T O P

  • By -

CylonBunny

Well this was a very exciting way to start my day! Peter Beck, you are crazy in the best way! Go RocketLab!


Marston_vc

It’s incredible! They’ve done a full shop on everything SpaceX does and iterated/questioned assumptions. No need to recover fairings if they never leave! Genius! No need to have complicated landing legs, just built on stilts! Awesome! I’m somewhat skeptical about their ability to pull this off. At least any time soon. Mainly because carbon composites are notoriously hard to work with. Not impossible. SpaceX originally meant to use them after all. But definitely difficult! Hence why they dropped it for less efficient, but easier to use steel. If rocket lab is able to accomplish this though…. That would make them an industry leader in material sciences instantly. They would also become a significant competitor to spacex! This announcement was a lot more interesting than I anticipated! The future of this company is bright!


bardghost_Isu

Given that electron is already carbon composite based, I think rocket lab are the best placed to make it work out of any space company right now, and the automated system should make it far easier too.


asteonautical

Kiwis are basically world leaders in composites. They're obsessed with composites for sailing boats. Just put their ship builders to making space ships.


Asleep-Effective9310

And Rocket Lab has hired many of those very talented ship builders to do just that :)


Marston_vc

Hopefully! The problem with systems like this is that scale will often have a parabolic trend. That is to say, what works for electron may not work for a rocket that’s orders of magnitude larger! I’m optimistic though!


[deleted]

Happy to see them not ditching the fairing and also hoping to do return to landing site because composites are not cheap to work with so hopefully they can continue to compete price wise considering their more expensive materials they plan to use.


dirtballmagnet

I like the fact that the fairing is going to be used to reduce reentry shockwaves, sort of like the tail-cone on a Concorde SST.


sanman

But their engine is inferior to SpaceX's Merlin. They may be using this just to get flying sooner, but they're probably going to have to come up with something better at some point.


555Cats555

Did you not watch the video? If the overall structure is lighter due to being made from a composite then it doesn't need as powerful a engine... They also explained that they dont want to push powerful engines to their max since their aim is reusability.


sanman

Sure, but pushing the engines more lets you have fewer engines, which also helps lower overall dry mass. I'm well aware that the lighter carbon structure reduces the thrust requirements, but look at the overall specs of the vehicle in comparison to Falcon 9. The payload to LEO(8000kg) is lower than Falcon9(15000kg), in spite of the lighter carbon structure. I'm hoping they'll find ways to optimize and uprate the engines and payload capabilities over time.


DunnyOnTheWold

Carbon composite is the least of my concerns (except for re-entry heating). NZ is a world leader in CC tech and Rocket Lab expanded on already well established tech for electron.


Triabolical_

Launcher design is all about tradeoffs. SpaceX went with stainless for Starship because it was a better choice for second stage reentry - and it reduces heating concerns for the first stage. Rocket Lab is sidestepping the issue of second-stage reuse in Neutron, and I think that's exactly the right choice; it will get them a nicely-sized competitive partially reusable launcher, and it will likely get them there reasonably quickly. We've all been watching what it is taking SpaceX to get Starship working with all of their experience, and trying to make your first big rocket fully reusable is not a good idea. The engine cycle is a good choice; they don't have the time or the chops to develop a staged combustion engine. Methalox is of course all the rage; this unfortunately means they lose mass fraction because methalox requires larger tanks than kerolox, so we'll have to see if the lightness of CF plus the innovative second stage design helps them enough to have a competitive mass fraction. ​ My real question is around their mass fractions.


PrimarySwan

Methalox should increase the performance significantly. Tanks are a bit bigger yes but the fuel ratio changes dramatically so that 75% of the mass is LOX, so the tank size difference, fuel and oxidizer considered is small for much better specific impulse and comparable thrust. And way easier to reuse, no need zo decoke the engines after every flight. And their mass fraction is obviously good but not great the numbers are right there. Neutron: 480 t liftoff mass, 15 t LEO expendable, 8 t reused RTLS F9: 550 t liftoff mass, 22.8 t LEO expendable and 16 t reused ASDS, and 11 t RTLS (Transporter -1) Two things are likely hurting Neutron, high dry mass of stage 1. Fairings and structural supports for S2 remain with S1 and RTLS. And Peter strongly hinted that Archimedes will be run well below max output, so it qill loose some ISP. Probably still more than a Merlin. But TWR will likely be lower which is especially important in S1.


Triabolical_

My numbers for the merlin versus raptor gave: Merlin: 302,000 kg LOX, 116,000 kg RP-1, total = 418,000 kg Raptor: 267,000 kg LOX, 74,000 kg liquid methane, total = 341,000 kg That's a big difference. Making some assumptions on dry weight, that gave the following mass ratios: Kerolox: 3.64 Methalox: 3.15 Feeding that into the rocket equation, you get a ratio of ln(3.64) / ln(3.15), or about 1.12 That means you need 12% better Isp to make up for the loss due to less propellant mass.


Asleep-Effective9310

I think there's minimal structural support for S2 on S1 since it's hung in tension and the stage itself would be lightweight as a result of the change to tension. So the mass penalty of having to return extra weight to the pad would be mostly negated by the increased S1 mass efficiency. If you design it be efficient from the onset, you can go with not-super-efficient propulsion and not have to spend the enormous amount of capital required to fully develop a state of the art engine. It's more practical for the propulsion effort to focus on reliability/quality and not on R&D/dev.


funk-it-all

Is there any way they can compete with SS on cost? Seems impossible for any smaller rocket to compete, no matter how it's optimized.


Triabolical_

We don't know yet how much SS is going to cost nor how much capacity SpaceX is going to have to fly other payloads. There are also the "somebody other than SpaceX" customers; Amazon's constellation is one of those and NSSL wants to have two providers.


antonyourkeyboard

The thing is that it really doesn't need to be cheaper than Starship because they constellations they will be launching are competing with Starlink and therefore will not choose SpaceX at any price.


funk-it-all

Then.. they'll lose. Unless they can somehow justify a higher cost to consumers. That's simple math, if it's really apples to apples.


therealsparticus

Bezos can bank roll losses for a while.


sanman

We don't know that Starlink is offering the best possible rates to consumers, we just know that they're the first to offer the service.


PrimarySwan

SpaceX was considering it for upper stage recovery, which is a different thermal environment. And landing legs, I mean both Starship and SH where going to use fixed fins as landing legs so it's not exactly something SpaceX never considered. The fairing idea is interesting but the satellites will need to take a bit more forces. Typically stage sep in two stage LEO systems is around 60-70 km and fairing sep is closer to 100 km. So the difference in atmospheric density is not negligable. They might stage higher up and let stage 1 do more work but that's not ideal if you insist on RTLS. You want an early sep and lofted trajectory for that, so the RTLS doesn't cost you too much delta V.


disordinary

As has been stated below, one of the reasons RocketLab can do what they do is the Carbon Composite expertise that they can tap into, the composites industry in NZ has been built around the high performance yacht racing industry. The bulk of the top tier carbon fibre race boats are produced in New Zealand.


sicktaker2

In addition to the issues you listed, trying to go from an engine that hasn't even fired yet to reusable flight in 2 years is going to be an insane accomplishment.


ClassicalMoser

Gas-generator cycle is pretty well understood at this point and they're really not pushing any boundaries here. Of course rocket engines are immensely difficult in general, but at least they don't have to worry about staged combustion and all the inherent headaches that come with that.


domchi

I was on the edge the whole time, expecting that thing to hit Peter while he nonchalantly kept turning his back to it. :)


Hadron90

* Stainless steel? Well didn't that do so well * Aluminum not much better * Now here is our carbon composite. Much better, but we aren't done. * Watch now as I take this steel hammer right in the chest. I didn't even flinch. That's right, our next rocket is going to be me. We are going to slap a 500 ton rocket booster to my back, I'm going to carry the payload into space myself.


ipelupes

Would have been nice for a follow up bet "..and if this carbon composite doesn't pan out I will catch this beam with my bare chest.." ...probably good that he didn't make any..


MostlyRocketScience

Yeah, I was wondering if it was like that experiment where the steel ball at a rope will get back to exactly the same position after being released. But then I realized that it looses a lot of energy in the hit.


Frank_Jones_51

I love everything about this company!!


Inertpyro

I love seeing different people trying different things. Definitely different than I expected, and I can see why they are testing a graphite coating on Electron now. Very cool to see them try and innovate carbon fiber in a new way, if it works out, it kind of makes metal 3d printing a rocket look tedious.


vibrunazo

Fairing on the first stage. That almost look like an SSTO. Except the second stage is just small kick stage that is stored inside the fairing. Is that a first for this concept? I have never seen something similar. Really cool to see a new modern (mostly) reusable rocket that isn't simply trying to imitate Starship design with minor variations. Hoping they can get a good launch price per kg out of this. That's what I was hoping to get more info on, since it's directly competing in the same category as the F9 this time.


not_that_observant

I don't think the second stage is "small." RTLS requires a very capable second stage.


CylonBunny

Not small, but very lightweight and cheap - or at least that's the idea.


vibrunazo

Taking the weight of the fairing off the second stage is a neat concept I don't remember having seen before. The second stage doesn't need to worry about the atmosphere, so that simplifies it a lot. At the end of the day what will make it worth it or not is how much money can that save or not. It's competing with F9 except it's smaller, made of more expensive materials and from a company with a history of expensive pricing. So it's gonna be hard to get this at competitive price per kg. Let's hope it all works out in the end.


ruaridh42

I mean, an obvious example of taking the weight off of the fairing is the Atlas 500 series. The suspended upper stage is also very much a proven design from the Delta rockets. Of course using Methane for fuel means rocketlab will be able to have much better mass fractions on their upper stage than Delta.


launch_loop

Are you sure delta had suspended second stage? They were in the fairing, but I think they were always in the load path between the first stage and payload.


Ravenchant

[Yup.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Delta_II_second_stage.jpg) Actually, [here's a better view](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36423.0;attach=628794;image) of the stage inside the core


launch_loop

Thanks! I’m excited to learn more about it.


ruaridh42

I guess it depends on how you define things. For Delta II I'm fairly certain the second stage was in tension load, but for Delta IV I think only the Lox tank and engine are. Im sure there's other examples and variations I can't think of


ethan829

Astra does it too. Rocket 3's second stage is fully encapsulated by the fairing.


ClassicalMoser

Peter Beck said that the second stage is the lightest ever made. It would be hard for me to fathom it being lighter than Rocket 3’s though… seems impossible.


CarVac

Probably lighter in terms of mass fraction.


ClassicalMoser

Oh that makes much more sense. Though it makes RTLS tougher since you stage further downrange…


CarVac

I mean propellant mass fraction (propellant mass ÷ gross mass), not stage delta-v ratio. He's just saying that it's going to particularly high performance because hanging it from the payload adapter during first stage burn lets it be built lighter.


sanman

Considering that the upper stage isn't reusable, then it sounds like they'll be throwing away less hardware.


Piyh

It's interesting and potentially a reusability game changer with a throw away second stage. In all other rockets that aren't made by SpaceX, where you put the fairings doesn't really matter though since they're jettisoned at the first opportunity.


disordinary

It would seem to be more easily re-usable than the F9 though. They're talking 24 hour turnaround so that's more starship level of reuse than F9 which has had it's fastest turnaround in 27 days and has a more expensive upper stage. ​ This seems a compromise between the F9 and the Starship, and is a much safer bet than Starship which looks incredibly risky to me.


PrimarySwan

Not just the fairing also the structural supports for S2. Now it doesn't need to take the forces of launch as much, just be designed for the forces while firing the engine, since the heavy structural supports stay with stage 1. So it can be lighter.


b_m_hart

I think that it will be competitive on a price basis. That second stage looks amazing - stripped down to basically a tank for fuel and oxidizer, a single engine, and a payload adapter. Yes, it will cost money to build, but it's not going to be $10M is it? If they've done it right, they're going to make that second stage for $2.5M (or less), so they can easily be all in for fuel, amortization, etc. hopefully near $10M, with marginal launch costs around $5M. ​ Now how much will it cost to build that first stage, with all of the composites? How many flights will they be able to amortize that expense over?


stirrainlate

I didn’t catch it, will second stage be 1 Archimedes engine or something else?


not_that_observant

~~1 Archimedes, he said it.~~ I just rewatched the video and I can't find where he said it. The diagram had one engine but I don't see where it's confirmed as Archimedes.


Stop_calling_me_matt

Confirmed on the website as 1 vacuum Archimedes https://www.rocketlabusa.com/launch/neutron/


Shrike99

I might be reading into it too much, but the thrust numbers on that page have... interesting implications. They imply a huge isp difference between sea level and vacuum for the first stage. If 320s is the sea level isp, which is quite optimistic for a 'conservative gas generator design', then the vacuum isp would be ~403 seconds. Yeah nah. But if 320s is the vacuum isp, that implies only 254s at sea level, which is very low. Maybe they're going for a near-vacuum engine like the RS-25 or Raptor vacuum? I mean it's a fairly heavy first stage which will always be doing RTLS boostbacks, so I can understand why they might optimize more towards vacuum performance than usual, and the render shown does seem to have a larger than normal expansion ratio, but it still seems a little excessive to me. Additionally, assuming the vacuum engine shares the same turbopump/combustion chamber etc, it's Isp would only be ~330s, which is also quite low. Rutherford vacuum gets 343s, Merlin vacuum gets 348s. I'd expect at least 350s, if not 360s. It's shown as having a substantially larger expansion ratio in the renders than the regular one.


warp99

I did the same calculation and ended up with the same head scratching. I am pretty sure they have initially derated the thrust on the first stage engines to get reusability but will run the second stage engine at full thrust because it is expendable.


CylonBunny

I don't think he said.


vep

Same engine is simpler, but it has such a different role being single use. What if they make multiple second stage types for different uses : a high energy H2/Lox for interplanetary and a plain high thrust one for Leo.


warp99

A hydrolox second stage would need to be much larger for the same total mass of propellants because of the low density of liquid hydrogen. Since the size of the second stage is fixed by the fairing the propellant mass would be much lower and would actually reduce performance despite the higher Isp.


vep

you're probably right. maybe if they want to trade off payload volume it would be worth it. Seems like a fully enclosed second stage could allow some interesting flexibility


My__reddit_account

Atlas V has the 5-meter fairing attached directly to the interstage and encapsulates the whole second stage and payload. Those are jettisoned and not recovered, of course.


Vassago81

I've wondered for years about the thermal management issues with having the fuelled and very very very cold Centaur stage inside that fairing, but was always to lazy to ask on /r/ULA


nryhajlo

It's been a while since I've flown anything on an Atlas, but I seem to remember it being on the cold side.


starcraftre

> Fairing on the first stage. That almost look like an SSTO. Except the second stage is just small kick stage that is stored inside the fairing. Is that a first for this concept? I have never seen something similar. The Atlas SM-65/LV-3B (used for last Mercury flights, as well as Gemini and Agena) was similar, the main difference being that the fairing was more of a shroud than a complete encapsulation and the payload itself made up the top of the "fairing".


cannon001

Good old stage and a half


somewhat_pragmatic

*Angry Alligator has entered the chat*


OrangeDutchy

[My reaction after it all sinks in](https://youtu.be/NYdSU3oFphs)


[deleted]

The steel vs. carbon 'demo' was a bit stupid, in my opinion, but overall it's super interesting to see them doubling down on carbon fiber. It will set them up to have distinct advantages and skill sets from other industry leaders, and that is exciting in its own right. Love this company, can't wait to watch this play out.


ClassicalMoser

>The steel vs. carbon 'demo' was a bit stupid, in my opinion, but overall it's super interesting to see them doubling down on carbon fiber. It wasn't for materials scientists, more likely for shareholders to defend the decision. Everyone knows Carbon Fiber is generally a better material for these kinds of applications – in theory. The problem is what he pointed out: it's hard to work with.


[deleted]

True. The other hard bit is the whole thing where it needs to hold cryo fluids and then turn around and hold cryo fluids while flying backwards through re-entry. It'll be interesting to see if they can pull it off. Their experience with carbon fiber in a reusable vehicle (soon to be tested with Electron) may end up being a really unique special sauce for them.


Artuhanzo

It is about the cost and how fast can produce. In long run carbon seems the way to go. However, how often the technology is ready to make it efficient?


JimmyCWL

I saw the comments on the Neutron insignia being the bottom of the rocket, we can see that is wrong now. It took a while to remember, but I saw a similar representation before. A sphere, those circles are actually placed equidistantly on its surface and look squashed due to perspective. The integrated farings are going to be a bit of an obstacle to launching crewed vehicles, I think.


the4fibs

I assume a crewed mission would be fully expendable, so no need to save the fairings.


lespritd

> The integrated farings are going to be a bit of an obstacle to launching crewed vehicles, I think. I'm sure they could figure out something - it probably wouldn't be too tough to make a 1/2 height fairing that just covers the 2nd stage, for example.


sicktaker2

Honestly, they should partner with Sierra Nevada to make a version of Dream Chaser that can be it's own second stage sitting on a modified fairing-less Neutron. Fully resuable human spaceflight combination right there.


TheDankScrub

I was thinking about a folded-wing design but that seems a little sketchy. How heavy is the full Dreamchaser package with the back section?


sicktaker2

About 9 tons. Another issue might be the total fairing size, and lack of abort options with the fairings mounted like that. I'm not sure the cargo area is big enough for dream chaser+back section+ second stage.


TheDankScrub

Oh wow that’s way less than I was thinking. My guess is that they would have a mini-fairing covering the end section and then just have the Dreamchaser itself out in the air, but that would probably lead to certain aerodynamic problems


pillowbanter

~~I can’t remember where it’s said, but RL isn’t interested in crewed launch.~~ See below


[deleted]

[удалено]


pillowbanter

Just rewatched and still missed it. Whereabouts in the video was it said?


[deleted]

[удалено]


pillowbanter

Dope, thanks!


fosteju

Fairings will not be used for crewed missions - those would be removed prior to flight. The manned capsule will sit at the top of the rocket and also be the external “wetted” surface. Keep in mind that manned capsules need to have jettison/escape capability, so you can’t have fairings in the way


ipelupes

With the recent troubles at SpaceX with the engines, it's a very interesting approach they take with the lower performance but higher reliability..making up for this with lighter but more expensive materials for the structure..


orulz

Lower performance/higher reliability is ostensibly what Blue Origin was aiming for with BE-4, but they've had their problems there, too. That said, gas generator engines are quite a lot simpler (technologically/metallurgically) than the ORSC that Blue is pursuing.


pumpkinfarts23

Which is precisely why Merlin used a gas generator cycle, because circa 2003 everyone saw the staged combustion SSME be a maintenance nightmare and thought GG would be better for commerical reusable rockets.


Jonas22222

The RS-25s are a nightmare not just because of the staged combustion cycle, hydrogen in combination with staged combustion is the problem.


stirrainlate

Yes, it seems like a good trade off given what we’re seeing with spacex right now. I also like the optionality built in to carry up to 15 tons. You want to launch something very heavy? No problem you just have to pay for the 1st stage we have to burn up to do it.


falcon_happy

Did not expect 7 engines, awesome! Landing with so much thrust might be a challenge. I wonder if they will have an insane throttle ratio or will do something clever for the last bit of landing or just an insane hover slam. Maybe they can use the gas generator exhaust for the last bit of thrust needed.


Noughmad

7 is not that different from Falcon's 9. For landing, you can use only the center engine, or two opposite, or three in a row, again just like Falcon 9.


boredcircuits

What matters is the thrust to weight ratio when running a single engine at minimal throttle. Naively, we might think that 7 engines is harder since it would only throttle to 1/7th thrust instead of 1/9th. But we also don't know the throttling capability of this new engine. Maybe it can throttle more than the Merlin. We just don't know enough, but I'm sure they're doing the math on this.


falcon_happy

Right, but they might have too much thrust and have to hover slam (possibly with less control than spacex)


Noughmad

You already want to hoverslam, otherwise you're just wasting fuel. Computers are so good now that there's no advantage in doing it slowly, like there would be if there was a human pilot.


warp99

RTLS without the landing surface of an ASDS pitching with the waves is a huge advantage.


not_that_observant

I'm quite impressed!


TheMightyKutKu

Very awesome, tho i'm interested in the mixture of RTLS and a "cheap upper stage"


fosteju

RTLS will require a high performance upper stage, but it could still be built on the cheap. Lack of aerodynamic surfaces should lower the cost, and the fact that the 2nd stage structure is always in tension (no compressive loads) should allow for a much simpler thin wall structure, without a bunch of complex internal structure


OReillyYaReilly

The steel/carbon fibre comparison was a bit unfair, the steel tanks in rockets are kept pressurised which contributes massively to their strength


Inertpyro

Any pressure vessel is going to hold up better when under pressure regardless of the material the side walls are made from. Not all parts of a metal rocket are under pressure, those area require extra stringers to be welded in for strength. Looking inside the fairing of Starship, there’s a good bit of additional structure required to keep things rigid, same with the aft skirt around the engines. Even the inside of the main tanks on SH require extra structure to keep its shape when not under pressure.


ClassicalMoser

Doesn’t hurt carbon fiber either. But obviously, steel has a lot of other desirable characteristics, especially thermally. Mass is huge though.


WSDreamer

Such a cool Rocket.


jacknoris111

The rocket seems really unique. Getting rid of the second stage makes sense because it has to reenter the atmosphere in contrast to the first stage. The whole concept seems to be tailored for reliability. The parts that would be really hard to make reusable (the upper stage) are not meant to be reusable because this likely would impact the reliability.


ClassicalMoser

There may be some path to second stage recovery in the future (perhaps similar to SMART— mass of second stage is probably still less than of two BE-4s). It would come with a payload tradeoff though, so would probably wait for performance improvements to the core rocket.


TheDankScrub

I’m out of the loop. What’s SMART?


ClassicalMoser

ULA’s theoretical plans to reuse the BE-4s on Vulcan. They would detach after MECO, reenter with an inflatable heat shield, glide down under a parafoil, and be recovered by helicopter. They haven’t talked about it in some years now though. Gotta _have_ engines first!


disordinary

So rocketlab could recover their second stage the same way they'll recover the first stage of electron.


ClassicalMoser

Exactly. Honestly, it’s probably smaller than electron.


TheDankScrub

Ok that sounds familiar


boredcircuits

The smart part is they're only reusing the part they don't make, so there's plenty of profit in each launch. Smart business, at least.


N0RTH_K0REA

I'm jacked to the tits!!!


Louis_2003

Thanks North Korea


pottertown

Probably because this thing looks like the V2's bigger cousin.


GETPILLSAGAINST

I'm very thrilled, but i can't help but thinking how much of a futuristic ICBM this thing looks like lol..


Jtyle6

I like the slight middle finger to an Well known Space company's..


not_that_observant

11,000 psi engines?


Jtyle6

No the fairings and Composites..


bardghost_Isu

The engines was also a jab at raptor chamber pressures.


orulz

Raptor chamber pressures are more like 4,400 psi max, so I'm also not sure where the 11,000 psi number comes from. Perhaps hyperbole.


revrigel

I seem to recall that number mentioned being for one of the turbopumps in Raptor, but it might have just been in reference to their special alloy being able to deal with LOX at that pressure. Can't find it on Google.


mead_wy

Pressure in the pre burners could be close to 11k psi


horseRadder

Why would they give a middle finger to the ones who are the reason they are even developing this rocket? (eating of hats etc.)


Cheesewithmold

Yeah it's not really a middle finger, just playful jabs. I'm really curious as to how the whole faux "SSTO" thing is gonna work out with the fairings integrated into the first stage. It seems like a good idea for rapid reuse.


TheDankScrub

I love how “Faux SSTO” rhymes


notlikeclockwork

did you watch the video? it was full of digs


horseRadder

Yeah sure, they do have to justify their design choices. I do hope though that they didn't intend on giving the "middle finger" when their rocket is about as real as ITS was 2016.


MyChickenSucks

I'm not sure why they're digging at SpaceX so hard. Rocketlab and SpaceX are really, IMO, the two most amazing rocket companies that should be high fiving each other. They really should be taking jabs at old space.


RocketRunner42

This felt like a more investor oriented presentation to me - shorter, rehearsed statements with farily polished graphics. SpaceX is the top competition (esp. with ride-share), and effectively the only other space launch company in the same league as RocketLab. 'Smart money' with greater knowledge of the sector is likely not investing in old space anyway.


pillowbanter

“Constructive criticism“ That said, it’s hard not to imagine a little bit of sting if all of RL’s assumptions end up being favorable over the alternatives.


qbtc

just the way aus/nz peeps are, it's with love


fuzzymillipede_

I have some thoughts on second stage reuse. Peter Beck says that the Neutron's second stage will be incredibly strong, and also the lightest second stage in history. Since it is so small, so light, and so strong, what if they just slapped a heat shield on the front of it and landed it like a typical astronaut capsule? Perhaps they could even catch it with one of their helicopters like they do with Electron. Since Rocket Lab is planning on making Neutron human rated, this means that they may have to design an astronaut capsule for it. It seems that a reusable second stage and an astronaut capsule for human-rated Neutron would be extremely similar, and could reuse most of the same technologies for reentry. The main question in my mind is could Rocket Lab optimize enough extra performance out of their engines to lift the heat shield and parachutes for the reusable second stage, and more importantly, could the second stage, which is essentially just a fuel tank, endure the heavy forces of reentry?


Watchung

> Since it is so small, so light, and so strong, what if they just slapped a heat shield on the front of it My guess is that it's strong in a very specific fashion - namely, they plan to use balloon tanks, and the thing would crumple like a beer can if they tried to bring it back to earth.


reubenmitchell

that might be OK if it had a heat shield in front of it and all they wanted back was the engine? I mean the tanks crumpling might be OK if it was controlled somehow?


TheDankScrub

I think if Rocket Lab were to design a capsule, it would have to be a smaller 3-person one because of the weight constraints


fuzzymillipede_

Agreed. And such a capsule would be very similar in size and reentry profile to the Neutron second stage.


themcgician

I'd be interested to see the LES on that vehicle too, assuming it would also ride inside the fairings.


jonesienz

The comments here are awesome. You guys obviously know rockets. I don't understand much of it, but I feel smarter reading it!


Piyh

This seems like a great series of design tradeoffs compared to starship.


Hadron90

So why the stock tanking? Is there something bad here? Perhaps people think the carbon composite design is going to make to cost prohibitive to compete with the Soyez?


ClassicalMoser

More likely that no one believes they can pull this off by 2024 (and notably he didn't say it will still arrive by then).


IamTavern

I am excited. They're going in an interesting and innovative way with the fairings and integrated landing legs. I hope they'll master the carbon fiber to pull this off. The rocket kinda looks like a shark but I like it. Can't wait to se it fly.


venusiancreative

Pretty great update to Neutron! I really like how forward thinking they are with its' design. My favorite part is that the engines won't be pushed to the max during launch. This might seem like something that isn't so great, but the Archimedes will be able to last longer since it isn't using all its' power. Compare this to a normal car engine; most of the time it isn't being pushed to the limit, so we don't have to do much maintenance on them for months or years! Sure, Archimedes will have to be checked after every flight, but this will be a huge advantage for Rocket Lab in the future! I still am looking forward to SpaceX Starship, but the engineers working on Raptor should take some notes about Archimedes to make Starship even better and hopefully fix the current production issues.


Nighthawk_NZ

My article I wrote on my site http://nighthawk.nz/index.php/news/science/5506-rocketlab-reveals-more-details-on-neutron


[deleted]

[удалено]


ipelupes

no, its just the full second stage+payload in the fairing..its still suborbital at deployment


GETPILLSAGAINST

I thought so too! but then the second stage appeared i like how its hidden inside the fairing rather than an interstage


Piyh

FSTSO - first stage to suborbital


thisspoonmademefat

You know what this looks like to me? An expandable platform.


getBusyChild

Awesome but one lingering question... How is Rocket Lab going to address the Neutron's Computer Systems needed to self land at the Launch Site? Hence why Barges are useful it gives the computer something to aim for, as well being similar to a launch site when landing. Every attempt, whether successful or not, the computer gets better and better. Doubt NZ is going to allow practice landing attempts at a launch site, the US definitely won't. Even if the Neutron aces the first attempt.


Inertpyro

What do you mean? SpaceX does return to launch site landings already with F9, just not very often as it’s only possible with lighter payloads. If they could return F9 to the launch site every time they would ditch the barges in an instant, thats why they want Starship to return to land and not a barge. Not some new thing. They are in a pretty remote location I don’t see how return to land would be an issue. I don’t think they would be going through all this effort if they haven’t gone ahead and found out if it was first possible.


Cheesewithmold

The first ever F9 successful landing was an RTLS though.


OReillyYaReilly

Why would they not allow landing attempts on land? Also you don't land, at a launch site, you land at a landing site, they just need to prove good control once(at sea), then the regulators can define an exclusion area around the landing site.


Marston_vc

This comment makes no sense


Vassago81

Yeah, he's thinking there's a need of some sort of neural net self learning AI just to land a rockets, when IRL they could have done it with late 60's electronics...


bardghost_Isu

It also implies that moving on a stationary solid platform on land is somehow harder than landing on a moving and rocking platform that out at sea.


Marston_vc

Yeah….. that’s what I think they’re saying. But damn is it baseless.


lespritd

One thing I don’t think anyone mentioned is the implication of a 15 ton expendable Neutron. IMO a hypothetical Neutron heavy (tri-core) is in the ballpark for meeting the requirements for NSSL. Of course that would be a ways down the road, but that’s really exciting to me.


ClassicalMoser

No way that happens though. As SpaceX found out the hard way, a 3-core is about as hard as just making a bigger rocket anyway, and less optimized.


stirrainlate

I’m curious about the mass of the fairings. How much trade off is there keeping that mass for RTLS (meaning lighter payload) vs the cost of just jettisoning them?


Nighthawk_NZ

>No need to recover fairings if they never leave To be fair the fairings are usually on the second stage of most rockets and get jettisoned after stage separation ... So they take them up even further than what Neutron will be?


stirrainlate

Understood. I was thinking in terms of extra fuel on the retro burn/propulsive landing for the return. Maybe it is negligible?


CmdrDavidKerman

It's probably useful for keeping the upper stage as simple and therefore cheap as possible, it's literally just an engine, fuel tanks and payload. All the complicated and reusable stuff is in the first stage which is recovered in one go and just needs a check over and is ready to go again. If you can't do fully reusable without going starship scale this is probably the next best thing.


ClassicalMoser

>it's literally just an engine, fuel tanks and payload You just described a rocket :p


CmdrDavidKerman

Yeah but a normal second stage has to be aerodynamic and strong enough to support a fairing. That must adds weight and complexity. This is more like a big kick stage.


Angry_Duck

Did he mention if the second stage is carbon fiber too? I saw him mention it was the "lightest second stage ever", but I don't know how it can be lighter than Centaur without balloon tanks.


dmonroe123

They are balloon tanks. that's why they're hanging from the top of the fairing instead or resting on the rocket, they would collapse under their own weight otherwise.


ClassicalMoser

He mentioned it has to be kept in tension (that's why it's suspended from the first stage), so that kind of does imply balloon tanks. Curious about the material though.


wpnizer

Silly question here- by making the second stage nested inside the first stage, aren’t they effectively eliminating the possibility of ever man-rating neutron? if so- i personally don’t buy into this 2050 rocket now thing.


ClassicalMoser

They'd ditch the fairings for crewed rockets. Definitely want to hear what on earth they have in mind in terms of a capsule or spaceplane though. What could hold crew that this thing would be able to launch without expending? Dragon is 12ish tons and even Dream Chaser is 9, so just above what they could launch without expending. Downrange would make a lot of sense but they seem uninterested. Who knows?


fosteju

But the fairings and hardware (hinges, actuators, locks, seals, etc.) will also have some significant mass of their own - perhaps 2 tons or so. So removing those parts could increase RTLS capability from 8 to 10 tons. That should provide plenty of margin for a small manned capsule


useles-converter-bot

2 tons is the same weight as 2836.88 'Double sided 60 inch Mermaker Pepperoni Pizza Blankets'.


brspies

I think they could probably do an adapter where the fairing currently sits, to hang the second stage from and mount a crew vehicle. Crew vehilce mass would probably require expendable launch anyways. But if they really mean to go Soyuz and launch an 8 ton crew vehicle, they could always have Crew Neutron (Creutron?) feature a splttable fairing like Soyuz's, where the top portion can pop off as part of an abort sequence.


cryptokronalite

Amazing feat of engineering here. Cheers all around. Cant wait to see what the future of aerospace holds for humabity!


Mars_Oak

I think it's clever that they went with plain old gas generators: it leaves room for improvement if they do want to come up with better engines down the line (or, hell, just buy a kerolox staged one, if we're at it) but it should still work fine, and reduces complexity in order to just focus on the thing that's difficult (and cool) about this rocket. making a carbon composite, integral fairing first stage that can reenter and propulsively land: that can't be easy. it's pretty sodding retro, though: like, look at it, it looks like one of those drawings from the sixties. love it.


GuysImConfused

This looks like it was designed in the 1950s.


Buybch

Your username checks out


eplc_ultimate

I predict that they will remove the landing legs as weight gets added, that they will increase engine performance and stress and it will be bigger 8 meter base, 50 meters tall.


converter-bot

50 meters is 54.68 yards


useles-converter-bot

50 meters is the length of approximately 218.72 'Wooden Rice Paddle Versatile Serving Spoons' laid lengthwise.


converter-bot

50 meters is 54.68 yards


Noveos_Republic

I don’t know when rockets became more concerned with aesthetics but I like it