a private launch site in the world. “It was a great flight. We had a great first stage burn, stage separation, second stage ignition and fairing separation. We didn’t quite reach orbit and we’ll be investigating why, however reaching space in our first test puts us in an incredibly strong position to accelerate the commercial phase of our programme, deliver our customers to orbit and make space open for business,” says Beck.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

20 responses to “First Rocket Lab Launch Almost Reaches Orbit”

  1. Dante80 says:
    0
    0

    Congratulations to everyone involved. Getting through Fairing SEP
    with a brand new rocket and test range is a very, very good result.

    Now, science the shit out of the data streams you got, apply the lessons and do it again!

  2. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    Close, but no cigar. Still, quite impressive for a first launch of all new hardware. Congrats to Rocket Lab!

  3. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    Finally got a chance to watch the rocket-cam launch — was it supposed to be in a slow roll like that?

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Yeah, I thought that was odd, but it looked like the control system could deal with it since the trajectory looked ok from the video. Still, since it didn’t make orbit, this could be one of the issues they need to tackle.

  4. Boardman says:
    0
    0

    Beautiful. Well done!

  5. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    The propellants are the usual LOX/RP-1 but the engine uses a unique electric fuel pump http://aviationweek.com/spa… using lithium polymer batteries. This simplifies design and reduces cost but I have to wonder how scalable it is; for larger vehicles the battery mass may be problematic. RP-1 has an energy density of about 43 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/KG), while lithium-polymer batteries max out at about 0.9 MJ/KG.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      RP-1 does not have an energy density of 43 MJ/kg unless you have free oxygen. For rocket applications, you have to count the mass of the oxygen.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        True, the mixture ratio is about 2.3 to one for a typical rocket engine thrust chamber but considerably lower for the turbopump gas generator. But you also have to consider the mass of the electric motors, (which would be significant at 1900 killowatts per engine for the Merlin), and the energy density of batteries, which is not likely to approach the theoretical maximum when operated at such a high power level. I’d be interested in seeing a detailed design comparison.

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          but considerably lower for the turbopump gas generator.

          However, in energy density terms, that makes the gas generator worse.

          Running fuel-rich (for example) results in incomplete combustion, which reduces the energy produced per kg of prop-mass. Effectively equivalent to burning a perfect stoichiometric mix, then adding an excess inert mass.

          Probably still several times better than even the best batteries, but only a fraction of 40MJ/kg.

          [Aside: Staged combustion recovers the lost energy in the main chamber, but adds its own complexity.]

          But you also have to consider the mass of the electric motors

          And consider the savings of the mass of the gas generator, turbines, and associated plumbing.

          If the mass trade-offs are justifiable (given the simplicity of electric motors), I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t scale to any size.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            I’m all for electrics when the design makes it feasible. However a good aircraft electric motor can put out 10 KW/KG. The Shuttle main engine fuel turbopump hit an amazing 138 KW/KG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi… I guess we need a more detailed design study, but that’s hard to beat.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            The space shuttle main engine fuel turbopump no doubt cost far more to manufacture than buying a “good aircraft electric motor” off the shelf. My guess is that Rocket Lab is using as much as they can “off the shelf” to keep costs low.

            Conventional (rocket fuel powered) turbopumps are costly to develop partly due to the high temperatures that the turbine blades experience. Using battery powered electric motors avoids this issue entirely.

  6. savuporo says:
    0
    0

    It’s somewhat interesting that none of established launch industry or space agencies worldwide seemed to send even briefest congrats to Rocketlab for what is definitely a major achievement. Not to mention the symbolism of putting a new country in space, the array of new concepts for rocketry taking flight here is fairly impressive.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      That you know of.

      • savuporo says:
        0
        0

        Were there any ?

        Scanned twitter and news specifically for this about a day after launch, didn’t spot any apart from Dava Newman, and she obviously isn’t in any official position now.

        None of the official NASA or NASA center accounts even as much as retweeted this – which is odd because Rocketlab has NASA contracts like Venture class launch.

  7. DougSpace says:
    0
    0

    Yes, great first launch. Congrats. But was there a payload mass? And if not, how much more difficult will it be to make it to orbit with a payload? If there wasn’t a payload this time then the news reports next time (with a payload) might be that the rocket fell well short of orbit. So, As they say, “It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings”.

  8. Lysozyme says:
    0
    0

    Almost, as in this was a launch failure! Why won’t anyone actually say it?

    If any of the established companies had come out with a small launch vehicle and failed to reach orbit on the first launch, the community would have been calling for their heads on a silver platter. Instead, everyone here is praising a company for this failure.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      It was a test flight. The first. It accomplished more than the first SpaceX flight.

      • Lysozyme says:
        0
        0

        If we take just what is on Wikipedia as a basis, the second Falcon 1 flight was as close as this Electron flight. The Falcon 1 made it thru first stage, separation and into second stage burn and just shut down early. It is labeled as a “Failure” The Electron flight, is labeled as a “Partial Failure” when it did the same thing. This is just an example of the hypocrisy that is rife in the “New Space” world. Everything is labeled a success, just because it was tried, no need to actually accomplish any of the goals in place. And don’t worry, the press is on your the “New Space” side, so all the failures will be swept under the rug. Only say the good things!

        I want to see people call the new players out for their issues with the same veracity as the established players.

    • Boardman says:
      0
      0

      Maybe read TR’s Man in the Arena?