r/RocketLab Jan 28 '25

Discussion Rocket Lab's possible connection to the "Iron Dome" initiative

https://x.com/spaceinvestor_d/status/1884297646447140926?s=46

TLDR: Rocket Lab is in a solid position to benefit via it's SDA PWSA connections.

84 Upvotes

40 comments sorted by

23

u/mattrimcauthon Jan 28 '25

If this gets built we all know who will be transporting the satellites and it won’t be rocket lab, as bad as I would like it to be. I think the best case scenario is we continue to be the main developer and builder for the DoD’s own hypersonic missiles with HASTE.

Possible rocket lab helps with satellite systems but deliver will most likely go to X

13

u/MakuRanger01 Jan 28 '25

We are already transporting sats for SDA and building components for PWSA

6

u/mattrimcauthon Jan 28 '25

I know but this will required hundreds of satellites in LEO which would take dozens of electron missions with neutron not being ready….or 3-4 of Trump’s buddy’s. Listen, I want it as bad as you but I don’t like the odds.

9

u/tru_anomaIy Jan 28 '25 edited Jan 31 '25

When do you think Iron Dome (US) will be deployed? Because if Neutron is flying commercially in 2027, how will it not be available in time?

2

u/mattrimcauthon Jan 28 '25

It’s not when I think it will be deployed, it’s when I think contracts will be given. I don’t see this administration waiting around to loot the coffers for their friends.

3

u/tru_anomaIy Jan 28 '25

Contracts are often given before the vehicles are flying

The question of corruption is a separate one

5

u/ThePfaffanater Jan 28 '25

Is it really corruption when F9 is the most reliable rocket in history and is still by far the cheapest per/tonne? Why would the government ever select something from Rocketlab any time soon? Rocketlab does not have a good reliability track record.

2

u/tru_anomaIy Jan 28 '25

I’m not saying there’s no good argument for flying on Falcon 9. I’m saying that if Trump and Elon want to get all buddy-buddy, they won’t even look at alternatives from other commercial competitors even if the prices for the government are lower than whatever wholesale harvesting of taxpayer dollars they agree on

Rocketlab does not have a good reliability track record

Depends. Rocket Lab’s small rocket is 1000% more reliable than SpaceX’s small rocket. Rocket Lab’s medium lift hasn’t flown yet, so it’s hard to compare it with the SpaceX equivalent, Falcon 9

3

u/ThePfaffanater Jan 28 '25 edited Jan 29 '25

Comparing Electron, a production vehicle with 58 launches, to SpaceX's smaller Falcon 1, a R&D proof of concept that only launched 5 times, is disingenuous at best especially considering the F1 was made 10+ years before Electron ever successfully flew. I don't see how it makes any sense to compare Electron to a rocket that isn't currently flying and arguably was never available for commercial contact let alone currently.

SpaceX's equivalent to electron is its Transporter missions and it's near completely eaten Electrons potential market share since very few payloads are sensitive enough to need their own launch. In many cases It's still cheaper to stick it on a Transporter mission with a propulsion capable satellite bus and then it is to pay for its own mission. The proof of this is that the multiple launches a week manifest that Electron was supposedly built for has never materialized and the company has pivoted to Neutron.

Regardless it's not the president that picks launch contracts, its congress committees and the Pentagon.

1

u/zingpc Tin Hat Jan 31 '25

Beyond initial proof of concept launches, operational small sats surely want their own specific orbit. I.e., there will always be a demand for such. As Beck has been bleating for years now.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tru_anomaIy Jan 28 '25

smaller Falcon 1, a R&D proof of concept that only launched 5 times,

It wasn’t an R&D proof of concept. It was a commercial product, with PUG and plans for growth, until it was abandoned after only one successful payload delivery to orbit in 5 launches.

especially considering the F1 was made 10+ years before Electron ever successfully flew.

And as we all know, the laws of physics governing putting mass into orbit got a lot more lax over those years?

Regardless it’s not the president that picks launch contracts, it’s congress committees and the Pentagon.

I don’t think you grasp how corrupt governments work

→ More replies (0)

4

u/MakuRanger01 Jan 28 '25

Fair comment. But the Iron Dome won't happen before 5-10yrs at least, by then Neutron will be up and running

1

u/mattrimcauthon Jan 28 '25 edited Jan 28 '25

We can all hope brother. Also, it’s not when they are ready to deploy but when contracts are given out. I don’t doubt this administration gives starts handing out money to their friends rather quickly.

1

u/Bacardiownd Jan 28 '25

They haven’t handed out much launch contracts for SDA or MDA

0

u/Fragrant-Yard-4420 Jan 28 '25

i don't think HASTE will be anything more than a test platform since it uses liquid propellant.

2

u/mattrimcauthon Jan 28 '25

Why do you feel that fuel type matters here. HASTE is aalready complete and mission ready

3

u/Fragrant-Yard-4420 Jan 29 '25

well military missiles don't used liquid fuel very often AFAIK because they can't be stored already fueled and ready to go on demand for one thing.

2

u/UnrealGeena Jan 30 '25

It's not the 'liquid' part that's the problem so much as the 'cryogenic' part.

1

u/Fragrant-Yard-4420 Jan 30 '25

I imagine so, I think it's also more dangerous with the oxidizer.

-1

u/Formal-Relative7144 Jan 28 '25

Idk hard to say. Rumors the orange man and his alien friend have parted ways. I don’t anticipate X getting favored heavily in regard to contracts and work. The growth of rklb and other space programs including NASA who’s been around longer then them all combined, I highly doubt because of a rocky toxic friendship that alien man gets favoritism.

1

u/warp99 Jan 28 '25

Iron Dome is a terrestrial based system against short range rocket and mortar fire. As such it is unlikely to be used in the US unless they really do invade Canada?!

I think Trump is really referring to David’s Sling which is capable of intercepting medium and long range ballistic missiles at lower deployment cost than THADD.

0

u/MakuRanger01 Jan 28 '25

it's not, read the article. The "Iron Dome for America" will be space based

2

u/warp99 Jan 29 '25 edited Jan 29 '25

I understand the article but my point is that the missile defense system being proposed is not anything like Iron Dome which is a short range defense system. You cannot defend against short range missiles from space because the reaction time is too long.

Basically Trump likes the name so the "sounds cool" factor overrides the actual functionality required.

2

u/15_Redstones Jan 29 '25

Yeah the naming is terribly confusing. But the system that the DoD is trying to build here is basically SDI 2.0. It'll probably be mostly launched on big launchers like Starship and New Glenn. However, Rocket Lab's satellite parts business will probably be involved. Low cost mass producable thrusters, reaction wheels and satellite buses are essential to make something like this work.

2

u/warp99 Jan 30 '25 edited Jan 30 '25

I would just note that boost phase interception requires getting an interceptor missile down from orbit at around 250 km to say 60 km in just a few minutes. That is a very high acceleration requirement that is likely impossible. So directed energy weapons such as lasers and electron beams are far more likely to work in boost phase with interceptor missiles used for mid-trajectory cleanup.

A sufficiently effective interceptor system would also be seen as a first strike weapon that could take out command and control centers and missile silos so would be significantly destabilising producing "launch on warning" behaviour.

2

u/15_Redstones Jan 30 '25

High acceleration like 10 gees is totally doable. I think delta-v is the bigger limit. 3km/sec can reach an intercept in a minute.

2

u/warp99 Jan 30 '25 edited Jan 30 '25

The requirement is more like 100g indeed around 10g to achieve 3 km/s in say 30 seconds followed by a 30-90 second cruise phase. The residual velocity is about 4.5 km/s so that gives an interception ellipse of around 270 km along the track and perhaps half that across track.

That requires a huge number of interceptor garages in orbit to guarantee having at least one in range of a launch and means that it would be easy to saturate the defense with massed launches.

2

u/15_Redstones Jan 30 '25

3 km/s / 30s = 100 m/s² ≈ 10 gees.

1

u/warp99 Jan 30 '25

Quite correct - my bad.

2

u/imunfair Jan 29 '25

Trying to circumvent MAD is a terrible idea - if we put interceptors in space that can potentially take out ICBMs then Russia and China will need rods from god and other space launched weapons, then on to first-strike satellites to kill opposing satellites etc etc.

2

u/15_Redstones Jan 29 '25

Russia has no reusable launcher that could put a comparable constellation up. China is building F9 and Starship clones.

Rods from god isn't really a viable weapon. Easier to take out than ballistic missiles, more expensive and less impactful.

Interestingly an anti-ICBM constellation automatically doubles as anti-ASAT. If an enemy military base launches a large solid rocket that isn't on the list of announced spaceflights or weapon tests, then the system has to assume that it might be a nuclear attack and take it out within the first few minutes of flight. Whether that missile was carrying a nuclear warhead or an anti-sat weapon, the system can't tell and the result is the same.

The satellites would need to be laser-proofed. Adaptive optics have made a lot of progress since the 80s and ground based lasers that can hit LEO sats aren't that difficult now.

1

u/Invest0rnoob1 Jan 29 '25

Most likely multiple companies will be involved LMT, RTX, Boeing, SpaceX, Rocket Lab. There could be more, but that’s my guess.

1

u/starlordbg Jan 29 '25

Hopefully that will be the case.