Rocket Lab's First Neutron Engine Is Ready For Testing!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2024
- After a lot of initial development and manufacturing, Rocket Lab is just about ready to conduct some of the first significant testing milestones related to Neutron, their new partially reusable medium-lift launch vehicle. This comes as both the physical launch site starts to take shape and the first full Archimedes engine is completed.
At this point, the first static fire is in progress and expected to be conducted soon. The results of that test among other progress will help determine the future timeline of this program and what we can expect in the coming months. If successful, a first and second-stage static fire are some of the next steps. Here I will go more in-depth into Rocket Lab’s Neutron progress, the launch site, new engine, and more.
Full article here - thespacebucket.com/rocket-lab...
For more space-related content check out - thespacebucket.com/
Credit:
Rocket Lab - / rocketlabnz
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:37 - The First Archimedes Engine
3:37 - Stage 1 & 2 Construction 
Наука
![Skilla Baby - Misfits (Feat. Polo G) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IjsylSnNMyw/mqdefault.jpg)
I just want to say that I appreciate the fact that you keep things to the point and don’t pad out the videos to always be 20 minutes like a lot of other people are doing
Good to see you posting again. The Bucket is back!
Can not wate to see this thing fly. Love competition.
More Rocket Lab News!!!
Rocket Test 🚀
Fantastic video. Great content. I'm thoroughly up to date and enthused for Rocket Lab.
Keep up the great work.
Are you also invested?
Best of luck to Rocket Labs. It'll be interesting to see how they overcome the formation of solids in the supercooled fuels as SpaceX is presently experiencing. Wow, another reuseable launch vehicle.
Thanks for the report.
There is no bloat and even a tldr! Love the video format
Capable little engine, more competition more space faring is unlocked.
Thank you for all the great information.
Wow thanks for the video. Love this company
Thanks man...😂😂😂😂
1:53 Engine operates at LOW STRESS LEVELS than other engines. Wonder what engine they are comparing it to (RHETORICAL QUESTION) ‽
2:39 “Minimum Viable Engine”, then years of redesign. Wonder what engine they are comparing it to (RHETORICAL QUESTION) ‽
Archimedes engine is being compared to other ORSC engines (Oxygen-Rich Staged Combustion), when they say it's not pushing the maximum limit of the envelope. It's operating well within the easy zone, in order to get it up and running sooner. That also gives them plenty of room to squeeze more performance out of it as time goes on.
Not sure if they are specifically comparing it to other engines (yes of course I'm thinking about the Raptor 2, not reliable enough, as per Musk himself). It is just the obvious way to do it if you want to build a reliable, commendable engine, running within a high safety factor, limiting its wear and tear, easing the process of refurbishing it if necessary, etc.
@@classydave75
The first comparison seemed to be pointing at the raptor, while the second could be the merlin, as the turbo machinery (the hard part) was designed by an outside company and was at the time a “minimum deliverable” to keep sx afloat. Then the merlin was iterated on numerous times but due to its basic simplicity and low performance is reliable (which is a winner). The raptor seems to be striving for low cost, high reliability (fast turnaround) and extraordinary high performance. My personal feeling is that you can only ask for two of those, but we will see.
@@Mentaculus42 Interesting. That's the problem isn't it? High reliability (fast turnaround) and extraordinary high performance is going to be more and more difficult to try combining those two with a Raptor 3 supposed to run at an even higher thrust output while maintaining its actual size, as a consequence of the engine bay size...
The whole rocket stack will inflate in weight to try to get back the original intended payload capacity. Making the raptor running even more at its limits to get the missing thrust isn't going to make it more reliable, imho. I have the impression that they have entered a negative feedback loop that's not going to end up well at all. But we will see as you said...
@@classydave75
We are clearly on the same page. What ever happens it should be “entertaining”. My “thoughts” are that ss might have to have some serious iterations before the “issues” get dealt with. My worry is that some “fundamental decisions” were made very early that were not fully thought through. Having things happen like this are part and parcel of the musk methodology (which appears to not be recognized by some).
Space millionaire maker company. Publicly traded stock RKLB
I understand the excitement about Rocket Lab but your video is overly optimistic and too lenient maybe about Neutron dev. You say for example that Archimedes and Neutron is slightly delayed. AFAIK didn't Beck proclaim to RL's public shareholders that the engine would be test fired by 2022 and will be ready to fly on Neutron 2 years later in 2024? If they manage to test fire it n 2024 doesn't this put Neutron launch at NET 2026 following the extremely optimistic scenarios set in 2021?
Also we seem to take for granted that Neutron's CF construction is "strong and able to withstand the immense heat and forces of launch re-entry again and again to enable frequent refly of the first stage". AFAIK they have been struggling for 5 years now to make the tiny much lower stressed Electron refly even once and they haven't yet succeeded, with CF structures being the most important bottleneck according to them. Neutron is a rocket that will take much greater forces with all the burns and propulsive landings, how can we possibly know how it will survive 1 reuse much less "at least 20"?
The video is presenting updates on press release from rocket lab rather than a opinion piece...Personally I quite like the format.
@@Gaype.92 maybe I assumed that by "going in depth" and having an opinion expressed right afterwards that progress is "slightly delayed from initial estimates but still very soon" (which is demonstrably not accurate), that this video was going to have a bit of a discussion on the information and the implications instead of just reading out-loud a press release.
@@admarsandbeyond Is tone is perfectly neutral. Maybe he is relaying Rocket Lab's update on their progress and hick-ups, but the company has been pretty straightforward with its operations and Beck isn't spending his time tweeting stupid shit online and keeps it professional. Neutron is a big step up compared to Electron but they are applying the expertise they gained on the new rocket and they must be fairly confident it will work. If not then they might be in financial trouble... If they succeed, good. If not, then let's hope they can rebound, for the sake of their workers.
I bet you don't have that much smoke when most of the other RUclipsrs relay, without an ounce of doubt, the overly optimistic timeline of SpaceX about their (almost non-existent) HLS Starship progress... When it's not straight out vaporware like the Starship point to point travel on Earth or the million people city on Mars fairy tale... No other space company marketing out there spew so much non-sense just to hype the stock market and fool investors. Rocket Lab look tame in comparison.
@@classydave75 You seem to ignore some rather basic facts and let your feelings guide your opinion so let me clear some things up for you.
You talk about vaporware. Rocket Lab's history is full of some pretty far-fetched and incredible sales pitches. E.g. Rocket lab business plan promised investors in 2015 "weekly launches for commercial clients by the end of 2020 year at a cost of approximately $4.9 million... "We're FedEx," Peter Beck, the New Zealand-born founder and chief executive of Rocket Lab told The New York Times".
Nothing even remotely close to that happened or is likely to ever happen as you may know.
Then, when that business plan failed and just as Falcon Rideshare was announced (putting the final nail in the coffin), he promised in 2019 that they would make Electron reusable (with ships and helicopters catching boosters in the middle of the pacific no less), not because reuse makes economic sense in general according to him ("We will never do reusability"), but because this way they wouldn't have to scale production to meet the incredible demand he said they have. "we're just nowhere close to keeping up with the demand from our customers... We need to quadruple production over the next couple of years". That on an Electron that was sold to investors as super easy and cheap to build and scaling up would be no issue. None of this of course ever materialized, neither demand nor a reusable Electron.
When that didn't pan out the "We will never build a bigger rocket" was tossed out the window next, with the announcement to their public investors of their new completely different business plan to build Neutron in the next 3 years and corner the megaconstellation number. Engine dev would be an easy feat with a flight ready Archimedes model ready in a year or 2. Neutron dev would also be very easy because of their considerable flight experience and CF expertise, as Beck said "We're a conservative bunch" and don't make big overly optimistic timelines.
We know how that has progressed so far.
You talk about Musk's aspirational goals as vaporware, fairy tales, marketing non-sense, hype the stock market and fool investors. You again need to learn that Spacex is a private company *not* on the stock market and is not selling stock to poor retail gamblers that invest with their feelings (swayed by their opinions about posts on X or other irrelevant nonsense). Spacex has sophisticated smart institutional private investors that do their diligence and make educated decisions involving billions of dollars. And these investors understand full well what Musk is promising and how he has achieved so far everything he has promised, even though “At SpaceX, we specialize in converting things from impossible to late.” Aspirational goals about how a platform so innovative and revolutionary can be used to make money in some future, are just that aspirational. As are their Mars plans, which is the mission Spacex was founded for that every investor knew very well and continues to support full hardheartedly to this day. But RL and Beck has been selling these detailed "conservative" promises and specific business plans with detailed timelines and expectations to *Public investors* on the NASDAQ as a sure thing and people are expecting them to materialize if they have even a remote chance of becoming profitable on operating or net bases like Spacex.
@@classydave75 You seem to ignore some rather basic facts and let your feelings guide your opinion so let me clear some things up for you.
You talk about vaporware. Rocket Lab's history is full of some pretty far-fetched and incredible sales pitches. E.g. Rocket lab business plan promised investors in 2015 "weekly launches for commercial clients by the end of 2020 year at a cost of approximately $4.9 million... "We're FedEx," Peter Beck, the New Zealand-born founder and chief executive of Rocket Lab told The New York Times".
Nothing even remotely close to that happened or is likely to ever happen as you may know.
Then, when that business plan failed and just as Falcon Rideshare was announced (putting the final nail in the coffin), he promised in 2019 that they would make Electron reusable (with ships and helicopters catching boosters in the middle of the pacific no less), not because reuse makes economic sense in general according to him ("We will never do reusability"), but because this way they wouldn't have to scale production to meet the incredible demand he said they have. "we're just nowhere close to keeping up with the demand from our customers... We need to quadruple production over the next couple of years". That on an Electron that was sold to investors as super easy and cheap to build and scaling up would be no issue. None of this of course ever materialized, neither demand nor a reusable Electron.
When that didn't pan out the "We will never build a bigger rocket" was tossed out the window next, with the announcement to their public investors of their new completely different business plan to build Neutron in the next 3 years and corner the megaconstellation number. Engine dev would be an easy feat with a flight ready Archimedes model ready in a year or 2. Neutron dev would also be very easy because of their considerable flight experience and CF expertise, as Beck said "We're a conservative bunch" and don't make big overly optimistic timelines.
We know how that has progressed so far.
You talk about Musk's aspirational goals as vaporware, fairy tales, marketing non-sense, hype the stock market and fool investors. You again need to learn that Spacex is a private company not on the stock market and is not selling stock to poor retail gamblers that invest with their feelings (swayed by their opinions about posts on X or other irrelevant nonsense). Spacex has sophisticated smart institutional private investors that do their diligence and make educated decisions involving billions of dollars. And these investors understand full well what Musk is promising and how he has achieved so far everything he has promised, even though “At SpaceX, we specialize in converting things from impossible to late.” Aspirational goals about how a platform so innovative and revolutionary can be used to make money in some future, are just that aspirational. As are their Mars plans, which is the mission Spacex was founded for that every investor knew very well and continues to support full hardheartedly to this day. But RL and Beck has been selling these detailed "conservative" promises and specific business plans with detailed timelines and expectations to Public investors on the NASDAQ as a sure thing and people are expecting them to materialize if they have even a remote chance of becoming profitable on operating or net bases like Spacex.