Author Topic: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?  (Read 112853 times)

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #150 on: October 20, 2021, 12:09:25 PM »
We have more information about Rocket Lab's reusability plans today:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211019005608/en/

Rocket Lab's next launch, which is scheduled for November, will feature booster recovery. The booster will splash down into the ocean and be monitored by a helicopter. The company should attempt to use the helicopter to catch the booster on one of the next attempts, but for now they need more practice operating the helicopter in the recovery zone.

Rocket Lab stock is at a low point, perhaps now is a good buying opportunity? At least these guys seem to think so:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1450839275126284294

alcon835

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 777

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #152 on: November 09, 2021, 10:47:29 PM »
Yep! Rocket Lab has a few really big events coming in the next few days:

11/11: Next rocket launch + ocean recovery attempt

11/15: Q3 earnings report

Get ready! BIG moves in the share price probably coming over the next week!

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #153 on: November 15, 2021, 09:03:28 PM »
Rocket Lab just gave their earnings call today, and things are looking good! Shares are up 4% in after hours trading.

Link to Q3 2021 investor presentation:
https://s28.q4cdn.com/737637457/files/doc_presentations/2021/11/Rocket-Lab-Financial-Results-Q321.pdf

A few takeaways:

1. Order Backlog

The order backlog has increased by almost $100MM in just the last 4.5 months!

June 30, 2021 order backlog: $141MM
Current order backlog (4.5 months later): $237MM

This is amazing! The company increased their order backlog by 68% in just 4.5 months! Also, many of these customers are returning customers who are booking multiple flights in a row. Now, we just need to start burning through this backlog. I think the main reason why there were so few launches this year was the Covid situation in New Zealand. I can't wait until the third launch pad in Virginia opens up and we start seeing Rocket Lab launches from the states!

2. Revenue Growth

Revenue growth looks good. Total revenue grew 79% year over year. Space Systems revenue grew 698% year over year, and is up 14% from last quarter. Even launch revenue is up 38% year over year despite the huge launch delays caused by Covid. If this growth keeps up, Rocket Lab is going to be a very successful company.

3. Cash Burn

Peter Beck says that Rocket Lab does not anticipate the need for any capital raises. Adjusted EBITDA net loss for 2021 including Q4 projections is estimated to be $46MM. Meanwhile, the company is sitting on $794MM of cash.

I am really impressed by Rocket Lab's scrappiness and cost control. The company seems to be in fantastic financial health and has no risk of running out of funds. Compare this to Astra, who have no revenue and are burning through their smaller pile of cash ($379MM) at a more rapid rate (Adjusted EBITDA net loss for 2021: $110MM), and stated in their last earnings call that they will need to do a capital raise. Compared to Rocket Lab, Astra has half the cash and twice the burn rate. Not great for them.

At the rate Astra is going, they will run out of cash in about three years. A capital raise and share dilution seems inevitable, as Astra admitted on their conference call. Rocket Lab on the other hand seems to be in a very solid position and doesn't seem likely to run out of cash unless they spend large amounts of money on big ticket items like further acquisitions or Neutron R&D.

4. Acquisitions

In the call today, Peter Beck announced that Rocket Lab is acquiring Planetary System Corporation for $42MM, a small company that builds spacecraft separation systems for small satellites. This should help Rocket Lab develop its Photon satellite bus system into a more comprehensive end-to-end product for customers.

All in all, I am very pleased with the results! Looking forward to the Electron launch tomorrow evening--fingers crossed for no further delays!

BTW, I am not a finance guy. If anyone is interested, please double check my numbers here and here and let me know if I made any mistakes.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2021, 11:04:08 PM by Herbert Derp »

AlanStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #154 on: November 16, 2021, 06:41:30 AM »
Cool, great info.  Are the looking to catch the first stage tomorrow?

alcon835

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #155 on: November 16, 2021, 06:54:12 AM »
Cool, great info.  Are the looking to catch the first stage tomorrow?

No, they are just doing a test with the helicopter in the area watching to prepare for when they'll catch the first stage.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #156 on: November 16, 2021, 03:56:43 PM »
I wanted to take some time to explain what I believe to be Rocket Lab's biggest challenge with their upcoming Neutron rocket: the engines.

Rocket Lab has stated that the Neutron will be ready in 2024, but details have been very light. Specifically, we know very little about what engines the Neutron will be using.

There are two main issues at hand here:

1. Rocket Lab's Rutherford engine design is not scalable to the requirements of Neutron

Rocket Lab's electric pump fed Rutherford engine design will not scale up to the kind of larger engine needed for the Neutron. The turbopumps needed to power rocket engines need to be extremely powerful. For a tiny engine the size of the Rutherford, which is so small that you can hold it in your hands, the power requirements of the turbopump is relatively small. But for a much larger engine like the Falcon 9 Merlin, the power requirements are very high. Too high, in fact, for an electric pump fed engine--an electric pump that powerful would be too heavy as it would require massive batteries.

Electric pump fed engines like the Rutherford are thought to have an upper limit for thrust of about 22,000 - 25,000 lbs (the Rutherford has about 5,600 lbs of thrust). In comparison, the Falcon 9 Merlin engine produces about 200,000 lbs of thrust, ten times the theoretical maximum of an electric pump fed engine design. A more detailed discussion of this topic can be found here.

2. A new rocket engine takes about five years to develop, and it is unclear how much progress Rocket Lab has made on this front

Rocket Lab claims that the Neutron will be ready in 2024, only three years from now. However, as per the previous point, Rocket Lab's existing Rutherford design will not scale to the Neutron. This necessitates the development of a brand-new engine which uses a traditional turbopump design. The problem is that these types of engines are very complex and take considerable time to develop. For example, SpaceX's Merlin engine took about five years to develop, SpaceX's Raptor engine took about six years, and Blue Origin's BE-4 engine has been in development for ten years and still isn't completed.

Unfortunately, Rocket Lab seems to still be in the hiring phase for their new engine, and their open job posting for the Director of Neutron Propulsion Development states: "As the Director of Neutron Propulsion, you are responsible for developing a liquid rocket engine (LOx /LNG) from a clean sheet. This is a key role in supporting the development of the Neutron launch vehicle where you will build a high performing team under your direction."

It seems that they still haven't hired the team needed to build their new engine, which will be extremely difficult to build and could take as long as five years to develop. In other words, Rocket Lab appears to be in quite the pickle.

Considering the above, it is critical to be on the lookout for any details about the engines when Rocket Lab releases their much-anticipated announcement about the Neutron. Perhaps Rocket Lab has made more progress on the engines than it seems. Perhaps they will go the route of Astra and give up on trying to develop an in-house engine for their new rocket and license somebody else's engine instead. I'm not surprised that Astra went this route--they faced the exact same problem as Rocket Lab in that their Delphin engine was also an electric pump fed engine design that wouldn't scale up for their new rocket.

Some clues can be found here, Rocket Lab executive Lars Hoffman is quoted as saying that Rocket Lab has looked at partnering with other propulsion developers for Neutron, and believes that Rocket Lab has found "a solution that is a perfect fit for us".

In any case, if Rocket Lab gives their Neutron update and doesn't present a clear path to having a viable engine, that is a huge red flag for the future of the Neutron program.

The silver lining is that Rocket Lab is diversifying away from the launch business. In the future, Rocket Lab will hopefully make more money from Space Systems and Space Services than Launch, and they won't necessarily need to launch everything on their own rockets. However, if Rocket Lab wants to maximize their competitiveness in Space Services, they probably need the capability of efficiently launching their own satellite constellations, for which the Neutron is instrumental. Otherwise they will be at the mercy of another launch provider, who will force Rocket Lab to adhere to their launch schedule and their cost structure.

What do you think Rocket Lab's plan for the Neutron's engines is?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2021, 06:55:13 PM by Herbert Derp »

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #157 on: November 16, 2021, 07:32:08 PM »
I wish I had answers. The job posting and the claim to have a perfect solution seem to be in conflict. It seems like the options are:

1. Build from scratch, accept slow Neutron timeline, emphasize space services until then
2. Start design program as negotiating tactic, but buy engine elsewhere, build Neutron on time
3. Screw up the design by rushing

I guess they'll do 2??

ETA: Or they could use purchased engines for Neutron version 1, then use their own engines in Neutron v2. That seems complicated and risky though.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2021, 07:34:10 PM by BicycleB »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #158 on: November 16, 2021, 07:51:13 PM »
Planning to be ready in 2024 and actually being ready in 2026 (five years from now) wouldn't be the end of the world. At this point the pessimist in me says it'd probably still mean RocketLab would come in ahead of BlueOrigin/BE-4.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #159 on: November 16, 2021, 08:57:13 PM »
Some of the people in the NASASpaceFlight forum thread are speculating that Rocket Lab might buy or license engines from Ursa Major. There are barely any companies trying to sell rocket engines to other companies. Ursa Major, Firefly Aerospace, and Aerojet Rocketdyne are the only ones that come to mind. Aerojet Rocketdyne is an Old Space company and in the process of being acquired by Lockheed Martin, so it seems unlikely that it would be them.

If Firefly can provide the engines, that would be a big win for them since they are also supplying Astra.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #160 on: November 17, 2021, 07:46:44 PM »
Rocket Lab's mission today was a success! The payload was successfully deployed and the booster successfully splashed down in the ocean! I wouldn't be surprised if the stock price reaches 18 tomorrow. (Edit: I was wrong, people sold the news lol)

Also, with regard to Rocket Lab's purchase of Planetary System Corporation and their satellite separation systems, this could prevent issues like what happened when SpaceX's Zuma payload failed to separate successfully from the 2nd stage. The more companies involved in a process, the greater the chance that that process will fail. I'm glad Rocket Lab is bringing this in-house!
« Last Edit: November 18, 2021, 02:58:23 PM by Herbert Derp »

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #161 on: November 17, 2021, 09:01:42 PM »
Looking forward, I am pumped! Rocket Lab hopes to have their 3rd launch pad in Virginia, United States certified this year. Also, New Zealand is finally lifting their Covid restrictions and the country should be opened up sometime early next year. This means that by early 2022, Rocket Lab will have three separate operational launch pads, two in New Zealand and one in the United States. They also have something like ten completed rockets sitting in their facility, and a huge backlog of unfulfilled contracts. Hopefully, what this means is that 2022 will be an extremely strong year for Rocket Lab, with many launches in rapid succession across multiple countries. I also think Rocket Lab will get a lot more publicity once they start launching from the states--I think people here just don't pay much attention to what is going on over in New Zealand.

Essentially, Rocket Lab is on the verge of launching a slew of missions in 2022, while at the same time achieving reusability and further expanding their Space Systems business, while also announcing big plans to develop their next generation Neutron booster and move into the lucrative Space Services business by building their own satellite constellation. Remeber, the total addressable market of Space Services ($320B / year) is 10x Launch ($10B / year) and Space Systems ($20B / year) COMBINED! All of these developments are huge for Rocket Lab.

Now, consider the competition. Only Virgin Orbit has had a successful commercial flight. Everyone else (Astra, Firefly, ABL, Relativity, etc.) is still struggling to get their first generation rockets into space and many of them probably won't even have their first successful commercial flight in 2022. Plus, none of these guys have even started building out a Space Systems or Space Services business! Rocket Lab is light-years ahead, and this will only become more apparent in 2022.

All of this means that Rocket Lab stock should really be going places in 2022! Looking forward to it!
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 09:06:57 PM by Herbert Derp »

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #162 on: November 18, 2021, 02:59:10 PM »
The booster has been recovered! Looking forward to an announcement about the next booster recovery mission!

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #163 on: November 20, 2021, 02:26:20 AM »
Astra has finally reached orbit! They are now the 4th private space company to reach orbit, behind SpaceX, Rocket Lab, and Virgin Orbit.

alcon835

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #164 on: November 20, 2021, 09:28:07 AM »
It's really good to see Astra finally do it! My favorite part was seeing all of the employees jumping around, hugging each other - all so excited. What a long, emotional endeavor just to get this far and seeing them finally succeed...it's cool to be part of this time in the world.

Still, Astra has a long road ahead. It's all been well laid out in previous posts, but I'm eager to see them build on this success.

If you're swinging this stuff, I'd bet Astra pops a bit on Monday before slowly falling back down to current levels.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #165 on: November 20, 2021, 09:59:33 AM »
Astra has finally reached orbit! They are now the 4th private space company to reach orbit, behind SpaceX, Rocket Lab, and Virgin Orbit.

No love for Pegasus and the former Orbital Sciences Corporation/Orbital ATK?

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #166 on: November 20, 2021, 02:02:15 PM »
Still, Astra has a long road ahead. It's all been well laid out in previous posts, but I'm eager to see them build on this success.

If you're swinging this stuff, I'd bet Astra pops a bit on Monday before slowly falling back down to current levels.

Long road ahead, indeed! However it is important to keep in mind that Astra has a market cap of $2.46B compared to $6.96B for Rocket Lab. In other words, the market values Rocket Lab at 2.83x the value of Astra. The gap between these two companies in terms of capabilities and achievements is already priced in, IMO. With this latest launch, Astra has slightly closed that gap, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more than just a temporary bump in share price.

No love for Pegasus and the former Orbital Sciences Corporation/Orbital ATK?

I guess I just don’t appreciate Old Space companies very much, but point taken! Maybe I should modify my statement to say that Astra is the fourth private, commercial New Space company to reach orbit.

These Old Space companies just aren’t relevant in the New Space race. Northrop Grumman’s Pegasus rocket is clearly obsolete compared to Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne, which has the same capabilities while using more modern technology at 1/4th the cost. The Pegasus Rocket has undergone very little innovation in the last several decades. That’s Old Space for you.

Also, although Pegasus is rendered obsolete by Virgin Orbit, even Virgin Orbit will struggle to compete for commercial contracts with the likes of Rocket Lab and Astra, who are innovating much faster and have a much lower cost structure.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2021, 03:07:09 PM by Herbert Derp »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #167 on: November 20, 2021, 02:25:50 PM »
Fair enough. One more point on this though, which is that, depending on how you define Old Space vs New Space (chronologically or based on culture and approach), one could make an argument the original OSC was a new space company:

Quote
Orbital was founded and incorporated in 1982 by three friends who had met earlier while at Harvard Business School—David W. Thompson, Bruce Walker Ferguson, and Scott L. Webster. ... In 1990, the company successfully carried out eight space missions, highlighted by the initial launch of the Pegasus rocket, the world's first privately developed space launch vehicle ... Shortly following the successful Pegasus launch, Orbital conducted an IPO in 1990 and began trading on the NASDAQ stock exchange.

That's eight years from founding to first orbital launch (SpaceX did it in six, Astra just did it in five, blue origin still hasn't managed it after 21 years) with a target of making orbital launches frequent, routine, and affordable. Their peak cadence was 30 launches in 15 months in the late 90s.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #168 on: November 20, 2021, 02:56:34 PM »
It does look like Orbital Sciences Corporation was at one point a very innovative company. But then it seems they just stopped evolving at some point in the 2000’s and merged with various companies. What a shame. Looks similar to what happened with Boeing.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #169 on: November 20, 2021, 03:15:54 PM »
It does look like Orbital Sciences Corporation was at one point a very innovative company. But then it seems they just stopped evolving at some point in the 2000’s and merged with various companies. What a shame. Looks similar to what happened with Boeing.

And a warning sign of what may end up happening to some of the current crop of "new space" companies in time.

Edit: I knew I'd manage to circle back around to thoughts on making investing decisions in time.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #170 on: November 24, 2021, 01:10:33 PM »
Rocket Lab had a press conference yesterday where they explained their next steps for booster reusability:
https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-ready-to-attempt-midair-recovery-of-electron-booster/

They plan to catch their first booster some time in the first half of next year. Also, the reusable Electron boosters are now covered in a layer of shiny, heat resistant graphite. Pretty!

Today, Rocket Lab announced that the next update on Neutron will take place on December 2nd, just one week from now:
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1463553508406267915

Looking forward to hearing what the plans are for Neutron's engines!

BTW, Peter Beck and Elon Musk made a subtle dig on Astra yesterday, with Peter saying that non-reusable launch vehicles are a "dead-end product" and Elon agreeing to it:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1463291252527489029?s=20
« Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 01:35:13 PM by Herbert Derp »

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #171 on: November 26, 2021, 10:24:45 PM »
Looks like Rocket Lab is working on a new engine called Archimedes!

Not much is currently known other than the name:
https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLab/comments/r33pba/archimedes_the_greatest_mathematician_who_ever/

The mystery unravels!

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #172 on: November 30, 2021, 04:07:02 PM »
Rocket Lab just got a new $20 price target and buy rating from Bank of America!

https://www.barrons.com/articles/rocket-lab-stock-buy-rating-51638287031

Hopefully this means that institutional interest in the stock is growing.

The price targets are now:

09/09/2021, Canaccord Genuity, Price Target: $30

09/13/2021, Cowen, Price Target: $18

09/17/2021, Deutsche Bank, Price Target: $18

09/30/2021, Stifel, Price Target: $22

11/30/2021, Bank of America, Price Target: $20

You can also view a live summary of the analyst ratings here:
https://www.benzinga.com/quote/RKLB/analyst-ratings
« Last Edit: January 12, 2022, 06:45:59 PM by Herbert Derp »

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #173 on: December 01, 2021, 03:00:31 PM »
Rocket Lab has just announced that the launch window for their next mission opens on December 7th--just six days from now!

Between that and the Neutron announcement tomorrow, I'm stoked! The news just keeps coming for this company!

By the way, the Neutron announcement will be livestreamed on YouTube if anyone is interested in watching. Link is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0thW57QeDM
« Last Edit: December 01, 2021, 03:03:08 PM by Herbert Derp »

AlanStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #174 on: December 02, 2021, 06:58:14 AM »
Will be great to see if the new design concepts in Neutron work out.  I expect there is some risk in how they intend to do the fairing, both how they will open and then have to reclose; if it they cant reclose that might result in the loss of the vehicle.  But am sure they are working the details now.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #175 on: December 02, 2021, 07:02:32 AM »
The Neutron update is here!

A few key points:
  • Like the Electron, the Neutron will be made of carbon fiber. Peter Beck claims this will make the rocket lighter, stronger, and more resilient for continued reuse. Peter gave a live demonstration on the strength of his carbon fiber structural material by smashing a massive metal bar into it, which didn’t leave a scratch, while leaving massive dents in stainless steel and aluminum. Modifications and repairs seem like they would be more difficult on a carbon fiber vehicle, though.
  • The Neutron has a very unique design where the fairings are integrated with the first stage, and the non-reusable second stage is like a gigantic kick stage which is deployed out of the fairings which are able to open and close like a flower. This means that the fairing is fully reusable and will not need to be recovered in the ocean since it is always attached to the first stage. This also means that the second stage is extremely light, since all of the structural elements are incorporated into the first stage. You can almost imagine the Neutron as an SSTO rocket with a gigantic kick stage! Very interesting and smart design, I’ve never seen anything like this before!
  • The Neutron will indeed have an engine called Archimedes, which will be a low-performing methane-oxygen engine. Low-performing is a good thing in this case, because it means the engine will be under much less stress than high-performing engines like Raptor. This means that the Archimedes engine will be easier to design and manufacture, and will be more reliable as well. This smart design choice de-risks a lot of potential issues with the engine and leaves space for further optimizations in the future.

    I think Rocket Lab took a lesson from SpaceX who is having tons of issues with the manufacturability and reliability of their new high-performance Raptor engine. Blue Origin is also having even worse issues with their BE-4 engine. Apparently trying to design a mass-producible, extremely reliable, rapidly reusable engine that is simultaneously extremely high-performing and pushes material tolerances to the limits of the laws of physics is pretty hard, and even companies with massive resources like SpaceX and Blue Origin are struggling with it. I’m glad that Rocket Lab is not taking this route!

    I also like the choice of methane-oxygen for the rocket fuel. This will be more reusable because methane burns clean and does not make soot like kerosene. Also, a lot of future space infrastructure like orbital fuel depots and Lunar/Martian fuel production will cater specifically to methane-oxygen rockets.

    From a timeline perspective, Peter Beck claimed that the first Archimedes prototypes will be fired up in 2022. Looking forward to seeing if Rocket Lab can meet this timeline, that would be very bullish if so!
  • The Neutron has fixed landing legs which don’t fold in and out. Like the Starship, it is designed to return directly to the launch pad. This seems to have taken learnings from Starship and should be more economical than Falcon 9. Unlike the Falcon 9, Neutron does not have complicated, heavy landing legs and grid fins.

Overall, the Neutron is a very unique and innovative design! I see clear cost advantages over the Falcon 9. The Neutron is clearly designed to be economically and rapidly reusable. It should be able to land on the same launch pad that it took off from and then immediately launch again without any refurbishment. The Falcon 9 cannot do this! Compared to the Falcon 9, Neutron has the following benefits:
  • Eliminated the time, cost, and effort needed to catch the first stage on a barge in the ocean and bring it back to the launch pad.
  • Eliminated the time, cost, and effort to parachute the fairings into the ocean and fish them out of the water with a second boat, and then refurbish them for further use.
  • Made the second stage much lighter and lower cost, by moving all of the structural components of the rocket into the first stage.
  • Eliminated the complicated, heavy, and expensive folding landing legs and grid fins.
  • Uses a methane-oxygen Archimedes engine which burns clean and should be more reusable than the soot-producing kerosene Merlin engines of the Falcon 9.

On a side note, Peter Beck really reminds me of Elon Musk in this presentation. I see that he took queues from Elon’s Cybertruck presentation by demonstrating the strength of carbon fiber vs steel and aluminum by smashing stuff with a huge metal bar. Very fun to watch!

I just bought more shares of RKLB at $14.74. Fingers crossed!
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 08:21:05 AM by Herbert Derp »

AlanStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #176 on: December 02, 2021, 08:36:56 AM »
"Made the second stage much lighter and lower cost, by moving all of the structural components of the rocket into the first stage."

I am having a little trouble seeing how this is a clear advantage in itself, this is increasing the landing weight, the weight that has to be turned around at stage separation and accelerated back towards the launch site.  And the second stage still needs to be structurally sound enough for the accelerations seen under its own engine.  This might be (and I hope it is!) the best option over all to keep the fairings attached to the main vehicle and have it all returning to launch site for easy reuse. 

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #177 on: December 02, 2021, 09:17:13 AM »
I am having a little trouble seeing how this is a clear advantage in itself, this is increasing the landing weight, the weight that has to be turned around at stage separation and accelerated back towards the launch site.  And the second stage still needs to be structurally sound enough for the accelerations seen under its own engine.  This might be (and I hope it is!) the best option over all to keep the fairings attached to the main vehicle and have it all returning to launch site for easy reuse.

Yes, I think the point is that this design helps to maximize the percentage of the rocket which is rapidly reusable. I wonder if there could be some way for them to reuse the second stage by putting a circular heat shield in the front and parachutes in the back? Then it could be recovered in the same tried and true manner as existing astronaut capsules. Or maybe they can catch it with the helicopter like 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.

If they can optimize the engines to get more thrust and efficiency, they might be able to squeeze out the extra performance they need to lift the heat shield and parachutes for the second stage. Not sure how feasible this really is, since the fuel tank of the second stage would be taking heavy forces during reentry, and the heat shield and parachutes would be rather heavy--but Peter Beck did say that the second stage would be extremely strong.

Take a look at this old SpaceX concept video which showcases SpaceX's original idea for a reusable Falcon 9 second stage. The idea in this post would be very similar to the idea in that video, but would use parachutes and helicopters instead of landing legs. I think second stage reuse is more feasible for the Neutron than the Falcon 9 as depicted in that video, since the Neutron second stage would be smaller and lighter.

On an aside, people on Reddit are saying that James Bond predicted the Neutron! This fake movie rocket from 1967 really does look and behave a lot like Neutron:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qixtjMoMUA
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 12:13:52 PM by Herbert Derp »

alcon835

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #178 on: December 03, 2021, 06:58:30 AM »
Definitely buying more RKLB!

I really appreciate your updates / thoughts / overviews / etc. and the general discussion on this board. It’s so much fun getting to watch the future unfolding before us!!!

In the short term, I’m most eager to see them achieve their December 7th launch plans. I’m concerned they’ll get delayed by Omnicron. They are in NZ after all :/.


maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #179 on: December 03, 2021, 07:06:35 AM »
I see clear cost advantages over the Falcon 9. The Neutron is clearly designed to be economically and rapidly reusable. It should be able to land on the same launch pad that it took off from and then immediately launch again without any refurbishment. The Falcon 9 cannot do this! Compared to the Falcon 9, Neutron has the following benefits:
  • Eliminated the time, cost, and effort needed to catch the first stage on a barge in the ocean and bring it back to the launch pad.
  • Eliminated the time, cost, and effort to parachute the fairings into the ocean and fish them out of the water with a second boat, and then refurbish them for further use.
  • Made the second stage much lighter and lower cost, by moving all of the structural components of the rocket into the first stage.
  • Eliminated the complicated, heavy, and expensive folding landing legs and grid fins.
  • Uses a methane-oxygen Archimedes engine which burns clean and should be more reusable than the soot-producing kerosene Merlin engines of the Falcon 9.

Can you expand a bit on your first point? Falcon 9 is also performing RTLS (return to launch site) profile missions. They're only able to do it when lifting lighter payloads to orbit, but the lighter end of the range for Falcon 9 missions are the ones where Falcon 9 would potentially directly competing with Neutron, based on Neutron's estimated payload capacity.

Agree with you on the second point. Worth noting that for both eliminating the need to catch fairings and switching from kerosine to methane, SpaceX and RocketLab are moving in parallel as they develop the replacements for their current workhorse rockets.

RocketLab is planning to switch from the kerosine fueled Rutherford in their currently flying Electron to the in development methane fueled Archimedes for the Neutron, and SpaceX switching from the kerosine fueled Merlins in the their currently flying Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy to methane fueled Raptors in the SuperHeavy/Starship. Rocket lab is integrating the fairing as a reuseable part of their first stage so they don't have to recover it, and Starship essentially acts as a (reuseable) fairing for SpaceX.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #180 on: December 03, 2021, 08:46:31 AM »
Definitely buying more RKLB!

I really appreciate your updates / thoughts / overviews / etc. and the general discussion on this board. It’s so much fun getting to watch the future unfolding before us!!!

In the short term, I’m most eager to see them achieve their December 7th launch plans. I’m concerned they’ll get delayed by Omnicron. They are in NZ after all :/.

I’m glad you appreciate my topic. I like a place where I can share my thoughts and have others critique them. Exposing myself to other people’s perspectives gives me greater insights and hopefully prevents me from succumbing to tunnel vision. Hopefully those of you following this topic find it as interesting as I do! I have learned a ton about the space industry since I started this topic, and I hope that you guys have learned something too!

Yeah, I worry about Omicron too. The Wallops, Virginia launch site cannot come quickly enough! Getting that launch site online is another critical piece of Rocket Lab’s fundamentals that we should be watching for.

I see clear cost advantages over the Falcon 9. The Neutron is clearly designed to be economically and rapidly reusable. It should be able to land on the same launch pad that it took off from and then immediately launch again without any refurbishment. The Falcon 9 cannot do this! Compared to the Falcon 9, Neutron has the following benefits:
  • Eliminated the time, cost, and effort needed to catch the first stage on a barge in the ocean and bring it back to the launch pad.

Can you expand a bit on your first point? Falcon 9 is also performing RTLS (return to launch site) profile missions. They're only able to do it when lifting lighter payloads to orbit, but the lighter end of the range for Falcon 9 missions are the ones where Falcon 9 would potentially directly competing with Neutron, based on Neutron's estimated payload capacity.

As you stated, Falcon 9 can only perform RTLS under very specific conditions—i.e. certain sizes of payloads and certain orbits. Neutron, on the other hand has been specifically designed to be capable of launching “98% of all satellites forecast to launch through 2029” while also being exclusively RTLS. So what Rocket Lab is saying is that Neutron is designed to be capable of delivering 98% of all possible satellites in RTLS configuration. The Falcon 9 cannot do this. I’m not sure what percentage of payloads it can handle in RTLS configuration, but it must be much less than 98%.

Agree with you on the second point. Worth noting that for both eliminating the need to catch fairings and switching from kerosine to methane, SpaceX and RocketLab are moving in parallel as they develop the replacements for their current workhorse rockets.

RocketLab is planning to switch from the kerosine fueled Rutherford in their currently flying Electron to the in development methane fueled Archimedes for the Neutron, and SpaceX switching from the kerosine fueled Merlins in the their currently flying Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy to methane fueled Raptors in the SuperHeavy/Starship. Rocket lab is integrating the fairing as a reuseable part of their first stage so they don't have to recover it, and Starship essentially acts as a (reuseable) fairing for SpaceX.

Yeah, it’s definitely interesting to watch Neutron and Starship being developed in parallel, and the different approaches they take to addressing the shortcomings of the Falcon 9.

On the subject of Starship (not a criticism of your post), one of the biggest criticisms of Rocket Lab that I see is the claim that Starship will “make them obsolete”. I disagree, since the Neutron is clearly designed to operate as a viable product in a world where Starship also exists, and nobody wants SpaceX to establish a monopoly. Not the government, not the military, not SpaceX’s commercial partners and competitors, and not even SpaceX want a SpaceX monopoly.

Also, it’s worth noting that Neutron was designed with the goal of being able to efficiently and profitably deliver 98% of possible satellites to orbit over the next decade, while Starship was designed to establish a self-sustaining city of human beings living on Mars. In other words, the design of the Neutron is purely profit motivated, while Starship is not. That being said, I still expect Starship to be more profitable than Neutron—it’s just not optimized for profit in the way that Neutron is.

Although this may come off as stating the obvious, Peter Beck has been asked directly about Starship on multiple occasions, and he has clearly stated that Neutron is being designed with the Starship in mind as a key competitor, and that he believes Neutron will be “highly competitive”.

Quote from: Peter Beck
You don't go through all of the pain of developing a launch vehicle if you don't think you're going to be competitive with what's currently in the market today, and what's planned for the future. We think we're going to be highly competitive.

BTW, the market is down today. Could be a good time to pick up some shares of RKLB if you have some cash laying around!
« Last Edit: December 03, 2021, 11:46:29 AM by Herbert Derp »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #181 on: December 03, 2021, 09:25:55 AM »
As you stated, Falcon 9 can only perform RTLS under very specific conditions—i.e. certain sizes of payloads and certain orbits. Neutron, on the other hand has been specifically designed to be capable of launching “98% of all satellites forecast to launch through 2029” while also being exclusively RTLS. So what Rocket Lab is saying is that Neutron is designed to be capable of delivering 98% of all possible satellites in RTLS configuration. The Falcon 9 cannot do this. I’m not sure what percentage of payloads it can handle in RTLS configuration, but it must be much less than 98%.

That's a bit misleading though. They are talking about the percentage of satellites rather than the percentage of launches. The vast majority of satellites forecast to launch between now and 2029 are starlink or similar large constellations of satellites planning to go up aggregated into a smaller number of rocket launches. So a single 400 starlink satellites scheduled to go up in one starship launch skews the average a LOT rather than being treated as a single datapoint.

Falcon 9 can throw about 11,000-12,000 kg to LEO in a RTLS mission*. It sounds like RL is targeting 8,000 kg to LEO for Neutron if they're aiming for reuse.

*Edit: Looking at some different numbers I found another (older) estimate that the more appropriate comparison to Neutron might be 9,500 kg to LEO for a Falcon 9 with RTLS.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2021, 10:00:23 AM by maizefolk »

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #182 on: December 03, 2021, 10:01:52 AM »
That's a bit misleading though. They are talking about the percentage of satellites rather than the percentage of launches. The vast majority of satellites forecast to launch between now and 2029 are starlink or similar large constellations of satellites planning to go up aggregated into a smaller number of rocket launches. So a single 400 starlink satellites scheduled to go up in one starship launch skews the average a LOT rather than being treated as a single datapoint.

That’s a good point. I don’t think that Neutron will be a cost-effective way to launch a massive constellation of tens of thousands of relatively large satellites like Starlink. However, it may be a great way to maintain such constellations over time when specific satellites need to be replaced. If you just need to replace a few satellites, why commission an entire Starship?

That being said, most commercial constellations do not seem to be as large as Starlink and the handful of other proposed global satellite internet constellations. Also, their satellites are smaller. For example, the well known Earth imaging company BlackSky plans to operate a constellation of only 60 satellites in the long term. This is all they think they need to get full coverage of the Earth’s surface. Spire Global, another similar company, operates a fleet of about 110 satellites, and these are tiny CubeSats the size of a loaf of bread.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in a previous post, there are a lot of smaller space companies who are trying to build out constellations of tens to hundreds of satellites. The long list of satellite constellation companies I mentioned in that post is just scratching the surface. What we have is a lot of different companies launching a lot of different small constellations to a lot of different orbits on a lot of different schedules. All of these constellations will need to be maintained in a piecemeal fashion over time, even the huge ones like Starlink. Finally, satellites are going to get smaller over time, not larger.

In conclusion, given the above I think there is plenty of market for smaller launch vehicles like Neutron. Some things just can’t be done all at once in bulk.

Falcon 9 can throw about 11,000-12,000 kg to LEO in a RTLS mission*. It sounds like RL is targeting 8,000 kg to LEO for Neutron if they're aiming for reuse.

*Edit: Looking at some different numbers I found another (older) estimate that the more appropriate comparison to Neutron might be 9,500 kg to LEO for a Falcon 9 with RTLS.

Also a good point. On paper, Falcon 9’s RTLS capability seems on par with Neutron. But Falcon 9 is less reusable and will require more refurbishment on its reusable components than Neutron. In practice, though, I just don’t see many Falcon 9 RTLS missions. Maybe it is because they are prioritizing bulk launches like Starlink where RTLS isn’t an option?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2021, 10:17:19 AM by Herbert Derp »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #183 on: December 03, 2021, 10:17:58 AM »
Yeah, it’s definitely interesting to watch Neutron and Starship being developed in parallel, and the different approaches they take to addressing the shortcomings of the Falcon 9.

On the subject of Starship (not a criticism of your post), one of the biggest criticisms of Rocket Lab that I see is the claim that Starship will “make them obsolete”. I disagree, since the Neutron is clearly designed to operate as a viable product in a world where Starship also exists, and nobody wants SpaceX to establish a monopoly. Not the government, not the military, not SpaceX’s commercial partners and competitors, and not even SpaceX want a SpaceX monopoly.

Also, it’s worth noting that Neutron was designed with the goal of being able to efficiently and profitably deliver 98% of possible satellites to orbit over the next decade, while Starship was designed to establish a self-sustaining city of human beings living on Mars. In other words, the design of the Neutron is purely profit motivated, while Starship is not. That being said, I still expect Starship to be more profitable than Neutron—it’s just not optimized for profit in the way that Neutron is.

Although this may come off as stating the obvious, Peter Beck has been asked directly about Starship on multiple occasions, and he has clearly stated that Neutron is being designed with the Starship in mind as a key competitor, and that he believes Neutron will be “highly competitive”.

Just saw the edit.

Yeah, and appreciate your understanding that I'm not arguing Neutron won't be cost competitive or that RL should just fold up shop because of Starship being developed. It sounds like they are optimizing for cost pretty ruthlessly and, assuming the rocket ends up working as planned, I think they'll certainly be able Falcon 9 at the lower end of its range (missions it currently completes using RTLS mission profiles) by having a lower cost per launch and make a lot of money doing reliable custom launches for smaller payloads even in a world where starship/superheavy works out and is regularly launching as well.

At the same time I think RL (like all companies) often puts a lot of spin on their comparisons to make things sound even rosier than they really are, and one way they do that is when they emphasize comparisons to Falcon 9, which is a generation older than Neutron, or the 98% of planned satellites number as discussed above.

That's a bit misleading though. They are talking about the percentage of satellites rather than the percentage of launches. The vast majority of satellites forecast to launch between now and 2029 are starlink or similar large constellations of satellites planning to go up aggregated into a smaller number of rocket launches. So a single 400 starlink satellites scheduled to go up in one starship launch skews the average a LOT rather than being treated as a single datapoint.

Falcon 9 can throw about 11,000-12,000 kg to LEO in a RTLS mission. It sounds like RL is targeting 8,000 kg to LEO for Neutron if they're aiming for reuse.

That’s a good point. I don’t think that Neutron will be a cost-effective way to launch a massive constellation of tens of thousands of relatively large satellites like Starlink. However, it may be a great way to maintain such constellations over time when specific satellites need to be replaced. If you just need to replace a few satellites, why commission an entire Starship?

That being said, most commercial constellations do not seem to be as large as Starlink and the handful of other proposed global satellite internet constellations. Also, their satellites are smaller. For example, the well known Earth imaging company BlackSky plans to operate a constellation of only 60 satellites in the long term. This is all they think they need to get full coverage of the Earth’s surface. Spire Global, another similar company, operates a fleet of about 110 satellites, and these are tiny CubeSats the size of a loaf of bread.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in a previous post, there are a lot of smaller space companies who are trying to build out constellations of tens to hundreds of satellites. The long list of satellite constellation companies I mentioned in that post is just scratching the surface. What we have is a lot of different companies launching a lot of different small constellations to a lot of different orbits on a lot of different schedules. All of these constellations will need to be maintained in a piecemeal fashion over time, even the huge ones like Starlink. Finally, satellites are going to get smaller over time, not larger.

In conclusion, given the above I think there is plenty of market for smaller launch vehicles like Neutron. Some things just can’t be done all at once in bulk.

I agree with your bolded conclusion. The validity of a conclusion does not mean every argument in favor of that conclusion is valid. But I still disagree with putting "Eliminated the time, cost, and effort needed to catch the first stage on a barge in the ocean and bring it back to the launch pad." as a competitive advantage of Neutron.

Falcon 9 and Neutron can both land at their launch site and Falcon 9 can lift (modestly) more payload to orbit while doing so. It's not inherently a disadvantage of Falcon 9 that, in addition to doing the same things as Neutron, it can also do other things that Neutron cannot.

I also would be interested in your reasoning for the statement that satellites are going to get smaller over time rather than larger. Right now satellites cost a lot more than their launch vehicles in part because of the extreme cost pressure to minimize weight using exotic materials and custom fabrication. As the cost of launch decreases, it may become possible to build much cheaper satellites using less exotic materials and off the shelf parts. Ars Technica has a great discussion about this in the context of planetary missions. Do I know that satellites are going to get bigger over time? No. But I'm also not comfortable confidently asserting that they are necessarily going to get smaller.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #184 on: December 03, 2021, 12:09:16 PM »
I also would be interested in your reasoning for the statement that satellites are going to get smaller over time rather than larger. Right now satellites cost a lot more than their launch vehicles in part because of the extreme cost pressure to minimize weight using exotic materials and custom fabrication. As the cost of launch decreases, it may become possible to build much cheaper satellites using less exotic materials and off the shelf parts. Ars Technica has a great discussion about this in the context of planetary missions. Do I know that satellites are going to get bigger over time? No. But I'm also not comfortable confidently asserting that they are necessarily going to get smaller.

I figure it's just common sense. Satellites are getting smaller and cheaper for the same reason that computers that once filled an entire room can now fit in your pocket. Being smaller doesn't necessarily mean exotic materials, it means cheaper materials, cheaper logistics, easier to build, and less power consumption. One prime example is how greater miniaturization in semiconductors leads to less power consumption and less heat generation, both of which are very important for satellites.

In fact, satellites have a lot in common with smartphones! A satellite is just a computer floating in space, connected to an onboard power supply, usually with the ability to transmit and receive radio signals, and usually with various sensors such as cameras. Smartphones possess all of these same characteristics! You could literally place a smartphone in orbit and it could function as a crude satellite. It wouldn't make economic sense to build gigantic smartphones, and the same applies to satellites. Large satellites used to cost millions or even billions of dollars each. Tiny CubeSats cost mere thousands of dollars each!

Here's another related article:
https://westeastspace.com/2020/04/02/satellites-are-getting-smaller-hubble-size-to-starlink-and-smaller/

Could you share the article from Ars Technica where they mentioned satellites getting bigger?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2021, 09:14:16 AM by Herbert Derp »

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #185 on: December 03, 2021, 12:33:32 PM »
A few juicy tidbits I found on the web today!

Some people on NASASpaceFlight are pointing out that Rocket Lab's Archimedes engine is remarkably similar on paper to the European Space Agency's Prometheus engine:
Quote from: Stan-1967
Anyone else find it interesting that the "Archimedes" engine description matches exactly the ESA/Arianegroup "Prometheus" specifications?

Who else has a 1000kN Methalox engine with 320s ISP, air re-startable, reusable , etc. read to fly in 2024?

it is interesting if they struck a deal to use Prometheus, & it is also interesting if they develop their own and beat slow moving ESA/Ariane to a re-usable vehicle.

Even the names of the engines are similar! Could there be a potential for collaboration? At this point, who knows--but it sure is interesting!

In other news, Auckland, New Zealand, where Rocket Lab's Electron program is currently based, just reached 90% of the population fully vaccinated! Some parts of the city have reached 97% of eligible people receiving their first dose. These vaccination rates are unheard of in the United States and most of Europe, and this is a very encouraging sign that New Zealand will be back open for business soon. My fingers are crossed in hoping for less covid-related delays in the Electron program! Nevertheless, the sooner we can get that United States Electron launch pad up and running, the better!

I'll leave you guys with a collection of news articles about the Neutron. It received pretty broad news coverage, especially in the financial media:

https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-updates-neutron-design/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/rocket-labs-next-booster-is-stubby-reusable-and-has-a-bond-movie-fairing/

https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/02/rocket-lab-reimagines-rocket-design-with-its-neutron-launch-vehicle/

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/02/rocket-lab-reusable-neutron-rocket-update-competing-with-spacex.html

https://www.barrons.com/articles/rocket-lab-stock-new-rocket-neutron-51638483698
« Last Edit: December 03, 2021, 02:29:32 PM by Herbert Derp »

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #186 on: December 08, 2021, 10:36:08 AM »
In recent news, Rocket Lab just signed a three-launch contract with Synspective to launch their Earth imaging satellites:
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/rocket-lab-to-launch-three-dedicated-electron-missions-for-earth-imaging-company-synspective/

Synspective is yet another Earth imaging startup who plans to operate a small constellation of about 30 satellites. This multi-launch contract comes on the heels of several other multi-launch contracts announced earlier this year: a five-launch contract for BlackSky and a five-launch contract for Kinéis. In the case of Kinéis, Rocket Lab will be launching their entire constellation of 25 satellites.

It is great news that Rocket Lab continues to get not just more contracts, but more multi-launch contracts. This is a sign of the strength of Rocket Lab's economics, if customers thought they could get better deals from Falcon 9 rideshares they would not be booking these multi-launch contracts with Rocket Lab. It also shows Rocket Lab's strength in launching multiple small constellations of small satellites for a variety of customers operating on different timetables.

This is something that Rocket Lab is uniquely situated for compared to say, Starship, because even launching the entirety of one of these small constellations would vastly underutilize the capacity of a single Starship. The only way that Starship works in this scenario would be rideshare plus space tugs to deploy the satellites to their different orbits, which introduces additional costs from the space tugs as well as massive scheduling delays from having to rideshare with a bunch of other companies. It turns out that the bottleneck in scheduling satellite launches tends to be with the customer getting their payload ready, not with the readiness of the launch vehicle--so the more customers are ridesharing, the more the delay in scheduling. Rocket Lab is well-positioned here with their ability to deliver small payloads directly to just the right orbits at a competitive cost, plus they are also building out Photon into its own space tug / satellite bus. I wouldn't be surprised to see Photons being launched on a Starship in the future--after all, we are already seeing Photons getting launched by Falcon 9!
« Last Edit: December 08, 2021, 10:42:58 AM by Herbert Derp »

lutorm

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
  • Location: About the middle of Sweden
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #187 on: December 08, 2021, 08:33:17 PM »
I didn't really digest the details of the Neutron, but it's an interesting way to attempt to minimize second stage mass and maximize reusability. In general, mass hurts the most on the second stage, so that makes sense. However, I'm not buying the structural argument, because if the second stage needs to hold itself up under thrust, it needs the same structure that makes it able to sustain thrust loads under first stage ascent, too. The exception is if the second stage engine has less thrust/weight than the first stage, so acceleration is higher during first stage. The F9 second stage is very overpowered compared to what you see in many other designs (driven by having a common engine design with the first stage), so it reaches 5G during S2just like S1. If you look at e.g. Ariane or Atlas, I think you see a lot lower accelerations during second stage. I have no idea whether the Neutron falls into this category as well.

As for carbon fiber, it sounds great in theory, but manufacture is a lot more complicated than metals. That, in combination with Elon wanting to build thousands of starships, and reentry heat considerations, makes the choice of 304SS for Starship reasonable. The neutron stage two isn't reentering from orbit and won't be doing so (SpaceX explored that for the F9 S2 and it's too hard, adding the necessary structures makes it too heavy. Hence the fundamentally different design for Starship. Dragon can reenter on its ass because it doesn't have any engines there, an ascent vehicle can't.) I guess we'll see how long it takes RL to iron out the issues with carbon fiber.

My final thought is that you can't really compare the performance of a rocket on the drawing board, like Neutron, to a mature rocket like the F9. Compare the flying Falcon Heavy to what was talked about back in 2011. You discover a lot when you actually try to build something.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #188 on: December 08, 2021, 09:04:59 PM »
Rocket Lab just completed another successful mission today. They are making this look easy!

I didn't really digest the details of the Neutron, but it's an interesting way to attempt to minimize second stage mass and maximize reusability. In general, mass hurts the most on the second stage, so that makes sense. However, I'm not buying the structural argument, because if the second stage needs to hold itself up under thrust, it needs the same structure that makes it able to sustain thrust loads under first stage ascent, too. The exception is if the second stage engine has less thrust/weight than the first stage, so acceleration is higher during first stage. The F9 second stage is very overpowered compared to what you see in many other designs (driven by having a common engine design with the first stage), so it reaches 5G during S2 just like S1. If you look at e.g. Ariane or Atlas, I think you see a lot lower accelerations during second stage. I have no idea whether the Neutron falls into this category as well.

Yeah, I guess the compressive forces during Neutron's second stage ascent must be smaller than what they would have been during first stage ascent if the second stage was stacked on top of the first stage like a normal rocket. Otherwise Rocket Lab's argument about the benefits of utilizing tensile structures in the second stage during first stage ascent would not make sense. It seems that it would be really easy to figure this out, all you would need to do is calculate the G forces during first and second stage ascent and compare them to each other. Since Rocket Lab wants to minimize the second stage as much as possible, I would guess that the first stage is doing most of the heavy lifting and heavy acceleration.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2021, 09:07:37 PM by Herbert Derp »

lutorm

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
  • Location: About the middle of Sweden
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #189 on: December 09, 2021, 01:09:31 AM »
Rocket Lab just completed another successful mission today. They are making this look easy!

I didn't really digest the details of the Neutron, but it's an interesting way to attempt to minimize second stage mass and maximize reusability. In general, mass hurts the most on the second stage, so that makes sense. However, I'm not buying the structural argument, because if the second stage needs to hold itself up under thrust, it needs the same structure that makes it able to sustain thrust loads under first stage ascent, too. The exception is if the second stage engine has less thrust/weight than the first stage, so acceleration is higher during first stage. The F9 second stage is very overpowered compared to what you see in many other designs (driven by having a common engine design with the first stage), so it reaches 5G during S2 just like S1. If you look at e.g. Ariane or Atlas, I think you see a lot lower accelerations during second stage. I have no idea whether the Neutron falls into this category as well.

Yeah, I guess the compressive forces during Neutron's second stage ascent must be smaller than what they would have been during first stage ascent if the second stage was stacked on top of the first stage like a normal rocket. Otherwise Rocket Lab's argument about the benefits of utilizing tensile structures in the second stage during first stage ascent would not make sense. It seems that it would be really easy to figure this out, all you would need to do is calculate the G forces during first and second stage ascent and compare them to each other. Since Rocket Lab wants to minimize the second stage as much as possible, I would guess that the first stage is doing most of the heavy lifting and heavy acceleration.
Conventional wisdom is that you want high thrust/weight for the first stage (to minimize gravity losses) and high ISP for the second (to maximize delta-v per mass). However, it seems Neutron will use 7 Archimedes engines on S1 and 1 vacuum-optimized Archimedes on S2, so the thrust ratio is 6.8 as opposed to 8.1 for F9. This would not seem to indicate that the Neutron second stage is accelerating less than the F9, certainly not if they also are trying to make the second stage very light. Something doesn't seem to add up.

I meant to comment on the RTLS discussion, too. Here, there's also no free lunch. The delta-V you need to RTLS comes directly out of your mass to orbit. If you can do X and RTLS, you can do >X if you land downrange, that's just physics. The comparative cost of RTLS, though, depends on what fraction of delta-V is done by the first and second stages. The F9, with a comparatively low-ISP second stage, gets more of its delta-V from the first stage than, say, an Atlas/Centaur with a super-high ISP RL10 upper stage engine. This makes RTLS for F9 costlier than it would be for other systems where the first stage is going slower at stage sep. A methalox engine has a bit higher ISP than the Merlin, so it makes sense that RTLS would be a slightly better option for a launch vehicle that uses a methalox upper stage. I don't know offhand how much difference that would be though.

TomTX

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5345
  • Location: Texas
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #190 on: December 13, 2021, 09:23:20 PM »
I didn't really digest the details of the Neutron, but it's an interesting way to attempt to minimize second stage mass and maximize reusability. In general, mass hurts the most on the second stage, so that makes sense. However, I'm not buying the structural argument, because if the second stage needs to hold itself up under thrust, it needs the same structure that makes it able to sustain thrust loads under first stage ascent, too. The exception is if the second stage engine has less thrust/weight than the first stage, so acceleration is higher during first stage.

Thrust loads aren't the only ones to be concerned about.

This arrangement means the second stage has no direct aerodynamic loads. ie - withstanding going supersonic, Max Q and such.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #191 on: December 14, 2021, 11:00:47 PM »
New news! Yesterday, Rocket Lab has announced they are buying SolAero, operator of the world’s largest production line of space solar cells. Notably, this acquisition adds 425 employees, bringing Rocket Lab to approximately 1,100 employees in total. In comparison, SpaceX has about 10,000 employees, Blue Origin has about 4,000, Maxar has about 4,400, and Astra has about 300. I'm curious to see what sort of things Rocket Lab will be able to achieve once they hit 4,000 employees--probably more than what Blue Origin is currently achieving!

This is the fourth company that Rocket Lab has acquired:
  • Sinclair Interplanetary: Satellite and spacecraft hardware, including reaction wheels and star trackers
  • Advanced Solutions: Flight software for spacecraft, including guidance, navigation and control (GNC) offerings, as well as mission simulation and test software
  • Planetary Systems: Mechanical spacecraft separation systems and satellite dispensers
  • SolAero: Space solar panels

From this series of acquisitions, you can see that Rocket Lab is dead serious about manufacturing satellites and spacecraft at volume. They are going to be one of only a handful of companies on the planet capable of building, launching, and operating their own megaconstellation of satellites, as well as being able to offer a comprehensive, modular satellite bus platform to other constellation builders.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2021, 11:38:06 PM by Herbert Derp »

alcon835

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #192 on: December 18, 2021, 08:51:56 AM »
I keep forgetting how small they are. Considering what they've already been able to do, it's amazing to think about all they'll soon be able to accomplish if they can keep the momentum going!

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #193 on: December 18, 2021, 12:00:13 PM »
In related news, a space startup by the name of Stoke Space has a design for what looks like an "Electron Killer":
https://spacenews.com/stoke-space-raises-65-million-for-reusable-launch-vehicle-development/

This Twitter post has some interesting information. Stoke Space's design is for a fully-reusable rocket which can lift 1,650 kg to LEO for under $500,000!

Stoke Space has just 29 employees, many of which are from Blue Origin and SpaceX. They are based in Kent, Washington, which is also where Blue Origin is based. The design of their rocket seems to be an evolution of New Shepherd, which doesn't come as a surprise given the Blue Origin heritage. Their rocket has a methalox first stage and a hydrolox second stage. The second stage is fully reusable, with integrated fairings like the Neutron, plus a heat shield on the bottom with aerospike engines incorporated into it. Very interesting! I wonder if companies like Rocket Lab could copy this design for their own reusable second stages if it works out?

They plan to focus on building their second stage first, and have a prototype second stage doing "hop" flight tests in late 2022. This puts their first commercial flight many years out, but the specifications of their rocket are very promising! Since they are developing the second stage first, I wonder if this means that they can launch it on someone else's rocket?

As you can see, Stoke Space blows everyone else in this table out of the water--but these specifications are presumably very optimistic and just on paper for the foreseeable future:

Comparison of Small Satellite Launchers
Code: [Select]
                  Payload to LEO  Cost per launch  Reusable? Launch site flexibility?  Operational?
NG Pegasus        443kg           $40MM            N         Y                         Y (1990)
Rocket Lab        300kg           $5-6MM           Partially N                         Y (2018)
Virgin Orbit      500kg           $12MM            N         Y                         Y (2021)
Astra             50kg            $2.5MM           N         Y                         Y (2021)
ABL Space Systems 1,350kg         $12MM            N         Y                         N (2022?)
Relativity Space  1,250kg         $12MM            N         N                         N (2022?)
Firefly Aerospace 1,000kg         $15MM            N         N                         N (2022?)
Stoke Space       1,650kg         $413K            Fully     ?                         N (2024+?)

That being said, these numbers from Stoke Space really make it apparent that the writing is on the wall for non-reusable rocket designs. Space companies need to aim their new products to where the industry is headed, not where the industry is at. Any company building a new rocket that is merely on par with what is existing today will deliver their product dead on arrival. This is why I am very skeptical of companies like ABL and Firefly, who’s upcoming rockets look like they will become obsolete almost from day one. Finally, all of this shows just how risky it is to develop a new product in this industry—companies have to develop for where they think the industry is headed, amidst strong competition from other players and an ultimate uncertainty as to where the industry is actually headed.

Quote from: Peter Beck
Anybody who's not developing a reusable launch vehicle at this point in time is developing a dead-end product because it's just so obvious.

If you are interested in learning more, here is a good interview with Stoke Space's co-founder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCsnOmQRigc
« Last Edit: December 19, 2021, 02:44:50 PM by Herbert Derp »

AlanStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #194 on: December 19, 2021, 12:05:04 PM »
Aerospike engines!  They are playing on expert mode :-)  But maybe they would have to be to enter the game now.  Has anyone ever launched anything with an aerospike?  Am 100% behind the tech, its one of those things that should have (continued to have) govt funded to make practical.

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #195 on: December 19, 2021, 10:57:00 PM »
Aerospike engines!  They are playing on expert mode :-)  But maybe they would have to be to enter the game now.  Has anyone ever launched anything with an aerospike?  Am 100% behind the tech, its one of those things that should have (continued to have) govt funded to make practical.

To my knowledge, there has never been an operational launch vehicle with an aerospike engine. Perhaps Stoke Space could be the first to build one? In this case, it looks like Stoke Space selected an aerospike design not because of any performance benefits, but because they needed an engine which could be seamlessly integrated into their heat shield. Anyway, I'm excited to see where that company goes, and as Rocket Lab investors we need to keep a close eye on what the competition is up to!
« Last Edit: December 19, 2021, 11:52:37 PM by Herbert Derp »

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #196 on: December 19, 2021, 11:03:22 PM »
Today, Peter Beck did a pair of interviews on Youtube! There's almost two and a half hours of content here, and much is duplicated between the two interviews, but it's definitely worth it to listen to at least one of these!

Peter Beck Interview with Everyday Astronaut
Peter Beck Interview with NASASpaceflight

I think these interviews show how dedicated Peter Beck is to getting more people excited about his company, and also how deeply knowledgeable he is about his company's technology. He went really deep into the weeds with some of the technical questions they were asking! This is definitely the kind of CEO that I want running a technology company that I am invested in.

I meant to comment on the RTLS discussion, too. Here, there's also no free lunch. The delta-V you need to RTLS comes directly out of your mass to orbit. If you can do X and RTLS, you can do >X if you land downrange, that's just physics. The comparative cost of RTLS, though, depends on what fraction of delta-V is done by the first and second stages. The F9, with a comparatively low-ISP second stage, gets more of its delta-V from the first stage than, say, an Atlas/Centaur with a super-high ISP RL10 upper stage engine. This makes RTLS for F9 costlier than it would be for other systems where the first stage is going slower at stage sep. A methalox engine has a bit higher ISP than the Merlin, so it makes sense that RTLS would be a slightly better option for a launch vehicle that uses a methalox upper stage. I don't know offhand how much difference that would be though.

Peter Beck shared some information that is relevant to this discussion. Check out this section of the Everyday Astronaut interview from 23:24 to 26:00. Peter Beck says that the design of the Neutron lends itself to RTLS due to the extremely low mass of the launch vehicle. Because of its wide shape and low mass, Neutron has a favorable ballistic coefficient which allows the atmosphere to do more work during reentry and hence save a lot of fuel by negating the need for an entry burn like the Falcon 9 needs to do to slow itself down during reentry.

In other words, the Falcon 9 must do three burns on its way back to the landing site: a boostback burn to send itself on a trajectory to the landing site, an entry burn to slow itself down before hitting the atmosphere, and a landing burn to land. In comparison, because of its unique design, the Neutron only needs to do two burns: the boostback burn and the landing burn!

How do these details impact your analysis of Neutron vs Falcon 9 RTLS efficiency?

Edit: Peter Beck also talks about this topic in his interview with Scott Manley. 7:28 - 9:05.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2021, 01:20:42 PM by Herbert Derp »

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #197 on: December 21, 2021, 01:02:10 PM »
Another Peter Beck interview about Neutron! He is really pulling out all of the stops with this YouTube interview campaign!

Peter Beck Interview with Scott Manley

Herbert Derp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Age: 33
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #198 on: December 28, 2021, 11:33:53 AM »
Not much news this week, RKLB stock price is taking a serious beating. However, various institutions seem to like the stock.

Last week, the UFO space ETF acquired 419,139 shares of RKLB worth about $5MM, accounting for 4.59% of their overall portfolio.

A mutual fund called Riverpark Funds Trust just bought 127,212 shares of RKLB, for 5% of their overall portfolio.

Harvard University holds about one million shares of RKLB, accounting for 0.94% of their 13F portfolio. It is not clear when they started this position, but it seems to have been in the second half of 2021.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2021, 03:33:21 PM by Herbert Derp »

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rocket Lab (RKLB) - Finally a decent space company that we can invest in?
« Reply #199 on: December 28, 2021, 02:52:47 PM »
Harvard University holds about one million shares of RKLB, accounting for 0.94% of their overall portfolio. It is not clear when they started this position, but it seems to have been in the second half of 2021.

Sorry to jump in here again, but this stat smelled off enough that I started running some back of the envelop numbers.

One million shares of rocketlab is worth $11M at current market prices.  If $11M is equal to ~1% of Harvard's portfolio that would mean Harvard University's total portfolio had a value of about $1.1B (11M/.01). However we know that Harvard University's endowment portfolio is actually valued at $53B so something is very off with the article you are quoting.