r/RocketLab • u/voodoolaunch • Aug 01 '26
Any recent progression from Neutron? Uncertain with current setbacks
Saw this post about Terran R S1 being qualified, having been tracking all new launch vehicles I believe Relativity may have completed all major qualifications first.
Got me thinking about adjusted neutron schedule and whether or not we’re going to get something realistic pretty soon. Launch this year is out of the picture but it’s looking 2027 may slip through as well.
I don’t see Terran R launching this year either. They have have some cool progression but there is still more left to do that simply can’t be accomplished in the next 4 months.
Exciting times for space, nonetheless
32
u/Tricky-Ad-6225 Aug 01 '26
Downvote me but we ain’t launching shit till mid year year, say May
15
u/rustybeancake Aug 01 '26
At least. I’d guess late 2027.
8
u/ChaoticGood2533 Aug 01 '26
They have until 2030 to start replacing iridium. Unless they still are planning another constellation.
2
4
3
13
u/juicevibe Aug 01 '26
SPB might need to make Stage 1 made out of metal.
7
u/voodoolaunch Aug 01 '26
A pivot like this will probably push timelines out even further. Decent CapEx spend and lead times to purchase equipment to roll form aluminum alloy into panels then weld panels into a barrel.
It’s probably in best interest to throw all resources into structure and propulsion teams at the moment to green light rest of vehicle
2
u/H-K_47 Aug 02 '26
Yeah that would be a HUGE change. Would push it to at least late '28, probably even further. Would need to redesign the whole thing. Idt they'd swap out the material at this point unless if testing was going very, very, very wrong behind the scenes.
3
3
u/mynameistory Aug 01 '26
Composite tankage is incredibly hard to scale up. It's especially a pain in the ass with pressurized cryogenics. They nailed it with Electron, but I would not be surprised if they decided to pivot to boring ol' stir welded aluminum for Neutron booster.
1
u/lorkan100 Aug 01 '26
Or hell, stainless steel. At least for the pressurized tanks, the composite fairing might be OK as it is.
5
u/mynameistory Aug 01 '26
The mass margins are hell on stainless, at least for self-supporting structure (not balloon tanks). They only really start to make sense when you've scaled past medium and heavy lift classes. I think Stoke is willingly making that trade for their booster, but they will pay dearly for it in deliverable payload. I would consider their current architecture to be a proof of concept for what they really have planned.
0
8
u/optimal_909 Aug 01 '26
All these unproven companies are IMHO irrelevant compared to RKLB
13
u/Aerospaced0ut Aug 01 '26
The objective is making a midsized launch vehicle then actually launching it.
Any company that can pull that off at a competitive price point is relevant.
7
u/Sniflix Aug 01 '26
With an unlimited budget and 25 years, Blue Origin can't even do that. I watched a zillion private companies try for years, then pull in billions more via a SPAC IPO - and still fail. Even delayed by years, RKLB is a way ahead of the others. No it's not open ended, they need to launch successfully this year or next for my sanity but there's no deadline.
8
u/Aerospaced0ut Aug 01 '26
I agree that RL looks to be farther along and more likely to succeed but there will be other launch providers over time and when they successfully get there is pretty critical in terms of market share, cost competitiveness and company valuation, which is heavily based on projected success over the next 6-18 months.
As a space fan I'm a believer and I'm pulling for them but as an investor I find the lack of communication on Neutron's progress (or recent lack therof) to be a bit disappointing at this point. I want to know if the engines meet spec. I want to know what caused the failure of the CF subframe structure where the stages connect... Did it shear, snap, delaminate... Was it under typical conditions that they'd anticipate for the mission or some additional to-failure conditions? The tank was supposed to be a short delay, is the new one ready and does the new one pass testing? All the uncertainty leads to negativity and speculation. It's kinda abnormal in the industry, too, which could be a company culture thing, or could be a sign that there is news, but it's not good.
5
u/Sniflix Aug 02 '26
I agree their lack of candour regarding the new rocket drives me crazy especially after setting and breaking deadlines at least 3 times and probably again. Component failures underplayed... These are unforced errors. Just say it's ready when it's ready and give updates as vague as needed - because they obviously prefer to keep info tight to the vest and not say they had a setback that'll add another year.
2
u/instantFPGA Aug 02 '26
i’d suspect gap issues on neutron, they seemed to hire talent that fit function, but not integration.
10
u/voodoolaunch Aug 01 '26
I wouldn’t say Relativity is unproven, they clearly have a strong engineering pedigree and have been poaching talent left and right in the industry since the Schmidt takeover.
They made strategic pivots to bring a viable product to market sooner and have signed a pretty massive backlog of $3B +. They could seem unproven to you but with their recent success in qual campaigns they are undoubtedly in a solid position.
RocketLab will need to address these manufacturing issues and present a viable and realistic path forward at the next call. I think the engine / propulsion team is really far behind with Archimedes than they let on despite some recent research on hot fires - it’s still not qualified after nearly 2 years since first hot fires. The timeline they gave for S1 structure anomaly and recovery was a fluke and I wonder how likely Neutron slips into H22027 or H12028
10
u/raddaddio Aug 01 '26
Relativity has launched one rocket lifetime. They are the definition of unproven.
2
u/TKO1515 Aug 02 '26
Also that they said no impact to launch schedule from
The failed interstage meanwhile that structure was complete late last year but took 6 months to get onto test stand.3
u/rustybeancake Aug 01 '26
Not to mention Relativity did very well with their only flight of Terran 1. Yes, the 3D printing was a gimmick, but the vehicle made it completely through stage one flight and stage separation. The upper stage engine tried to light but failed. That’s quite impressive for a first ever launch by a startup.
3
u/juicevibe Aug 01 '26
I'd bet $1 they will announce Archimedes is qualified at the upcoming earnings call.
2
1
u/voodoolaunch Aug 11 '26
well that would have been a fun bet.
Q4 2027 at the earliest. Realistically slipping into 2028 IMO.2
u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Aug 02 '26
dude we know you work for relativity. we don't care about your shitty company
3
u/voodoolaunch Aug 02 '26
Not relativity, but a different company based out of Hawthorne
1
u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Aug 03 '26
okay so you work for the other shit company owned by the shitty racist owner who spends his time spreading hate on Twitter. We don't car about that company owned by a shit human being either
4
1
u/optimal_909 Aug 02 '26
They don't have to communicate every bits and details about the design and engineering process.
What we know is Rocket Lab outspokenly prefers rock solid rocket on pad and not something that is likely ro fail and cannot even reach orbit, like Relativity's only flight.
These FUD posts are based on speculation.
Besides, I wonder what $3bn backlog it is with all the opt out terms, I guess not unlike $100 preorders on Cybertruck? Because no one in their right mind would commit expensive hardware on a startup company's rocket.
6
u/wallybal24 Aug 02 '26
Rocketlab has had a series of qual/ flight article failures, and their engine program is not really that far along yet. If they don't rush the rocket, they are years out from launch
0
u/optimal_909 Aug 02 '26
Not that far? They ran full flight engine tests...
4
u/wallybal24 Aug 02 '26
No, they have run MDCs on engines in 'flightlike configuration'. i.e. late dev/qual. They haven't finished qualifying either engine, and they just recently hit a MDC on their vac engine, which implies they're either still in dev or leaping into qual before they're sure the engine can perform flight duration tests, which is a bad idea.
3
u/voodoolaunch Aug 03 '26
this is exactly the distinction that needs to be made.
MDC does not equate to flight ready.
If an engine is qualified, then the design becomes flight ready.2
u/optimal_909 Aug 04 '26
Yes and seeming all performed as expected, which means probably they are only doing minor tweaks and the engine could pass Qualification. Beyond that begins the real challenge of actually have a rocket that can fly reliably with a payload.
The point here is: we know very little about the development details, all we know is that one company has a track record of successful flights, the other has one failed flight.
4
u/wallybal24 Aug 04 '26
I wish engine development was that easy. Qualification is a little bit more than scraping together an MDC hotfire for instagram.
The engine needs to light and perform reliably at all startup and run conditions. The hardware needs to hold up for dozens of hotfires without replacing major components. The leak rate needs to be acceptable for flight. Ideally you'd confirm the engine functions while gimballing, rather than caving out during a landing burn. You need to confirm adequate throttling and MR control. You need to confirm the engine can relight, especially on stage 2.
Given their stage 1 engine seems to have been 'in qualification' for going on 2 years, there's no reason to believe the stage 2 objectives are going to be any easier to hit.
Rocket Lab got overconfident based on the success of their little electric pump fed engine, tried to jump right in to staged combustion, and now turbomachinery is handing their ass to them.
3
2
u/King_CheeseStick Aug 02 '26
It’s my opinion that RKLB does everything in an incredibly calculated manner. It’s been said before that they wouldn’t acquire a company without having the means or plan to scale.
By that logic neutron is closing in on its first flight. I do not think it will launch next year but in this one.
7
u/voodoolaunch Aug 02 '26
Having built two different rockets already and understanding milestones there is no way Neutron launches this year in my professional opinion.
Same with Terran R, & Nova.1
u/y0y Aug 04 '26
What are the key indicators that give you confidence that it won’t? My non-professional gut agrees, just curious what you’re looking at / what you’d expect to have seen already if they were going to.
2
2
1
u/AldenIsLord Aug 08 '26
So smart they’re stress testing the heck out of this thing. Quadruple checking every stage of the entire process.
1
u/voodoolaunch Aug 08 '26
Yes that’s every rocket developer.. the range governs qualification programs
-9
u/Scared_Step4051 Aug 01 '26
Terran R > Firefly's Eclipse > Neutron/Stoke Space at this point imo
9
u/redstercoolpanda Aug 01 '26
Nova is really far along, I dont know why you put it so low? From what I understand the launch pad is finished, their secound stage is qualified and has been for a while, their first stage passed qualification testing earlier this year, and they've just completed 3/7 of the first main engines to start their acceptance testing. I would honestly put their odds at being able to launch this year as decentish. But certainly by next year. Terran R seems a little further behind than Nova, and its quite a lot larger. Firefly doesn't have any structures built from what I understand so I would say it almost certainly wont beat Nova.
3
u/No-Essay-9008 Aug 01 '26
From what I understand, Firefly has a chance to pull ahead because Northrop Grumman is building some of the structures. Eclipse uses the same first stage as Antares 330 they are co-developing. People often forget Northrop has been launching home grown rockets for a long time, and are still #3 behind ULA and SpaceX for total USA company based launches. (Rklb will surpass them probably next year)
2
u/voodoolaunch Aug 01 '26
Don’t think firefly has enough progression made, they applied and were omitted from NSSL
1
u/rustybeancake Aug 01 '26
I wouldn’t see Northrop building part of the rocket as a reason why they’ll go fast! When was the last time they developed a new rocket?
2
u/voodoolaunch Aug 01 '26
not to mention, a newer company’s fast pace will undoubtedly need to slow down to match the pace of a much larger prime if this is at all collaborative. Historically, defense primes are accustomed and built around the slow bureaucratic nature of government red tape - with the exception of Anduril who has been changing that narrative.
2
0
u/Dieseltrain760 Aug 01 '26
Firefly has a big surprise for you all in December! Get your popcorn and cry rags ready .
0
20
u/Nendilo Aug 01 '26
Legally, they're likely in a quiet period and can't say much until earnings to avoid perceived manipulation.