Rocket Lab launches a satellite reusing one rocket engine from previous flight
Rocket Lab not only successfully launched a satellite tonight (August 24 in New Zealand), its first stage used a rocket engine that had flown previously.
In addition, the first stage was designed to be reused, and was quickly recovered after it splashed down in the Pacific. The plan is to refly either this or another recovered first stage in one of the company’s upcoming launches in the coming months, making Rocket Lab the second private company in the world, after SpaceX, to reuse a first stage.
The leaders in the 2023 launch race:
57 SpaceX
36 China
12 Russia
7 Rocket Lab
In the national rankings, American private enterprise now leads China in successful launches 66 to 36. It also leads the entire world combined, 66 to 59. SpaceX by itself still trails the rest of the world (excluding American companies) 57 to 59 in successful launches.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Rocket Lab not only successfully launched a satellite tonight (August 24 in New Zealand), its first stage used a rocket engine that had flown previously.
In addition, the first stage was designed to be reused, and was quickly recovered after it splashed down in the Pacific. The plan is to refly either this or another recovered first stage in one of the company’s upcoming launches in the coming months, making Rocket Lab the second private company in the world, after SpaceX, to reuse a first stage.
The leaders in the 2023 launch race:
57 SpaceX
36 China
12 Russia
7 Rocket Lab
In the national rankings, American private enterprise now leads China in successful launches 66 to 36. It also leads the entire world combined, 66 to 59. SpaceX by itself still trails the rest of the world (excluding American companies) 57 to 59 in successful launches.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Mr. Zimmerman, did Rocketlab really reuse just one of the nine Rutherford engines from the first stage of the Electron rocket, as your post suggests?
Questioner: Yes, according to its announcers during the podcast.
Having grown up boating and water skiing on salt water and seeing how corrosive salt water is I wonder about the long term effects of fishing rockets out of the ocean. I liked their idea of snatching it out of the air as it parachuted. Either way it’s cheaper and less complex than SpaceX’s powered landings, but SpaceX’s plan is to also land on Mars.
Keeping your rockets out of the hands of competitors and being able to study reused components has to be worth a lot. I will love to follow the early Neutron launches and vertical landings.
I was told by one of my moon rocket engineer buddies that NASA fished a couple rockets out of the ocean downrange from the Cape and the engines were a mess. Corrosion and mechanical shock. Decided it wasn’t worth it.
Materials have probably improved and if you plan on reusing the engine I’m sure there a bunch of things you can do at the design and operational level to bump your rate of return.
I wonder how many rocket engines were fished out by non-US gov agencies in the past.
I am not familiar with the Electron failure modes, but I am guessing 1 engine failure in flight could compensated by increasing thrust
or duration of the burn on the other engines. This happened on an Apollo Launch (Apollo 13) and at least one STS launch, if I recall. So this seems like a legit, but still safe way to perform a real world test.
Rocketlab is showing an incremental approach to re-usability, while still performing orbital launches.
Blue Origin is claiming incremental development while not launching anything.
At this rate, the question of who will launch first, Starship or New Glenn (will most certainly be Starship, barring major disaster), but Neutron or New Glenn. Not capacity is not the same of course. Different classes. But in terms of re-usable rockets, it looks like the race to the 2nd re-usable system is going to be close.
Beck is reporting nominal performance of the re-used hardware.
https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1694500990177993153
He is indicated a plan to.go with all nine soon, making it a partially re-used rocket.
All this makes me curious about the condition of the rocket body and fuel tanks. The engines have electric pumps. Are these replaced,or are they sealed and reused also.
So many questions.
James Street wrote: “Having grown up boating and water skiing on salt water and seeing how corrosive salt water is I wonder about the long term effects of fishing rockets out of the ocean.”
This is why I, and probably the rest of the aerospace community, are surprised and possibly shocked that this plan seems to be working.
pawn,
One difference is that Rocket Lab is soft-landing (soft-splashing?) their first stage by using parachutes. NASA probably didn’t use parachutes on those rockets. How Rocket Lab is avoiding corrosion issues is a mystery to me. The materials that can be used in an engine is limited, so finding suitable materials must be very difficult for them. Protective coatings may not last long under the heat and pressure environment of these engines. What a challenge this must be.
Would you fly on an airliner whose engines has been soaked in sea water? Me neither. At the risk of sounding wrong or judgmental: flying a rocket engine that has soaked in sea water is insane, and absolutely, positively cannot be done. I’m sure that if I saw it happen, I still wouldn’t believe it.
I wonder how many times they can recover it from the sea and still reuse it.
tangentially related…
Riding the Booster (Up & Down in 8 minutes)
NASA (2012)
https://youtu.be/527fb3-UZGo
(8:31)
Space shuttle launch from the booster’s perspective, includes parachute deployment and impact with the ocean at 96 mph.
Edward,
At one level, it’s all about the cost.
RL obviously did a pioneer exercise with the one engine. They also probably tracked that engine very carefully a far as refurbishment and certification costs. Will it scale up to a level where it makes sense? Time will tell.
I’m glad someone is actually doing this instead of talking about it. It requires a lot of co operation between the engineering, operations, and supply chain houses to do this properly and make a decision. It’s a sign of a serious player.
pawn,
Rocket Lab is yet another company that is doing the impossible. Perhaps another sign of a serious player.
To be fair, I once built an assembly (three, of the same design) that went to space, brazed together by dipping it into molten sodium, a corrosive. Also to be fair, that assembly (one of the three we built) had a spot of corrosion develop that we then had to take corrective action to fix.
You are correct, pawn, what matters most is the cost after refurbishment — the economy of the process. Another factor is the advantage of not having to spend time building another engine or rocket body but having them ready to go shortly after recovery. Having a fleet of reusable boosters is one of the reasons that SpaceX is able to fly at such a rapid cadence, and why Rocket Lab thinks it can eventually fly at a rapid cadence, too. It is another factor in the economy of the process.
I think we are in complete agreement that Rocket Lab is a serious contender. I think they have found one niche in the economy and with Neutron are seeking a second niche.