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?
New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
81–90 of 104 posts
Re: New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
#82Is there any startup currently investigating cheaper alternatives to reuseable fireworks?
is "fireworks" literal or figurative there?
Re: New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disinterested with a touch of virulent hatred for them.
There's an element in New Zealand that has a blindly hysterical anti-nuclear stance. Then there are others who understand that nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy, and that refusing to admit American naval vessels into our waters is just a pointless diplomatic affront to our strongest ally. There's an excellent reason to not have nuclear energy in New Zealand, which is that we don't need…
Ah, some are blindly hysterical, thankfully others understand. That's a remarkably question-begging and arrogant way of writing. Opinion masquerading very unsuccessfully as fact.
Re: New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
#84They 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?
Not at the moment unfortunately. I checked recently.
Re: New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
#85It'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 t…
This is this company's first launch and as such the company is not known for the general public. Moreover, no Elon Musk-like legend has showed up for RocketLab yet. Therefore, it is pretty comprehensible that this launch has received less coverage.
Re: New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
#86I 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-d…
> The company is over ten years old; I don't think it's quite a startup anymore.
The age of a company has nothing to do with it being a startup. There's a good description of 'startup' in PG's essay here: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
Startups are businesses that are designed to grow quickly. Rocket Lab is. Just because it's been 10 years doesn't mean it's not a startup.
Also, both SpaceX and Tesla are startups. Tesla recently pivoted from being a car company to an energy company, and is only about 1% or so of their way along to their goals. SpaceX has not even begun with their goals of colonizing Mars yet.
These are all startups because they are designed to grow quickly and are nowhere near their goals yet.
Re: New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
IIRC a big benefit of having the rockets and launch pad in New Zealand is that it's possible to scale up and launch nearly-continuously from eastern New Zealand (if necessary) due to the lack of air traffic, while finding launch pad space in the US requires scrounging around and waiting.
And the shipping cost of moving things to New Zealand by boat to put on a rocket is obviously a rounding error compared to that of moving those things to orbit.
Re: New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
#88Though 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.
> beat Spacex by two launches
Cute, yes, but they were also not sued by their competitors and forced at the last minute to relocate to a salty small island that caused epic issues for those launches, as SpaceX was by ULA.
Re: New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
#89What 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 Bl…
Once Blue Origin and SpaceX have rapid-turnaround, their rockets will be able to fly, land, refuel, and fly again within a day or two. It's not just a cost thing. Rapid reusability also increases the launch cadence.
Re: New Zealand startup successfully launches rocket
#90> "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 cheap…
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.