Why no comment on Rocket Lab and their development of Neutron, which will also be reusable and compete with Falcon 9? Seems a bit disingenuous to give BO so much credit, especially when they barely have a proven track record as compared to Rocket Lab's. Thank you
I don't believe I've given BO any credit, aside from initially hoping it could become competitive to SpaceX. And obviously it hasn't--with it unclear that it ever will--precisely because of that dismal track record you mention. Maybe it takes the place of ULA, but not because BO won the competition.
As to your question (assuming good faith):
First, Rocket Lab isn't the subject, BO is. Doing so makes about as much sense as bringing up i-Space and Hyperbola-2.
Second, Rocket Lab isn't dallying around like BO, and doesn't deserve to be equated to BO's slower pacing.
Neutron, while advertised as capable, will not be as capable as the Falcon 9 (13 tons to LEO instead of ~23). The smaller payload may mean its per kg pricing is higher, but we'll see.
It's still a ghost rocket, so it has that in common with New Glenn. I think there's a possibility it could launch before New Glenn. But maybe Hyperbola-2 beats them both. Again, we'll see.
One big challenge for Rocket Lab is Electron isn't reliable. Hopefully Neutron's design is more reliable so it experiences fewer failures, but that will be an unknown until the company launches it as often as SpaceX does Falcon 9.
Thank you for your quick reply John! My question was definitely asked in good faith; although, I'm not an expert in the industry so I definitely may have been off-base.
The sentence I was referencing in my comment and should have just quoted was: "No other company–ULA, Arianespace, Samara, etc.- has been as focused on fielding a rocket that would give the Falcon 9 a run for its money." Isn't it fair to say that Neutron is directly targeting Falcon 9 and may well give it a run for its money? I will definitely have to look more into Hyperbola-2 and i-Space that you mentioned. I'm not familiar with them, so thank you.
Also on the Electron reliability comment, I see that it had 41 successful launches out of 45 total launches. And I'm assuming that counts the very first that actually was successful but was forced to be aborted by a governmental agency (read that story in "When the Heavens Went on Sale" by Ashlee Vance). Even so, that's over 90% success rate, which may not be as good as SpaceX, but I would imagine is considered very high as compared to other operators or companies working to become operational. Also in good faith, can you please respond to that counter-point/question? Thanks!
So, you can't know this, but 90% reliability is rather low. Russia's Proton had a reliability around 92%, and was considered not a good platform to launch with if you really needed something expensive and unique in orbit. Mind you, it's not as low as the Soyuz 2-1v's 67% (these were as of 2019). The very first Electron launch I'm aware of (which failed) was supposed to have been caused by a ground system glitch, but if Vance says different, I'll have to look into that.
I see what you mean about the company list. I mentioned them specifically because they are examples of legacy launch providers that launch heavy launchers who have every incentive (in my opinion) be compete with SpaceX but choose not to. I didn't mention Rocket Lab because Neutron isn't quite as capable as Falcon 9. Neutron would be in a "Medium" lift category, not "Heavy." Not so obvious in the reading.
And as I noted in the other comment, because Neutron carries less, it's unclear it will be able to match SpaceX's pricing. I suspect it will impact it a little bit in the Rideshare department, as right now SpaceX per kg costs are higher and the company has the headroom to lower pricing when Neutron offers rideshare (because, why wouldn't it?).
Just following up with the reliability numbers. I realized I had the information to update them so I did. In case you're curious: the Soyuz 2-1v went to 100% during the last five years (9 launches). The worst one is North Korea's Chollima-1, at 33% (3 launch attempts, one of those successful).
Why no comment on Rocket Lab and their development of Neutron, which will also be reusable and compete with Falcon 9? Seems a bit disingenuous to give BO so much credit, especially when they barely have a proven track record as compared to Rocket Lab's. Thank you
Hi dscott!
I don't believe I've given BO any credit, aside from initially hoping it could become competitive to SpaceX. And obviously it hasn't--with it unclear that it ever will--precisely because of that dismal track record you mention. Maybe it takes the place of ULA, but not because BO won the competition.
As to your question (assuming good faith):
First, Rocket Lab isn't the subject, BO is. Doing so makes about as much sense as bringing up i-Space and Hyperbola-2.
Second, Rocket Lab isn't dallying around like BO, and doesn't deserve to be equated to BO's slower pacing.
Third, I mention Neutron's possible place in other articles (like this one: https://illdefinedspace.substack.com/p/ample-capacity-and-monopoly-markets?utm_source=publication-search), so don't feel like it needs to be here.
Neutron, while advertised as capable, will not be as capable as the Falcon 9 (13 tons to LEO instead of ~23). The smaller payload may mean its per kg pricing is higher, but we'll see.
It's still a ghost rocket, so it has that in common with New Glenn. I think there's a possibility it could launch before New Glenn. But maybe Hyperbola-2 beats them both. Again, we'll see.
One big challenge for Rocket Lab is Electron isn't reliable. Hopefully Neutron's design is more reliable so it experiences fewer failures, but that will be an unknown until the company launches it as often as SpaceX does Falcon 9.
Thanks for the comment and question!
Thank you for your quick reply John! My question was definitely asked in good faith; although, I'm not an expert in the industry so I definitely may have been off-base.
The sentence I was referencing in my comment and should have just quoted was: "No other company–ULA, Arianespace, Samara, etc.- has been as focused on fielding a rocket that would give the Falcon 9 a run for its money." Isn't it fair to say that Neutron is directly targeting Falcon 9 and may well give it a run for its money? I will definitely have to look more into Hyperbola-2 and i-Space that you mentioned. I'm not familiar with them, so thank you.
Also on the Electron reliability comment, I see that it had 41 successful launches out of 45 total launches. And I'm assuming that counts the very first that actually was successful but was forced to be aborted by a governmental agency (read that story in "When the Heavens Went on Sale" by Ashlee Vance). Even so, that's over 90% success rate, which may not be as good as SpaceX, but I would imagine is considered very high as compared to other operators or companies working to become operational. Also in good faith, can you please respond to that counter-point/question? Thanks!
Thanks for the clarification, dscott!
So, you can't know this, but 90% reliability is rather low. Russia's Proton had a reliability around 92%, and was considered not a good platform to launch with if you really needed something expensive and unique in orbit. Mind you, it's not as low as the Soyuz 2-1v's 67% (these were as of 2019). The very first Electron launch I'm aware of (which failed) was supposed to have been caused by a ground system glitch, but if Vance says different, I'll have to look into that.
I see what you mean about the company list. I mentioned them specifically because they are examples of legacy launch providers that launch heavy launchers who have every incentive (in my opinion) be compete with SpaceX but choose not to. I didn't mention Rocket Lab because Neutron isn't quite as capable as Falcon 9. Neutron would be in a "Medium" lift category, not "Heavy." Not so obvious in the reading.
And as I noted in the other comment, because Neutron carries less, it's unclear it will be able to match SpaceX's pricing. I suspect it will impact it a little bit in the Rideshare department, as right now SpaceX per kg costs are higher and the company has the headroom to lower pricing when Neutron offers rideshare (because, why wouldn't it?).
Hi John -- Got it, thank you. Really appreciate your space content, so thanks again!
Hi dscott!
Just following up with the reliability numbers. I realized I had the information to update them so I did. In case you're curious: the Soyuz 2-1v went to 100% during the last five years (9 launches). The worst one is North Korea's Chollima-1, at 33% (3 launch attempts, one of those successful).