Rocket Lab's Neutron Rocket Will Be More Reusable Than Falcon 9

Rocket Lab's Peter Beck presented a new update on the design of their forthcoming Neutron rocket and it's gone from being a near direct equivalent to the Antares to nearly matching the performance of the Falcon 9 but with much greater reuse potential and a significantly simpler and cheaper second stage.
Key differences include a much wider booster with more aerodynamic features for recovery and replacing the fairing with doors that can open and close to eliminate the need for separate fairing recovery.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley

[@raydunakin]

"I'm pretty sure this rocket is designed to operate from any volcano-based lair that you happen to have." LOL!!

[@liwoszarchaeologist]

The only rocket company CEO who DOESN'T have big supervillain energy is Tory. Everyone else is auditioning for the next Bond blockbuster

[@LolUGotBusted]

I have no idea what you're talking about, believe me.

[@waltertansini8603]

If we're going to have volcano-based rockets, we'll definitely need sharks with frikin' laserbeams attached to their heads. Although that sounds more something Elon would do.

[@lake258]

In other words, the rocket is made with 50 years old ideas and with a design based o 50 years old movies.

[@To-mos]

I hope it has "lazer beams".

[@YeOldeTraveller]

I think having different solutions is healthy for the space launch industry. I want to see what this actually looks like once it is flying. I also appreciated the light digs at the competition. I think there is appreciation for what (at least some of) the others have accomplished.

[@ponezpyo]

Peter has a working product. His ideas and presentations deserve attention.

[@blendpinexus1416]

competition is what drives innovation, the high tech industries are looking amazing right now

[@britpoint7022]

What a cool design! The little jabs at SpaceX etc are funny - it's just friendly ribbing folks, nothing to get upset about. I have no doubt there's a whole lot of mutual respect between SpaceX and RocketLab. The integrated fairing and internal 2nd stage seems like a really good innovation and I like that they're designing to their strengths rather than just copying SpaceX's homework. Hope we see more of this in the near future.

[@gildedbear5355]

In my dream world SpaceX and RocketLab would share knowledge and even collaborate on designs. It's currently a pipedream though. 8)

[@eve_avery]

There are enough F9 template rocket designs haha

[@iamjadedhobo]

@@gildedbear5355 People move from one company to another, thereby "sharing" concepts.

[@mddunlap03]

I mean space x already said it will be bankrupt if it can't lanch a starship every 2 weeks by next year.....and so far it's like 75% of them have been completed with total losses ?

[@georgeshapiro301]

@@iamjadedhobo Loose concepts and expertise, but not technology or designs or data. You get in big trouble doing that.

[@RCAvhstape]

Most of the positive comments about the design have already been said, so I'll just throw in my admiration of the black and silver color scheme of Rocket Lab's vehicles, I think it adds a classy touch with a high tech look. I also love how these newer designs are looking more and more like the classic 1950s style, the way God and Robert Heinlein intended.

[@msudz1548]

Black is New Zealands national colour for all there sporting teams... rocket lab is wearing there national colours 😎

[@HalNordmann]

Fun fact: Heinlein only had VTVL rockets early in his writing career, when there wasn't much known about rocketry. Later on, he transitioned to winged orbital vehicles with orbital transit stations. So "how Heinlein intended" is actually VTHL with separate vehicles for different tasks!

[@afx935]

@@msudz1548 One would think it should be white in order to match the sheep.

[@falkkiwiben]

@@afx935 It is in soccer lol

[@hodges1263]

I love your appreciation for volcano-based rocket lairs. As a kid, You Only Live Twice was my favorite Bond film.

[@kelaarin]

That was my first thought as well...the Bird One.

[@vincentpelletier57]

And twice, is the only way to live!

[@scottwatrous]

YOLT is still my favorite bond film. It's just the right amount of awesome and ridiculous, with ninjas and rockets, great girls and wild villains, advanced secret lairs, and an epic final battle. It doesn't get any more Bond.

[@ddhsd]

@@scottwatrous they had alot of fun with the Bond films in the 60s and YOLT remains a favorite.

[@flopsiejmcardle]

We need to check the Rocket Lab corporate roster for an E.S. Blofeld.

[@marvinkitfox3386]

same gross liftoff mass as a falcon 9, uses a similar engine design and a better fuel, yet lifts half as much to orbit. While this sounds bad, it shows that they are being realistic. Things like the Chomper fairing will mass a *lot* more than the clamshell semi-disposable version. My biggest concern is how they will get carbon fiber to handle multiple load cycles, multiple thermal cycles, without developing weaknesses. It is *hard* to test a huge carbon fiber structure for flaws. As for credibility: Right now, I have more confidence that this rocket will succeed, than I have in the BO New Glenn. RocketLabs at least have a history of achievement, innovation and actually getting to orbit.

[@brucebaxter6923]

We have been playing with carbon long enough to get a good idea, after that if you get ten flights per airframe ……… gut it and go again, the airframe is cheap

[@donjones4719]

The quantity and quality of innovations shown for Neutron promise an engineering team that's quick on its feet, in an organization known for being quick on its feet. Yes, RL has more credibility for their success than BO, and even the new startups - a couple look good, but are a long way away from matching Electron, let alone Neutron.

[@ramontorresechevarria293]

@@donjones4719 k

[@lake258]

Well, did falcon 9 ever put a maximum declared payload in the orbit, especially in the "reusable" configuration? I suppose they just don't lie as heavily as Elon usually does.

[@biplabkumarghosh6300]

@@RobertLutece909 Falcon's Merlin and Neutron's Archimedes are both of gas generator cycle type Starship's Raptor and New Glenn's BE4 are both of staged combustion cycle type

[@DB-cc5vg]

Rocket Lab had long been on my watch list. Eagerly awaiting Neutron's 1flight. Vertical integration will be a must I think with a 2nd stage hanging in tension. The 2nd stage won't be much more than 2 tanks, an engine and some electronics with a payload on top. Other companies should not be too upset, innovation and competition are good for business. SpaceX is ahead in reusability by a long shot but I like to see others joining that fraternity. Starship is supposed to replace Falcon 9 eventually anyway. Blue Origin is losing the race to a lot of startups. It will be 22 years and still not in orbit. Slow and steady is not winning any races.

[@kennethferland5579]

Horizontal integration might be possible, because all the tanks are empty before a rocket goes out to the pad, If the 2nd stage pusher plunger in the 2nd stage engines holds the engine weight and something else holds the payload then you can basically remove all weight on the tank and if ou give it modest pressurization it will hold it's shape on it's side.

[@most-average-athelete]

ugh.. if what you mean is for it's stock, it might be too late to buy on/after a successful flight test. or dime a dozen on failure :)

[@DavidKnowles0]

Virtical integration make sense, especially if they are planning on rapid turn around, you don't want to waste time having to lift Neutron on it side for new cargo and then do another lift to get it vertical again. Ideally all they should have to do is open the fairings, load the 2nd stage, fill the tanks and launch the payload.

[@SRFriso94]

I remember your video when Rocket Lab first announced the Neutron, you said it was basically the exact same size as the Antares and that that probably wasn't a coincidence. But let's face it, this design is way less Antares and way more The Jetsons. It really does look like what you'd get if you asked a rocket designer in the 1950s to draw a rocket from the 2050s. I love it. Also, your comments about the volcano heavily reminds me of Top Gear's review of the Marauder, a military armored vehicle that civillians could buy: "First you have to pass a background check - to make sure you're not a villain, living in a hollowed-out volcano..."

[@thebrownsvilletxprophet5907]

LOL, I remember that episode.

[@TheLargeHardonCollider]

I thought the background check was to make sure you ARE a villain, and at least made the down payment for your hollowed-out volcano lair.

[@Quickshot0]

The new design certainly does seem fairly clever, kind of feels like they decided that if they would only be recovering the first stage, then how can we put as much of the mass and cost in the first stage. Because obviously you'd then be recovering more in total. For an only first stage recover design, this seems like the best design I've seen so far by a fair margin. Excellent work really, it won't beat a well working fully reusable system, but it seems like the next best thing. One imagines it could probably be developed to the point that it would undercut the Falcon 9 in operational costs by a reasonable amount. And in the mean time they can pick up more experience on how to develop a fully reusable design.

[@scottwatrous]

A tension frame vs a compression frame makes me think back to the original Goddard rocket, and I feel like there might have been someone looking at a picture of that and going 'hmmm' Even though it's still really in compression for the majority of the thrust being imparted on the shell itself, so definitely some interesting load paths.

[@SoumilSahu]

Am a SpaceX fanboy through and through, yet I cannot wait for actual competition in the Space industry. RocketLab is one of the few companies that put their money where their mouth is and I couldn't be more excited for the success of Neutron.

[@davisdf3064]

Indeed, although i did not like the Cold War, it truly shows what some competition can force people to do

[@Stereo3DProductions]

They're going to nail SpaceX to a wall with this design, because it's got none of the stupidities that were somehow worked into Starship, plus it addresses issues we've learned of with reusability over th past few years. Time to change camps :) lol

[@SuperSMT]

@@Stereo3DProductions They're completely different systems with completely different intended markets. Neutron is a rocket with half the payload of a Falcon 9. Starship is a rocket with a payload significantly exceeding that of the Saturn V. They can, and likely will, coexist perfectly happily

[@DONTctVT]

Im doubling down on my RKLB shares

[@PsychoticWolfie]

“I didn’t set any alarms for it or anything like that, my body just sort of woke up naturally and compelled me to watch it as if I have some need for rockets” Lol literally exactly the same story for me. For some reason I accidentally fell asleep at 10pm last night and woke up at 4:30 am, perfect timing to see this coming up

[@dariuszrutkowski420]

My dog is my alarm clock.

[@will3346]

I don’t get why people fanboy one company when you can fanboy the aerospace industry. Pretty much any company putting money (and not actively damaging the industry) into aerospace is worth getting excited for. Remember competition is good.

[@pegasusted2504]

only if there is actual competition, thinking along the line of Intel here. If not then you end up back in the rising costs and less innovation due to it not being necessary. At the moment I don't think anyone competes with SpaceX, not when you think they pretty much now are flying more missions than everyone else combined. Then you take Starship, that will move SpaceX into a whole new catagory and all the rest will be left behind. I am waiting for the first interplanetary launch of Starship when Elon, as per the FH mass sim, decides to send up a Tesla Semi as the payload ;~)

[@harmless6813]

Because only Musk wants to settle Mars. While new tech is always neat, I can't get all that excited about cheaper satellite launches. Still, cool concept. Will be fun to see this thing launch - and especially land.

[@myleswillis]

I'm glad it's strong enough to withstand an impact from an in orbit I-beam.

[@iamjadedhobo]

or a gaggle of Starlinks...

[@filip9564]

@@iamjadedhobo good luck hitting them...

[@iamjadedhobo]

@@filip9564 There's only a few of them now, but they multiply like rabbits in the outback :p

[@ahamay2012]

The soviet satellites will defend themself...

[@Danger_mouse]

As an Aussie, I love that the Kiwi Rocket lab team are working on their rockets and giving us something to look at in the southern hemisphere 👌 I wish them all the best! Fly Safe!

[@Real28]

I'm probably in SpaceX fanboyism but I love this and welcome it. I think Peter was a bit over the top with the demo but it's a demonstration and he can be cheeky. Now, I'll believe some of this when I see it - same I said with SpaceX but we are in the age of landing rockets so I believe they will be able to do it. What an age of rockets we are living in.

[@zj6074]

The rocket does look like it demands vertical integration, but that looks like a feature rather than an oversight for a few reasons: Not needing to lay the vehicle down and lift it back up reduces the downtime from landing to re-launch. Horizontal integration adds requirements to the payload as well as not all payloads are designed with the structural integrity to handle laying sideways. Re-launch procedure is probably no more complicated than drive a crane out, lift the thing from hardpoints inside the vehicle, put it back on the launch stand, inspect the vehicle for any flight defects, drop a fully integrated payload & upper stage into it, refuel & fly again.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

"inspect the vehicle for any flight defects" (and check the engines and supporting infrastrucutre like pumps and vents for full functionality/damages/parts past their life expectation) is the bit that up to now has made reusing stuff EXTREMELY expensive and time consuming. Just assuming it will be NO matter with the Electron without any prototypes already existing and allowing these aspects to be tested is silly. The Falcon 9 takes several weeks for overhauling. Even if you can cut it down to "A few days" it's far from "land it, give it a shine and send it back up". THAT is possibly decades away even though Musk also has these dreams for Starship. As long as their heatshield drops off under any vibrations that too is a pipedream.

[@4thImpulse]

@@Ugly_German_Truths You do realize that the first stage is only sub-orbital, right? The heating is completely different from anything SpaceX has to deal with now. More than New Shepard, but FAR less than anything orbital. Even if rapid reusable orbital isn't a thing tomorrow, that's very clearly not a problem Neutron's first stage needs to solve at all.

[@donjones4719]

Peter has said since the presentation that Neutron will be made vertically, transported vertically, and live its whole life when on the ground vertically. This is driving their search for a manufacturing site, almost certainly near their launch site at Wallops Island. This also explains his remark about no need for complex ground equipment - once transported to the launch pad it will be free standing, no strongback. Unknown if there will be a simple structure to fuel the upper stage. This makes a vertical integration structure necessary, though. Also a vertical hanger that's equivalent to Falcon 9's horizontal one, for refurbishment/inspection.

[@alexanderdaum8053]

@@4thImpulse The falcon 9 first stage is also suborbital and probably reaches similar speeds to neutron first stage, so I'd say they are comparable.

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

If Rocket Lab ever docks a module to the ISS they'll have to call it Gluon.

[@visionforbitcoin8436]

Ahah

[@HalNordmann]

Even better if it was a node module, that would "glue" modules together.

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

@@HalNordmann and of course the microgravity cattle research module - Muon.

[@keruetz]

The fairing thing is epic.

[@ajbp95]

Indeed! That made my jaw drop during the presentation!

[@otpyrcralphpierre1742]

"I didn't set an alarm clock for this, I didn't intend to wake up for this, my body just sort of woke up and compelled me to watch it, as if it had some sort of a Need for Rockets." ~ Scott Manley Dammit Son, you are a Legend...

[@Buzzdog1971]

You do not have to deal with road width restrictions when you have your launch facilities in dormant volcanoes as well.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. I've worked with polyimide composites which are supposed to be about the limit of what you can do with polymers, it was pretty resilient stuff but I wouldn't put it next to a burning methox torch like you get from the engine, it will burn up eventually

[@gresvig2507]

Lot of neat ideas, really like it. It seems like they're giving up some performance (which is what everyone is obsessed with) in exchange for more robust reusability. Makes sense to me-- if you have a rocket that can be turned around very quickly and cheaply with understressed engines, it's a win even if its capabilities aren't totally cutting edge power/weight ratios. Fuel is relatively very cheap, so make more trips. Perfect for constellation missions, which seem to be the new hotness.

[@angelaford2989]

Underrated comment 👏. RL design philosophy here is very much about reliability and ease of turnaround and handling and they're prepared to sacrifice performance to do that.

[@funnyitworkedlasttime6611]

Their fairing makes me think of the Graboids from Tremors!

[@ahamay2012]

Send this suggestion to Astra Rockets...

[@mrmullett1067]

Thinking outside of the box, reducing the redundant irrecoverable mass, increasing the re-useability = good economic sense and results in greater lift capability. Very cool presentation and this beast will work well together with Starship not against. They will/should be mutually coherent vehicles. Nice one New Zealand and USA.

[@plektosgaming]

It's 200,000 pounds lighter than what SpaceX is making, because less dry mass means less fuel, slightly smaller engines, and on and on. It all adds up. The downside is the massive sunk cost and tooling. In the end, though, less static weight required per kg to orbit wins, as it significantly lowers the cost to the customer. I suspect their cost per kg to orbit may be awfully close to the magic $1000 per kg. SpaceX is nowhere close to that number at present, and even those crazy people at SpinLaunch ( if it works - lol ) are looking at $500K for 500kg - about the same price.

[@devindykstra]

I feel like the fairing count is going to be reduced to 2. It might be simpler, but won't look nearly as cool

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

Let's compromise on 3.

[@rhamph]

I suspect the strakes/landing legs will get simplified too, just like starship went through many iterations. Aesthetics go out the window when they literally cost millions of dollars.

[@Nuovoswiss]

Carbon fiber composites gain a LOT of working temperature range if impregnated with polysialates (so called "geopolymers") instead of traditional epoxy resins. If the pores are sealed up to prevent oxidation, some formulations were maintaining their strength past 800°C.

[@kennethferland5579]

Interesting, and puts the nail in the steel-supremasist argument. Lets not forget that the ultimate heat resistent material is carbon-carbon which covered the shuttle nose and wing leading edges, and it's basically just made by baking carbon fiber binders down to nothing but graphite, the cost is brittleness but they can presuamably make a trade off between the two.

[@Nuovoswiss]

@@kennethferland5579 The only issue with carbon-carbon is that it can burn if heated in air. Using a ceramic (or geopolymer) binder to protect it from oxygen does a lot to improve its lifespan.

[@anzaca1]

5:29 I would guess that retaining the faring makes it more aerodynamic on re-entry.

[@spychopath]

The I-beam demo was cute n'all, but "being hit by an I-beam on a pendulum" isn't a typical use case for a rocket structure. SpaceX (and now Blue with their Jarvis project) are going with stainless steel upper stages because they need it for high energy re-entry. As Elon said at the time the switch from carbon was announced, when the carbon's thermal protection system is added to the mass of the carbon, 304 stainless comes out with a better weight figure. But if you're not retrieving your second stage, and your rocket concept sacrifices first stage efficiency to give the second stage the highest performance possible (as Neutron's is), then you don't have the thermal heating problem and you need your second stage to be as light as possible because all of that mass is going all the way to orbital velocity. Using carbon fibre is clearly necessary for this, I don't think there's any danger of steel being used unless Rocket Lab vault-face and decide they want to recover second stages.

[@joeyknight8272]

Carbon fiber has a higher melting temperature. I believe the switch to stainless was more to do with manufacturing than complications. Starship is supposed to be a rocket they can build in a day and explode the next day. Due to Starships mass manufacturing and rapid prototyping. I think Carbon and stainless are different when it comes to cold liquids.

[@spychopath]

@@joeyknight8272 The melting temperature is an irrelevance. It'll fail long before it melts. Yes, manufacturing with stainless is easier, and that was part of what drove the switch, but the weight saving from stainless over carbon was also a factor.

[@joeyknight8272]

@@spychopath agree to disagree

[@JamesSeedorf]

@@joeyknight8272 it's not an opinion to disagree on, the epoxy that bonds carbon fiber composites starts to break down at 150c well before melting. Even with high temp epoxy it starts to break down at 300c. Stainless retains is strength to over 500c and if it overheats it isn't going to irreparably degrade like burning off epoxy would.

[@joeyknight8272]

@@JamesSeedorf but those are just words for you and the other person. How do not know rocket lab doesn't use a special carbon fiber and binder? How do i know you aren't lieing? There's no links and thoss links might be towards non space grade carbon fiber. So i can agree to disagree until you provide for a soild fact that you or the other person is completely correct. I know i might be wrong and likely am but i still have to ability to agree to disagree

[@jeechun]

Using metal for the second stage makes sense also considering, this is the part, which is expended. So, making it from perferrably cheap metal alloy is a good choice. I also wonder, if later on they could try to recover the second stage engine, the SMART way (or similar). Inflatable heat shield for the engine (only the engine), and glider descent, mid-air catch with chopper (they will have a lot of experience with that until then). Though, I'm not sure, it worth. Weight penalty on the second stage, more complex, and very much depends on, how much the second stage engine costs.

[@saumyacow4435]

It will be very interesting to see what they do actually build the second stage from. But given what he said, my bet is on carbon fibre. In other words, they are confident that their automated carbon fibre production can do it cheaply enough that compared to all the other costs that go into a launch, the actual materials cost (the carbon fibre tape) makes no real difference. If so, it will be a fantastic ultra-light structure. If I were asked to design a a re-entry system for the second stage the first thing I'd want to do is to make sure the second stage is as light as possible. Then I'd inflate a ballute from the engine section. One option is a cone shaped ballute. So the weight of the engine will do the attitude control. The ballute keeps the worst of the heating away from the tanks and the engine has a tiny amount of active cooling. Add a parachute. As a bonus, the ballute could serve as a raft. And yeah, mass and cost might mean its always better to just throw it away.

[@millamulisha]

Their second stage is really novel.

[@JohnSmith-yp2nt]

Hullo! I was on Boca Chica Beach 3 days ago. Awesome to behold in person. Tonight I'm staying at a hotel in Huntsville, Al. Birthplace of NASA. Can't wait to check out the museum in the morning. Godspeed, and fly safe, all.

[@chrisnoe9921]

I love how Scott dryly inserts a humorous reference - pauses for a beat - and then presses on, while I laugh out loud here... :)

[@nazamroth8427]

What I want to know, as your average supervillain, is how likely this rocket will be to explode withing my volcano base if meddled with by secret agent types? Just as importantly, is there gonna be a more phallic variant?

[@thePronto]

If they get any more phallic, they will get a 'cease and desist' letter from Blue Origin. I see this being more butt-plug than dildo.

[@pegasusted2504]

@@thePronto the fins on it might make the eyes water a little though ;~)

[@TheVergile]

as much as i love rocket lab…we have seen so many companies showing us grandiose CG rockets before they even have an engine built that its hard to take anyone seriously right now. Especially when they say how much better they will be than their competition that is already flying. and im not saying spacex has been any different when they started with the falcon9, but i wish companies would just slow down on the CG hopium a bit until they actually have so,ething to show.

[@joansparky4439]

and how do you attract capital to fund this then?

[@TheVergile]

@@colinsoutherntrue, but its the first of their "big" presentations i can remember. Maybe i just misremember but i cant recall them doing it for Falcon 1. And i dont think an investor would be very impressed by this. Again: thats kind of the issue. We have seen so many companies do CG mockups and big presentations and the majority never delivered anything. As an investor id look at the facts and an actual risk assessment, not this kind of video. Id argue these arent really aimed at serious investors either. The same way no one ends up investing in Starship because Elon musk does a CGI video of mars habitats. This whole presentation thing is more of a public image move. And nowadays most people have become very used to seeing these companies not deliver and fail. So im not sure what you really get by that. Additionally most of these companies you cannot even invest in as a normal person. They are looking for a small number of big investors, not people that buy 500 bucks worth of stock. So yeah...its not like i completely disagree with the notion, but i doubt thats really the point.

[@TheVergile]

@@joansparky4439 dude. they are not attracting your capital either way. You cannot buy SpaceX stock. Arguably you could buy rocket labs stocks, but this isnt how they finance their business. These companies are mainly financed by a few big investors, not crowd funding. And by now these investors have seen dozens of companies with nice CGI mockups and big dreams and nothing delivered in the end. No real investor funds a company based on these videos. They are for the public image. Investors woudl take a long and hard look at actual risk assessments and facts, not a CGI video of a rocket and someone ramming an metal beam into a piece of spaceship hull. Anyone can make this kind of video. And many companies did. And most failed to deliver. Thats not really a tradition you want to take part in.

[@TheVergile]

@@colinsouthern this was a reply to your “spacex didnt start with falcon 9”, so of course im talking about a spacex-product. thats what i mean. sure - if you deliver you earn some credibility. both spacex and rocket labs have done so in the past. but as you said it still doesnt mean anyone takes musks time tables seriously. and no investor goes into a round of funding based on musks timetable or a new CGI video. These are for the general public, not investors. Thats all i wanted to say. Because you initially said something along the lines of no videos no rnd budget. whereas id argue these kinds of videos do little to attract serious investors.

[@joansparky4439]

@@TheVergile its not my capital they're after, there is much much bigger fish to catch, but catching them they must to get this done ;-)

[@tmln4227]

Thanks for the great video as always!🚀 That clamshell fairing is a great idea! Could you do a video on nuclear-electric propulsion please?🚀🚀

[@aim00ver]

They will definitely have some kind of problems at a Proton stage:)

[@mskiptr]

It's always gonna be a Muon in my heart

[@jewellcarpenter6764]

They do retract back into the structure, the legs. You can see it on the video they present. When it performs its re-entry burn or deorbit burn, whichever one is the first burn that they performed. And before they come back to launch site you see them deploy.

[@gregoryfletcher6198]

Good bit of innovation with this rocket. Looks like the leg tips retract into the skegs on the side of the rocket , you can see them retracted on the launch pad section of the vid. .

[@PantsuMann]

Never heard of this rocket. Bet it will go into orbit before Blue Origin. I'm ready to bet $50 on it.

[@YeOldeTraveller]

I would not bet against this. If they are making real progress in delivering Neutron, this will light a fire under Blue Origin. Then we will see if their engineers can work as hard as their lawyers.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

When I saw that faring opening up, my brain immediately started playing the space music from you only live twice.

[@jhorn928]

I never knew Space X's Falcon 9 was 12' diameter to fit on the roads. Funny how so much of our engineering is determined by road and railway sizes.

[@joansparky4439]

and not new either.. look up the design considerations to tanks and jeeps for WW2, probably even planes.. You'll be surprised.

[@allangibson2408]

That’s also why the 737 fuselage is the size it is - for rail transport.

[@moo4boy]

I'm not sure about vertical integration, but I would not be surprised if there was some sort of stabilizing structure for the bottom of the second stage if only so they don't dent their engine bell in turbulence. This may be able to help support an empty second stage with payload in a horizontal configuration

[@prerunnerwannabe]

BUT ELON IS THE SAVIOR OF THE HOOMAN RACE AND EVERYTHING HE TOUCHES IS PERFECT HOW DARE ROCKLABS JOKE ABOUT ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH ELON AND SPACEX!!!!!!!! (/s)

[@PinataOblongata]

I finally realised who Peter Beck reminds me of: The dad from 'Round the Twist - a great show from my Australian child hood.

[@WWeronko]

It is nice to see advancements in rocket development. After 50 or some years of stagnations where engines developed in the 1950s like the RL-10, AJ-10 and RD-107 were still considered state of the art, now new engines and airframes are popping into existence with regularity. SpaceX has much to do with this trend. Without Elon it is doubtful we'd be seeing any of this level or rapidity of innovation.

[@WWeronko]

@Lynn Geek One step at a time. Let's get off world colonies and then worry about FTL drive.

[@louissivo9660]

While I miss your KSP videos I'm sure we'll see them again when KSP 2 releases. But until then, I love these frequent updates on the space program. Your videos are great, very focused and cover the essentials. Thanks for helping me keep up and a bit educated.

[@zynius]

Looking forward to how they will fuel the second stage when it's inside of the 1st stage.

[@donjones4719]

Scott added some text noting that the two long fins could double as raceways for cabling, etc. Perhaps RL is going with the Starship design of fueling the upper stage thru pipes on the 1st stage. SpaceX abandoned that design only recently. In that case the fins could contain the needed plumbing, which will turn inside when nearly at the upper stage level.

[@plektosgaming]

@@donjones4719 It's actually quite simple. They can open the fairing on the pad and fuel it from a launch tower, then close it again. Heavy plumbing, complexrouting, and potential leaks is not as simple and direct as a hose with a coupling that can be disconnected right before launch. The 2nd stage fuel is measured in kg instead of tons, after all. Just... yeah... building a tower is more cost, potentially. The other option would be to simply fuel it on the ground and lift it into place. but that's essentially needing the same tower/crane/silo to be built...They have a much cheaper vehicle, but the sunk cost is adding up quickly.

[@dansegelov305]

Scott 10:30 : "Is there going to be an entry-burn..?" Video immediately shows entry-burn.

[@JSDudeca]

I suspect the legs will fully retract so they are not in the plume of the rockets. Animation showed some sort of retraction mechanism on landing.

[@jefflucas_life]

Love the volcano base landing idea, so cool how neutron lands.

[@firefly4f4]

My main question is how do they intend to human rate this vehicle with the integrated fairing? That would seem to preclude a lot of abort scenarios. Will it be a specialized version without the fairing? Seems a human rating would be questionable with that design. Also, I do understand the arguments for a gas generator cycle, and that closed cycles are more complex and have more failure points etc - I know - but another part also laments the impulse lost. Also, unburned methane in the atmosphere... (and yes I do have similar thoughts about the Merlin). Edit: maybe a combustion tap off...

[@LauPaSat-pl]

Isn't that methane dumped into hot plume, so it heats up and burn with atmospheric oxygen? When it comes to human rating it, I also thought it may be difficult. But maybe they fairing is so thin, it can be broken up by aborting capsule? We'll just have to wait to see

[@urosrot7916]

What if they will have an option to remove fairings and replace them with faring like second stage for human travel.

[@LauPaSat-pl]

@@urosrot7916 The question is then "Will the first stage be able to do safe re-entry", as that would leave it open

[@JohnWilliamNowak]

A crewed vehicle would need to survive reentry, so perhaps it would be reasonably simple to forego the fairings entirely. Or, like Apollo and Soyuz, use an expendable fairing and (as you suggest) skip the reusable fairings entirely.

[@camicus-3249]

@@LauPaSat-pl In that case, the "an I-beam can't even dent it" test would really come back to bite them lol

[@wanderhillen2435]

There should be an orbital depot somewhere in LEO where all these second stages could dock and then every once in a while they send up a mission solely to recover the second stages. Then you'd bring them down so they can be reused too.

[@vincentvanzijl1522]

The use of composites in a heating case is very interesting. The use of higher graphite content carbon fibres provides extremely high heat transfer rates, can ensure that while global warming is high, localised heating remains relatively low.

[@bernhardkaltenboeck9894]

Like your citation of “You only live twice”. Most SpaceX fans won’t be aware of the historic movie. Agree that volcano base is a must 😂😂😂

[@MrMediator24]

Rockets becoming more and more like 40s-50s Sci-Fi. I don't know if it's self-fullfilling prophecy or authors were right

[@HalNordmann]

Fun fact: Heinlein only had VTVL rockets early in his writing career, when there wasn't much known about rocketry. Later on, he transitioned to winged orbital vehicles with orbital transit stations. So "how Heinlein intended" is actually VTHL with separate vehicles for different tasks!

[@thundergod97]

Volcano base is a must for this. LUL I wonder if they could take another page from You Only Live Twice and capture stuff in orbit too. Perhaps a space junk collection vehicle? Landing back on Earth doesn't really seem doable with an unstable load, but just collecting and consolidating in orbit would be good to clean up space. Great to see Rocket Lab breaking out of the small sat market.

[@Zonkotron]

Hmm. Trying to outspaceX spaceX. This is gonna be interesting. My general prediction is that the Falcon 9 is the Sojus of the 21st century.....because nothing will ever get the adolation, reliability or cheapness of the first properly sensible launch system ever put into mass production. (Sensible as in not having escalating costs, waste of hardware and horrible manhour/result ratio)

[@Connection-Lost]

Most incoherent post in this whole section. Nice job.

[@emmeXXtreme]

I love this concept! looks very different from any other rocket around, I really hope this ages well!

[@Wrangler-fp4ei]

Thanks for another insightful review. Its nice to see what aspects need to be addressed. I was concern about the landing legs as well, but we'll have to see what happens once they start testing it. I would think they'll have to put tiles on it to keep it being burnt away from the engine exhaust.

[@filanfyretracker]

SpaceX also went to stainless because from my understanding the kilns or autoclaves whatever it is you vac bag and cook carbon fiber in are hard to get in the sizes that starship/bfr/ITS were pushing for at the time they made the switch to steel.

[@caroldeeds5454]

If you look closely, it appears that the tips of the landing legs that extend below the engines are retractable into the main part of the fins.

[@stephenwitwick3926]

They're definitely going to improve their engines and stretch the first stage in the future.

[@venusiancreative1774]

Something I really like about Archimedes is that Rocket Lab isn't using all the power in the engine. This will help reusability since they won't break down as quickly and just require routine maintenance. I think SpaceX engineers working on Raptor should start looking into this to possibly help future development.

[@clarkkent7973]

Less power means longer lasting? I am skeptical about this claim. I would say better design/materials means longer lasting.

[@moekitsune]

@@clarkkent7973 Why not both?

[@deebo3864]

We need a Scott Manley/ Peter Beck interview!

[@fjanson2468]

His graphical presentation game is nearly as good as BlueO's, and they have actually achieved orbit. This puts them about 10 years behind SpaceX and they should have a viable rocket equal to Falcon just after Falcon is retired for Starship. (scratches head)

[@PyroDesu]

Always going to want different classes of launch vehicle. Starship might be a great heavy-lift vehicle, but a medium-lift launcher will still be needed and with SpaceX retiring the Falcon 9, *someone* has to fill that gap. It sure as hell isn't going to be Blue Origin.

[@moekitsune]

Starship is a beast, yes, but what if a customer doesn't need to utilize the 100 or so tons to orbit capability? That's where rockets like Neutron come in. There will always be a place for medium-lift vehicles.

[@fjanson2468]

Well, according to Elon the Starship will be more economical than a Falcon or FH, and he expects to be launching weekly. There will be plenty of space for everyone as ride shares to use up space, and cheaper than anyone else can provide. We will see, its going to be a good show either way. I cant wait to some new really big new space station modules to get lifted and a build a new station that dwarfs anything yet envisioned. I keep expecting to hear SpaceX has acquired Bigelow Aerospace.

[@moekitsune]

@@fjanson2468 Forgot about rideshares, you have a good point. It really depends on what the market wants to go with. Neutron would be more direct to a desired orbit while Starship could be cheaper yet slower to get to the same orbit.

[@Chanselor_Gowron]

i can´t wait untill they scale up to starship level sizes. another space race would be fun

[@wingsounds13]

I see a number of comments here saying that Falcon 9 is "more capable" in that it can launch about twice the mass into LEO. I don't think that that is the ultimate measure of capability. For the most part, satellites are getting smaller and 8T is adequate to launch multiple "average size" satellites into orbit. What is far more important is the cost per ton to LEO. SpaceX is doing great today because their $/T launch cost is substantially less than other providers. This is far more important than efficiency or total Tons to LEO capability, as long as the launch system can deliver your payload to the orbit you require. It may be that Neutron can undercut the Falcon 9 $/T launch cost. If so, SpaceX will take a hit in the number of contracts that Falcon 9 takes. On the other hand, we already know that Starship will stomp Falcon 9 and may well beat Neutron in this metric. Neither of these launch systems will have an impact until they come on-line and that will be several years at best. I like both SpaceX and Rocket Lab and look forward to seeing what they deliver in the coming years. For now, we watch and wait.

[@LauPaSat-pl]

F9 will have an advantage of reliability at first, but Neutron can get eg. vertical integration advantage. Overall it seems to me that Neutron will be better for most small payloads than F9

[@sakaraist]

whether you like SpaceX or not, it's impossible to deny that they showed people that space could be accessible and competitive. the past few years have been very exciting.

[@alanjenkins1508]

The cheaper spaceflight becomes, the more junk will be launched, and the faster we get to kessler syndrome. Lets be honest. Nobody ever wants to clean up after themselves. It is always somebody elses problem.

[@erlienfrommars]

That fairing design looked like it's designed to carry a spacecraft like the SNC Dreamchaser.

[@wylnd]

The carbon vs metal presentation shows very well why I don't trust carbon on my bicycle. Metal will bend, carbon will hold up perfectly until it catastrophically doesn't. And then you can pick carbon fibers out of your flesh :D

[@iamjadedhobo]

With long fibers, the structure will hold partially. It will behave like a wet rag, but not as a bail of needles.

[@wylnd]

@@iamjadedhobo as long as it sticks together it's cool

[@eddyer3393]

On second thought. I don't know guys. Remember the last space walk - they were closing the cover for the air lock and the magnet wouldn't stick, the strap was not tight enough, the hoop may have been bowed or I got to thinking maybe even the hinge sprung. The door / cover would not close correctly. I suspect we run the same risk with this design. A maw - leviathans in space.

[@Stormingmonkey]

Wow I like this version of Beck Normally he's really chill but giving a little diss on his rivals is really fun

[@grayfoxv]

Scott! I love the dynamic background on your computer with all the space images , where did you get the photos from?

[@KolomoiskyK]

If you noticed, in some videos landing legs are retracted above the engines for the descent phase. This will solve the heating problem.

[@wegder]

I get a little bit sick of the musk cult.

[@MBdrummer3288]

Wow man, this is some seriously interesting stuff here. VERY different thinking and I love it. Game changing I think. Fantastic.

[@justchaz.]

Brilliant again. You are a great source of "matter of fact" knowledge that may not really be matter of fact lol, which I get the satisfaction of catching more often, on your treatises. Thanks.

The very specific fairing seems to be usable not only for satellite launch but also for satellite recovery, like the capability which was largely lost along with the Shuttle. There could definitely be military contracts to launch empty and return with something in that fairing.

[@fromnorway643]

Not really. Remember that the first stage won't be able to reach orbit. When releasing the second stage plus satellite, the speed will probably be significantly less than _half_ of orbital velocity.

[@dazuk1969]

Finally we have someone who seems to have the same ambition and innovation as spacex. I wish Beck and Rocket Lab every success. Man, that is a cool rocket....if it works..

[@harmless6813]

I haven't heard Beck talk about settling Mars. Maybe I just missed it.

[@dazuk1969]

@@harmless6813 Well, we can talk about settling Mars all we want, but I can assure you that is a very long way off. Nobody is going to Mars anytime soon. Give Rocket Lab their due.....they have ambition and realistic goals.

[@harmless6813]

@@dazuk1969 I know, I know. Electric cars are not practical, nobody can land an orbital rocket, a network of thousands of satellites is inconceivable and nobody is going to Mars any time soon. I'm so glad Elon Musk exists.

[@dazuk1969]

@@harmless6813 So am I. Electric cars are practical. orbital rockets can be reused, but nobody is going to Mars this decade.We will be lucky to get to the Moon this decade. I will leave you with a quote from the man himself "I am worried the pace of innovation is to slow, and we won't reach Mars in my lifetime (30-40 years). I am also worried nobody will carry on the work I have started if I die"....lets both hope someone does if that happens.

[@bosatsu76]

"What a rocket should look like in 2050' is remarkably similar to what a rocket looked like in 1950 SF stories... One stage, fixed landing fins...

[@YouCountSheep]

Good memory on the Bond reference, I knew where I saw that before, I havent watched that movie in ages. Now they only need to make their rocket also capable of nomming and we can reenact the movie in real life. Hopefully the ffairing doesnt rip open during decent.

[@kazioo2]

8:50 - "SpaceX are taking a hit in terms of pure performance in the name of better iterative capability" - According to multiple interviews with Musk this is incorrect. Unless by performance you just mean thrust. But if we define performance as kg to LEO then it's apparently incorrect (CF + heavy 360 shielding was estimated to be heavier). However I assume Musk's comments aren't really relevant to the booster, which is surprisingly also stainless steel.

[@firefly4f4]

I'm also not sure why Peter stressed the RTLS landing so much. It's not as if Falcon 9 *can't* do that, just that by landing downrange it allows SpaceX to get even more performance out of the booster and still recover it rather than expending it, which helps both them and the customer. Still cheaper than building an entire new booster, and expands the payloads that can be delivered. It really seems like this is either up to 8 tons recovery or up to 13 with expending, and no in between. Sidenote: the next RTLS mission I can see on the schedule for SpaceX isn't until NET April 2022 with SARah 1 and Rideshares @ LZ4

[@Mike_Connor]

I'm so glad it wasn't only me who had James Bond flashbacks when I saw the fairings open! :D

[@Mike_Connor]

Hank Scorpio is first in line

[@DrummertheCody]

Making flame resistant carbon composites is HARD. I worked on a team that tested new formulations at a big aerospace comp. manufacturer. Often, the “flame retardant” and “high temp” shit the engineers gave us burned better than the normal batches.

[@mefobills279]

I'm wondering if injecting gas at the landing fins would help keep reentry plasma from cooking the carbon fiber. Fins are cooled by internal gas passages and gas escapes at bottom of fin.

[@MoonlytSonata023]

Looks like they designed(or atleast on the animation) the landing legs to be retractable. You can see it on 10:33 where the legs are in-level of the tip of the engine bell.

[@FrankRuiz66]

The volcano is an awesome idea.. Looks like a giant tampon insertion tool with that fairing.

[@jimsvideos7201]

It'll be fun to watch, whether it works as advertised or not.

[@savclaudiu2133]

Far from wanting to detract on its merits, I do not know if it's an 2050 design today, or an 2000 design finally today. I compared it against proposed SSTO Venture Star, from payload fraction pow: 2% for VS vs. 1.66% for Neutron in fully reusable mode. Thank you Ivan Bekey, we will never forget and forgive you.

[@vladimirdyuzhev]

Scott, thank you for waking up at 5am so we don't have to!

[@crunchydango]

I completely understand your situation, Scott. I, too, have a need for rockets.

[@TheJttv]

that 4 way clamshell is gonna require some crazy clamps to hold it closed on launch.

[@whyiseverysinglehandletaken2]

Finally some competition for F9? Nice.

[@alienencore3848]

It's good that he mentioned 2050, because that's about when this thing will be launching and landing reliably. And reliability is everything in a big rocket. They just have so much to learn and they don't seem to be planning on a "learning phase" with this rocket. And consider none of their people have done ANY of this before, I'm betting that learning phase ends up being at least 5 years.

[@captainofiron]

Nice Bond reference, that's exactly what I thought as well

[@ShiftingDrifter]

Finally, a rocket that will fit into my volcano lair without any further construction modifications. It's such a headache finding a good contractor!

[@andyfeimsternfei8408]

Peter Beck's Elon moment, smashing an I-beam into rocket skin material! Reminds me of "accidentally" breaking the Cybertruck windows or boosters blowing up.. I hope Peter develops showman skills half as good as Elon, we need more of it! It's what develops enthusiasm and support, something NASA lost 5 decades ago.

[@michaelwilliams2593]

I'd love to see a review of the status of all the existing efforts that you have featured in your videos. For example, where is stratolaunch at? Same question for some of the lunar lander efforts.