![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pbs.twimg.com\/media\/EvZKuxAXUAAgdf2?format=jpg&name=medium\")
<\/p>\nTo date, Rocket Lab has successfully introduced the first dedicated small satellite launch vehicle, Electron, which CEO Peter Beck said would never be reusable. Then, the company successfully recovered a first stage. Now, Beck says Rocket Lab is ready to do something else he previously said they\u2019d never do: build a big rocket.<\/p>\n
The Neutron launch vehicle is a reusable, eight tons to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) rocket designed primarily to build satellite constellations. But Neutron will also be designed from the beginning to be capable of resupplying space stations in LEO and even flying crew, yet another market Beck had previously distanced himself from.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Beck\u2019s decision to metaphorically \u201ceat his hat\u201d is based on feedback from Electron customers, including pathfinder missions for future constellations where the satellite operator has developed a relationship with Rocket Lab.<\/p>\n
\u201cHistorically, the average lift mass is four to five tons, so large launch vehicles fly mostly empty,\u201d said Beck in an interview with NASASpaceflight. \u201cMost constellations are comprised of 500 to 700 kilograms of spacecraft, with five to 11 satellites per plane.\u201d<\/p>\n
These figures fall within the capability of an eight ton class launch vehicle, but differ from one constellation in particular.<\/p>\n
\u201cStarlink is a unique case because they\u2019re in a very Low Earth Orbit, so there are many more spacecraft.\u201d<\/p>\n
A comparison of Electron, Neutron, and Falcon 9 \u2013 via Rocket Lab<\/p>\n
Neutron will differ in size from the larger Falcon 9 vehicles which launch Starlink missions. Despite the larger payload capacity of Falcon 9 and resulting lower cost per kilogram of payload, a partially filled payload fairing still requires a customer to pay the full cost of launching the vehicle.<\/p>\n
\u201cCost per kilogram is a very easy metric to understand. But I don\u2019t know of a single launch vehicle that\u2019s bought on a cost per kilogram basis.\u201d<\/p>\n
Beck says that Neutron is ideally sized to deploy satellites to specific orbital planes, and is capable of lifting 98% of all satellites forecast to launch through 2029. This could even include batches of Rocket Lab\u2019s own Photon satellites, playing to one of the company\u2019s strengths.<\/p>\n
\u201cRocket Lab is very good at building complex systems at scale.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rocket Lab also says that Neutron will be capable of human spaceflight. However, Beck says there is \u201cnot currently\u201d a crew spacecraft in development.<\/p>\n
\u201cDeveloping a crew vehicle is different than developing a vehicle for satellites.\u201d He says Neutron is about keeping crew certification in mind from the beginning of development, to keep that market on the table for the future.<\/p>\n
Similarly, Rocket Lab is not currently developing a cargo resupply vehicle.<\/p>\n
\u201cCertifying for cargo is a step down in certification from crew. But there is no product in development. The priority is to get to market to serve constellations.\u201d<\/p>\n
That debut, according to Rocket Lab, could come as soon as 2024. But a lot of work remains to be completed before a Neutron rocket will be ready for flight, including development of a new rocket engine to power the vehicle.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/ELaNa19-engines-Photo-credit-Brady-Kenniston.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Nine Rutherford engines power Electron on the ELaNa-19 mission \u2013 via Brady Kenniston<\/p>\n
The currently operational Electron rocket uses Rutherford engines fueled by RP-1 kerosene and liquid oxygen, the same fuel mixture to be used for Neutron. These engines are both 3D printed and utilize electric pumps, both firsts for an orbital launch vehicle. However, only one of these accomplishments will carry over to Neutron\u2019s propulsion.<\/p>\n
\u201cCertainly additive manufacturing. But more traditional pumps are required at this scale.\u201d Beck says that Neutron\u2019s first stage will be powered by multiple engines, but not as many as Electron\u2019s.<\/p>\n
\u201cNine engines is great if one shuts down, but otherwise is a bit of a pain,\u201d citing manufacturing and testing required for every single engine. \u201cA small amount of engines is optimal, but large engines have limited throttleability.\u201d Beck says Neutron will have the \u201cleast amount of engines practical.\u201d<\/p>\n
A key element of Neutron\u2019s engine development program will be reuse. Beck says, \u201cReusability drives a lot of engine design decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Unlike Electron, which is utilizing a parachute recovery system, Neutron will look more like SpaceX\u2019s Falcon 9 in that the first stage will land propulsively on an ocean platform. To this end, the engines will need to be restartable in flight to perform the landing maneuver. Other aspects of the engine\u2019s design will also take reflight into account.<\/p>\n
The announcement of Neutron comes very early on in development. \u201cOur priority has been analyzing the market and raising capital.\u201d<\/p>\n
That said, there is hardware and flight experience from Electron that Rocket Lab can leverage for Neutron. \u201cElectron\u2019s avionics will transfer directly to Neutron. Cryogenic valves are easily scaled. The hard part is developing a working cryo valve in the first place. There\u2019s a tremendous amount of heritage.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/12\/48982930181_eb251c2556_k.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Rocket Lab\u2019s Electron strongback is visible at LC-2 adjacent to Pad 0A at Wallops, hosting an Antares rocket \u2013 via NASA<\/p>\n
Neutron\u2019s choice of launch site also accelerates the time to flight in 2024. Directly adjacent to their soon-to-debut Electron Launch Complex 2 (LC-2) at the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia is Pad 0A, currently home to Northrop Grumman\u2019s Antares rocket. This is the launch pad where Neutron will debut, taking advantage of the already existing pad infrastructure.<\/p>\n
\u201cPad 0A was really designed as a multi-user pad. With Antares\u2019 relatively low flight rate, we hopefully won\u2019t be disrupting any other users.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wallops is also only the first Neutron launch site. Much like with Electron, Rocket Lab plans to add additional Neutron launch sites in the future.<\/p>\n
Manufacturing of Neutron is expected to take place in close proximity to the Wallops launch site. \u201cA lot of US launch vehicle diameters are based on the height of the lowest bridge between California and Florida,\u201d says Beck, referencing SpaceX\u2019s Falcon 9 rockets, built in Hawthorne, California, and shipped by road to Cape Canaveral.<\/p>\n
Purpose-built for reusability, Neutron will also have a different appearance than Electron, with a lack of carbon fiber in the main body. This is due to carbon fiber\u2019s poor qualities when subjected to high heat flux, such as during reentry.<\/p>\n
\u201cElectron can sit behind a shockwave to protect from heat flux. That\u2019s harder to do with a larger vehicle.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/spacenews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/eelctron-recovery-879x485.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Electron\u2019s first stage being recovered following the Return to Sender mission \u2013 via Rocket Lab<\/p>\n
As far as achieving recovery for reuse, Beck does not anticipate a SpaceX-esque \u201chop\u201d test program.<\/p>\n
\u201cOur priority is to get into service and deliver a customer satellite. Reusability can not work, and the mission can still be successful, so we can take some risk there.\u201d<\/p>\n
The first stage recovery is expected to take place on an ocean platform stationed downrange. While the option of performing Return To Launch Site (RTLS) landings is not off the table, it\u2019s also not expected to be useful for Neutron.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve learned to never say never to anything. Otherwise, it results in some unpleasant dining experiences. But we\u2019ve baselined a flight profile with a downrange landing.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a propellant trade between RTLS and downrange landing. RTLS begins to grow the vehicle.\u201d<\/p>\n
When asked about potentially creative names for Rocket Lab\u2019s downrange recovery vessel, Beck says. \u201cAmong all the issues we\u2019re trying to solve right now, that hasn\u2019t come up, but I\u2019m sure we won\u2019t disappoint.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n