Slashdot Mirror


New Zealand Joins Space Race With Successful Launch Of Lightweight 'Electron' Rocket (nzherald.co.nz)

"Rocket Lab: We have lift-off!" wrote long-time Slashdot reader ClarkMills on Wednesday. "History made as Electron launches successfully from Mahia." The New Zealand Herald reports: Rocket Lab engineers have started analyzing data from yesterday's historic launch from the Mahia Peninsula that took the company to space but not able to complete its orbital mission. Lift-off at 4.20 pm was the first orbital-class rocket launched from a private launch site in the world. New Zealand became the 11th country with potential to launch cargo into space, joining superpowers and tech heavyweights. The Government hailed the lift-off as a major milestone for the country's space industry...

"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 program," said founder and chief executive Peter Beck.

Beck added they'd developed their rocket "from scratch" in under four years, and the company's official Twitter feed is now proudly tweeting photos and videos from the launch.

48 comments

  1. Hum... by Bomazi · · Score: 1

    That's great but they are 60 years late. I'm not sure it is something to be proud of.

    1. Re:Hum... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Putting stuff in space is still useful, and they are building modern rockets of their own design rather than copying 60 year old designs, so I wouldn't say they are 60 years late. IF BMW design a new car, you wouldn't call them "late" either. Also, designing and manufacturing rockets is still bloody hard, so yeah I'd say it's something to be proud of. As for how useful this is vs. buying launch slots elsewhere, I don't know. If they can do it cheaper, great. If they can find clients willing to pay for launches, great. If they learn something in the process that they can apply elsewhere, swell. If they come up with innovations that advances the field of spaceflight for everyone, even better.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Hum... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Quite.

      I mean, even if they never become a competitive launch vehicle, the technology they develop may well prove useful for orbital/interplanetary vehicles, and it seems like we may be on the cusp of such things being economically viable.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Hum... by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      did you post that when spacex reached space a few years back?
      it makes no sense lol.

  2. The road goes ever ever on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --dept

  3. Lift-off at 4.20 pm by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

    No need to say more.

    Also, when I read 'Electron' in the title, I figured the author meant some new type of engine.

    But When You Capitalize Every Word In A Sentence, It Makes It Really Hard To Figure Out What You Mean!

    "New Zealand joins Space Race with successful launch of lightweight 'Electron' rocket."

    Now that tells me you were just referring to the name of the rocket and not some new type of engine.

    1. Re: Lift-off at 4.20 pm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Thought The Same Thing Too When I Read The Headline.

    2. Re:Lift-off at 4.20 pm by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yep, I was quite disappointed. The '...'s made it obvious that Electron was either a name or bad description, but either way it seemed likely they were doing *something* interesting.

      Nope. The engineers just gave it a completely uninspired and irrelevant name. Uninspired I could understand - engineers aren't necessarily the most creative sorts when it comes to things like names, but at least they usually pick something relevant.

      Still not as disappointing as NASA's new Orion concept vehicle though. Seriously? You decide to reuse the name of by far the most powerful rocket ever designed... and you give it to an orbital tugboat?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Lift-off at 4.20 pm by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      Might not hurt to mention the company name, "Rocket Lab" - but, then, that was the first words in the summary quote.

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rocket+La...

    4. Re:Lift-off at 4.20 pm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Also, when I read 'Electron' in the title, I figured the author meant some new type of engine.

      It is, it is made using 'electron beam melting'.

  4. Title Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid Title Case. I thought that they'd invented some kind of electron-rocket and I click thinking "zomg, they can launch a rocket without jet fuel? That's AMAZING". But the company is just called Electron. Click-bait! :-P

  5. Low expectations unreached by mi · · Score: 0, Troll

    New Zealand became the 11th country with potential to launch cargo into space

    Not true — every country, including Tonga and the absurdities like Donetsk People's Republic have that potential already.

    That's great but they are 60 years late.

    60 years and counting. Because the launch was a failure:

    "We didn't quite reach orbit and we'll be investigating why"

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Low expectations unreached by DanDD · · Score: 5, Informative
      The first stage ignited and flew to deploy the second stage. The first stage was not a failure.

      The second stage ignited, but failed to reach the intended altitude.

      The electric pumps functioned well enough for the 2nd stage to reach space.

      The 3D printed components did not fail catastrophically, nor did the electrical system, or the electric fuel pumps.

      While the overall mission was not a success, a vast majority of the individual systems worked as intended. Many milestones were crossed. In the long run the electric pumps might not pan out, but if you don't try you'll never know. Also, this alternate method of pumping fuel into the engine might lead to more capability and flexibility in controlling thrust, which could make landing and re-use even easier.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    2. Re:Low expectations unreached by MangoCats · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aye, as compared to the dramatic public failures of the early US space program, and the undoubtedly equally dramatic secret failures of other programs, this was a good first launch, great even.

      I'm wondering aloud now, did the 2nd stage falter for something as simple as the LiIon battery packs getting too cold? They say they have 20,000 channels of data to analyze, will be interesting to compare how that kind of monitoring affects progress. Certainly you would expect fewer dramatic failures, but will it make things go faster or slower with respect to overall development progress in time and/or money. In other words, they might be burning less time and money with failed launch attempts, but is the cost of collecting and analyzing all the data even higher? I'm sure it can be overdone, and underdone and that there's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle.

    3. Re:Low expectations unreached by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Obviously their problem was that they didn't have any Nazis to help them, you know, like the US did.
      https://xkcd.com/984/

    4. Re:Low expectations unreached by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      New Zealand became the 11th country with potential to launch cargo into space

      Not true — every country, including Tonga and the absurdities like Donetsk People's Republic have that potential already.

      I don't think the Vatican has that potential. Nor does Monaco.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  6. Congratulations, New Zealand! by gaiageek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's a proud feat for such a small country. Welcome to the club.

    1. Re:Congratulations, New Zealand! by MangoCats · · Score: 2

      Also a proud feat for Silicon Valley investors, who backed the Kiwi knowhow with so much cash that RocketLab is now a US company, though still managed and staffed by New Zealanders.

    2. Re:Congratulations, New Zealand! by twosat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a small connection to this story. One of the co-founders of the company was the internet entrepreneur and space-nut Mark Stevens who changed his name to Mark Rocket. He was one of our tenants and a neighbour to us. I still remember him feeding left-over food to our hens. CEO Peter Beck set up Rocket Lab in 2006 with funding from rocket-mad angel investor Mark Rocket who became a 50% owner until he exited in 2011. Mark Rocket is booked to fly into sub-orbital space with Virgin Galactic and was the first New Zealander to book a flight.

      http://www.markrocket.com/

  7. 3D printed engines by willoughby · · Score: 1

    The most interesting part to me: "The booster is powered by 3D-printed Rutherford engines..."

    1. Re:3D printed engines by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

      They probably use the same DMLS process that SpaceX uses for it's engines because it results in the strongest parts. Effectively, you add a layer of metal powder then melt the parts you want to use. Rinse and repeat. Thousands of layers later, you take your print out of the metal powder that surrounds it, clean it off and finally heat it up. The purpose of the heat is to cause every spec of metal to unite as a single chunk of metal. Since there isn't any stress on the metal after it's made into a single piece, the print is stronger than if you tried to machine it (much of which is no longer possible with modern designs).

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  8. Kiwis In Space by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    Summer Blockbuster

  9. Corrections, additional info by gman003 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Correction: the launch was not completely successful. They were targeting an orbital trajectory, but some issue left it on a suborbital heading instead. It's suspected to be insufficient thrust, perhaps an early shutdown, from the second stage, but they haven't released much info. If this had been a paying customer, it would have been deemed a failure.

    Context: Electron is a very small rocket, slightly smaller than Falcon 1. Satellites no longer have to be the huge beasts they were in the 70s and 80s; you can get a useful satellite in a much smaller, lighter package. Rocket Lab hopes to tap that market, with a particular focus on small imaging or mapping satellites. They'll be cheaper than a larger rocket ($5M), much more expensive per-pound ($25K/kg vs $6K/kg for F9, $12K for Atlas) but they hope the advantage of picking your own orbit instead of having to share a launcher and resulting trajectory with

    Additional info: The Rutherford engine is kind of interesting. It uses a battery-fed electric pump for the fuel and oxidizer (which is standard kerolox), rather than using a preburner and turbopump. This technically increases specific impulse considerably, but it makes for a very heavy engine. The main advantage is the sheer simplicity of it - it's very hard to go wrong. I do not expect this design to scale well to larger designs - you need to move a lot of propellant, and having enough batteries to power it would be ridiculously heavy. It quickly becomes easier to just waste a bit of fuel to run the pumps - kerosene is more energy-dense than LiPo, after all.

    The design is similar to a scaled-down Falcon 9, in that it uses a single engine design for both stages, nine on the first stage, one on the second stage. This is a great way to keep development and production costs down, although if you're willing to put in the effort, you can get a much more efficient second-stage engine (Blue Origin is taking this route).

    1. Re:Corrections, additional info by Kjella · · Score: 2

      They'll be cheaper than a larger rocket ($5M), much more expensive per-pound ($25K/kg vs $6K/kg for F9, $12K for Atlas) but they hope the advantage of picking your own orbit instead of having to share a launcher and resulting trajectory with [others?]

      I would think that's a viable market, if you want to observe one spot because you're an Aussie satellite watching Australia you can launch in a polar orbit to make it loop the same place over and over again 14-15 times a day, which few other satellites would have a need for. If you're doing sun-sync polar or GTO or some other "standard" orbit, not so much.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Corrections, additional info by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      Aussies may not be the Kiwis favorite customers, even if they are the closest.

    3. Re:Corrections, additional info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electron is a very small rocket, slightly smaller than Falcon 1.

      It's only about one quarter the size of Falcon 1, which in turn was about one quarter the size of (the lightest configuration of) Delta II.

    4. Re:Corrections, additional info by gman003 · · Score: 2

      Are you looking at Falcon 1 or the unflown Falcon 1e, and are you looking at payload mass, takeoff weight, or physical dimensions?

      Electron is about a quarter the mass of Falcon 1 (10Mg vs 40Mg), but can carry a payload half the size (225kg vs 430kg to SSO, although Falcon 1 never flew with more than 180kg), and is of similar dimensions (17m vs 21m height, 1.2m vs 1.7m diameter).

    5. Re:Corrections, additional info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you looking at Falcon 1 or the unflown Falcon 1e, and are you looking at payload mass, takeoff weight, or physical dimensions?

      Primarily mass.

      similar dimensions (17m vs 21m height, 1.2m vs 1.7m diameter)

      1.1 m^2 vs. 2.3 m^2 cross-sectional area, 18.7 m^3 vs. 48.3 M^3 bounding cylinder.

      can carry a payload half the size (225kg vs 430kg to SSO, although Falcon 1 never flew with more than 180kg)

      Electron has never gone to orbit at all, and 150kg to SSO is the design target. Fair comparisons are 150kg to 430kg, 225kg to 670kg, or 0kg to 180kg. Electron, with its pump-fed upper stage and composite construction, is the more efficient rocket, but not by all that much.

      Remember that SpaceX was talking very much like Rocket Labs is now. They were going to upgrade Falcon 1, fly it a huge number of times, be this free-market wonder, etc. but they barely demonstrated that it went to orbit before abandoning it for a low-launch-rate heavy-lift vehicle and dependence on government sweetheart contracts.

    6. Re:Corrections, additional info by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      It quickly becomes easier to just waste a bit of fuel to run the pumps - kerosene is more energy-dense than LiPo, after all.

      And the kerosene tank gets lighter as you go, whereas the LiPo still weighs the same when it's dead.

  10. What race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The space race ended in 1969

  11. Not New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Rocket Lab is an American company launching from New Zealand

    1. Re:Not New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Rocket Lab is an American company launching from New Zealand

      The rocket was designed and built by New Zealanders in New Zealand. The company is run by New Zealanders. It happens to be funded now by Americans who own most of the stock.

    2. Re:Not New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice to see the bevy of wealthy Australian and New Zealand wealthy types investing in this sort of thing. Oh wait, the don't. Never have. Casinos and mining and land grabs is where it's at.

      http://www.theage.com.au/comment/game-of-mates-how-billionaires-get-rich-at-our-expense-20170526-gwe0dp.html

    3. Re:Not New Zealand by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Like how the Saturn V was done by the Germans?

  12. Lightweight Electron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never thought I'd see lightweight and electron together.

  13. New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "We didn't quite reach orbit and we'll be investigating why, however ..."

    Nigel didn't wrap enough #8 bailing wire around the nose cone. Tell him to come over later I got a few extra rolls he can borrow out in my garden shed.

  14. Von Braun was certainly a Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He joined the Nazi Party in 1937, and became an SS officer in 1940 (a process which he started in 1933, by undertaking SS paramilitary training).

    The 1944 arrest was a move in a Nazi Party internal power struggle, particularly the maneuvering of Himmler to bring more weapons programs under his personal control. Von Braun was being punished/removed for being an obstacle to Himmler's personal ambition, but he had support from another faction which had Hitler's ear.

    As for doubting the war's course and wishing to return to peacetime pursuits, if those were even true charges, they were hardly unusual within the Nazi Party. Hitler himself was very focused on peacetime projects and repeatedly tried to end the war, but was faced with a British Empire which would accept nothing less than their unconditional surrender.

    Remember that WW2 started when Britain and France declared war on Germany, but not the USSR, when Germany and the USSR invaded Poland together. The Nazis did not want war with France or Britain (let alone America), did not initiate the war with France and sued for peace with Britain. Their territorial ambition was to unite the major populations of ethnic Germans politically, and they would have preferred to do so without war, as they did with Austria.

    It's important to remember that Germany lost a lot of territory in WWI, a scant 15 years before the Nazis rose to power, and furthermore stood to lose the rest in short order if the USSR continued its march across Europe. The pre-WW2 European borders had hardly seemed some eternal fixture, and the treatment of Germany in the resolution of WWI is today generally recognized as unreasonably harsh and punitive. It is just as easy to cast the foreign occupation of their pre-WWI territories from Germany as persecution, as to cast the retaking of them as aggression.

    The winners write the history books, and the Nazis have been demonized to the point of making it almost impossible for most people to think reasonably about them. Learning enough details of any Nazi's life, one thinks, "This isn't a Nazi! This is a human being!" They all were human beings, most of them with ordinary human decency and ordinary doubts and hopes. If you lose sight of that, you can learn nothing from WW2. It becomes a fantasy about demons and the heroes who slew them.

    1. Re: Von Braun was certainly a Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you need a common enemy to unite the people. In the 1940's Germany it was Jews. In 2010's USA it is Nazis aka people who voted differently than you. It is always ok to punch ridicule and kill Nazis. They are not real people after all

    2. Re: Von Braun was certainly a Nazi by koomba · · Score: 2

      Most with basic human decency? I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Yes, the measures taken against Germany after WW1 were pretty harsh and probably went too far in some respects. And yes, there were of course large chunks of the population that were not the terrible, evil people who carried out all the atrocities. But the mass murdering of the Holocaust was a huge, organized and industrialized endeavor. The Nazis murdered some 11 million people in concentration camps, 6 million of which were Jews. An operation of that size, that went on for years, is not something that was or could be done in secret. It's estimated there was some 200,000 people directly involved in carrying it out. With that many people a part of it, there was no way that large parts of the population didn't know what was going on. And they didn't just start killings them right away. It started as a gradual process, slowly taking away more and more rights for Jews, more and more oppression and marginalization, and progressively stricter policies towards them. So to me, the fact that there was not wide spread opposition to all that way before they actually started rounding them up says that the general population was okay with it. They had no problem vilifying the Jewish citizens as a scapegoat for Germanys woes, economic problems and general state of being after their humiliating WW1 defeat and subsequent punishment. Maybe society as a whole was just more bigoted then, but that's still no excuse for a lack of massive, nationwide resistance to the atrocities committed by their government. So I can't agree that most of them had normal human decency.

    3. Re:Von Braun was certainly a Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Nazis also wanted to subjugate territory in the east. Everyone at the top levels of the party knew that expansion was necessary (from their point of view) to avoid being in a position of dependence to their materials suppliers in the USSR and other territories. Nazi Germany also had a tremendous amount of internal debt, and territorial annexation was seen as a way of putting some more meat on the bones of the economy.

    4. Re: Von Braun was certainly a Nazi by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Maybe society as a whole was just more bigoted then, but that's still no excuse for a lack of massive, nationwide resistance to the atrocities committed by their government. So I can't agree that most of them had normal human decency.

      Depends how you define normal? Milgram taught us that to obedience is normal human behaviour, and we can see it even today in less extreme circumstances. When the authorities say something, most people still follow even when it makes no sense.
      This is why we need checks and balances in all positions of power, because the human brain can't be trusted to always do the right thing. It is normal for humans to do the wrong thing and we all need to recognise this.

  15. 11 countries by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    TFA tells about 11 countries "with potential to launch cargo into space". What are the 10 others?

    1. Re:11 countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This largely means "has heavy rocket/ICBM", so: Japan, China, South Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, France, Russia, and the United States.

  16. "Success" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it a little odd/humorous that the company is patting themselves on the back so much when the second stage effectively failed (far lower trust than expected). Don't get me wrong it wasn't a complete failure, but it wasn't a success either. It should also be noted that this "small country joining the ranks of the space-faring community" was pretty heavily financed, managed and technically supported by the US (US owned company, Boeing money, New Zealand built). I look forward to their eventual success (two more test flights are planned), but if I were them I wouldn't break out the champagne until they actually reach a decent orbit. And even then I wouldn't declare it a real success until they can do so with a decent payload, reliably, regularly, and cheaply.