Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

Void · 2021-03-02 19:48:43

https://www.space.com/rocket-lab-neutro … -interview
Quote:

A new rocket, Venus missions and more: Rocket Lab's Peter Beck is aiming big in space

It is good!

SpaceNut · 2021-03-03 19:54:16

SpaceNut wrote:

Here is the other topics of Rocket lab
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=9171
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8320
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8198
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8819
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8789

They are growing from small payloads to a venus mission wow

SpaceNut · 2021-03-06 19:58:41

Performance information of the little rocket....
Rocket Lab reveals reusable, medium-lift Neutron rocket

The reuseable market that could lift almost all of those satelites in the future should drive costs for delivery down.
EvZKuxAXUAAgdf2?format=jpg&name=medium

Neutron’s 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’s Antares rocket. This is the launch pad where Neutron will debut, taking advantage of the already existing pad infrastructure.

louis · 2021-03-06 20:47:59

I definitely think they have identified a niche market here. If they can get 8 tons to orbit that will be good enough for lots of tasks.

GW Johnson · 2021-03-07 10:44:42

Amazing how things change as the decades go by. 8 tons to orbit was infeasibly-large heavy lift in the 1960's. 200 pounds to geosynch was stretching the technology. Now we talk about tens of tons to orbit as if routine, and it seems hundreds of tons is "coming soon".

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2021-03-30 09:48:27

The progress made in lift capacity is simply a sign of what private enterprise can do when not dependent on government supervision and this allows creative minds to flourish.

When everyone is talking about "think big,' Elon is "thinking huge."

kbd512 · 2021-03-30 15:13:28

Oldfart1939,

I think of 1,000t to orbit as the starting point when I think of "huge", not reprising what some dinky little Saturn V was capable of lifting. That kind of lift capability would be sufficient to replace the ISS with a single flight. It's probably not practical for launching lunch pail-sized satellites, but colonizing another planet in any reasonable timeframe requires something approaching freight train cargo tonnages. Our "average" 100-car freight trains carry 12,500t of cargo, but the idea that such a thing could ever supply a city of a million people for a week is laughably absurd.

When I take stock of everything we're building, I can see that we're still not serious about colonization. We need a fleet of around 250 robotic 5,000t class supply frigates carrying perhaps 1,000t of cargo. We need a fleet of around 25 of the 25,000t class colonization ships carrying 5,000 colonists per trip. We also need orbital stations on both ends, capable of housing at least 50,000 people or so, with a space elevator on Mars to ferry colonists and light cargo to the surface. That's what a serious colonization effort would entail. That might cost us a few trillion dollars, but we throw around that kind of money with reckless abandon these days, so we may as well fund a mega project that provides an actual return on investment.

America had no issue accomplishing this during WWII using a working class population that was lucky to have a 6th grade education. Try to imagine the "Holy crap, they were serious about that!" factor if we committed to this plan. Most of the children on the planet would be motivated to get an education that would allow them to take part in an actual / no BS "adventure of a lifetime". If we did class field trips to the moon, no further motivation or explanation would be required, much the same way that nobody has to explain to a child, or most adults for that matter, why they might want to fly an airplane after they do it once. Who knows, maybe along the way one of them will be smart enough to figure out what should be done about our energy problems.

SpaceNut · 2021-08-07 20:19:23

NASA, Rocket Lab move first Artemis Moon launch – CAPSTONE – to New Zealand

or the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment, is a CubeSat launching to the Moon’s Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO). This special orbit is at a precise balance point in the gravities of Earth and the Moon that allows an unobstructed view of Earth in addition to coverage of the Moon’s poles.
Since this orbit will also be used by the Gateway lunar space station, Orion spacecraft, and Human Landing System (HLS) landers, CAPSTONE’s main objective is to reduce the risk for future Artemis missions by validating the navigation technologies and the dynamics of this unique orbit.
Once reaching orbit and entering its operational phase, CAPSTONE — as part of its six month primary mission — will validate the propulsion requirements for maintaining this type of orbit as predicted by models. It will also test the accuracy of a new type of spacecraft to spacecraft navigation system. The results of these tests will help support crewed missions to the lunar surface and the Gateway space station by reducing logistical uncertainties for such future expeditions.
The first uncrewed Moon landings under the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program will follow in 2022, alongside development of the SpaceX Starship Human Landing System, which will include an uncrewed landing demonstration. This will all precede the first crewed Artemis landing on the Artemis 3 mission, no earlier than 2024.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-08-07 22:19:42

kbd512-

I agree with you and based strictly on the numbers you present. I somehow don't envision a 1 million population city in MY foreseeable future. There would need for a multitude of steps be taken before that many people could be housed, supplied with water and breathing air--much less food and any level of luxury /necessity items.

I Am a pyramidal organizer and thus thinker. That's why I chose my first Mars 1 Mission as a 17 person crew. Gotta start somewhere and working down through the system rather than a massive effort all at once to build everything was essentially deselected by pragmatic realities. It's really a reverse engineered plan. Select what is essential from square one and accomplish those items first before getting too grandiose.

GW Johnson · 2021-08-08 10:44:38

That near-rectilinear halo orbit about the moon that Gateway is to use is only an elongated elliptical orbit with a perilune quite higher than "low lunar orbit", and an apolune very far away indeed, almost but not quite too far to be stable, given a 3-body interaction with the Earth.

It is possible to reach this orbit from Earth with lower delta-vee required than going into lunar orbit. But you pay for that: the delta vee from the halo orbit to the surface of the moon is just about lunar escape speed, not low lunar orbit speed. And even that is departing from the halo at its apolune, which is the most favorable of any position along the orbit, especially for plane changes.

Most of the rest of the stuff said about this orbit is hype intended to distract you from its disadvantages. SLS Block 1 can reach the halo with Orion and its undersized service module. That same combination cannot get into and out of low lunar orbit (to reprise Apollo-8), because it just doesn't have enough delta-vee to avoid this being a one-way trip.

It takes SLS Block 1-B with the bigger second stage to make a reprise of Apollo-8 possible. But it couldn't bring a lunar lander with it, not even the old Apollo LEM. So even Block-1B cannot reprise Apollo-11. That would require 2 launches. I rather doubt even SLS Block 2 could do it.

This situation is the direct result of setting the design requirements for SLS and for Orion to reach cislunar space for the Asteroid Recovery Mission, and not ever revising those requirements once it became more likely the system would be used to return to the moon. NOW you know why they insist Gateway will go in that halo orbit. That's the only way to do anything useful at the moon with SLS. It puts the onus on the lunar lander suppliers to have 41% more delta-vee in their systems.

It's impossible to argue with the orbital physics. So obfuscation of the true situation is the only way out from a very bad management decision made about a decade ago. And THAT is what you are seeing in all the press releases about Gateway, Artemis, and SLS.

Don't mean to be a balloon-buster, but there it is.

GW

SpaceNut · 2021-08-27 13:25:29

https://news.yahoo.com/m/ff3f8d44-d286- … acex-.html
Rocket Lab Is a Mini SpaceX. Its CEO Has a Different Strategy.

Calliban · 2021-08-30 07:20:03

Smaller rockets could potentially trade economy of size for economy of scale. Going for mass production and bringing down costs that way. It would also be much easier to recover a small booster, by deploying a parachute and dropping it in the ocean, rather that attempting a controlled landing, as Musk is forced to for his much larger boosters. If the booster is pressure fed, it will be simpler, cheaper and more robust. The mass penalty is lower for the lower stage. In many ways a small, simplied, mass produced and reusable booster, delivering 10 tonnes per launch to LEO, could be very valuable. Noise levels would be lower and a launch pad accident would have much lower consequences than would a Starship booster explosion. Suitable for deployment from a larger number of sites and for smaller individual payloads. But economic performance would depend upon achieving scale economies.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-08-31 11:34:16

Before Musk unveiled BFR/Starship, I had envisioned an intermediate sized "next step." Falcon 9 is 3.7 meters in diameter, and i was thinking of something of a pioneering Mars ship that would be 5-7 meters in diameter as a central core using 2 Falcon 9 as strap-on boosters. That would have been enough to send my crew of pioneers to Mars on more of a reasonable budget. It would have been enough for an exploratory mission with a smaller scale investment in infrastructure.

Maybe that's why he's the Billionaire? Gotta think big. Really BIG!

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-09-01 10:54:32)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-20 20:28:32

Rocket Lab returns to action with dual satellite launch and successful booster splashdown

Named “Love at First Insight,” the mission lofted two satellites for geospatial intelligence company BlackSky, as well as completed the third ocean splashdown of an Electron first stage as Rocket Lab continues to work towards reusability.
Love at First Insight is the second in a series of launches that Rocket Lab is conducting for BlackSky. Earlier in 2021, Rocket Lab and Spaceflight, Inc. signed an agreement for four launches of BlackSky satellites, with options for two further launches in the future. Each launch is planned to carry two satellites.
This mission placed the eighth and ninth BlackSky Global satellites into a 430-kilometer circular orbit, inclined 42 degrees to the equator. Rocket Lab has also launched several of BlackSky’s previous satellites, including two that were lost during an in-flight anomaly in May.

first stage recovery

Void · 2021-12-02 12:15:48

Well, I like this....

My feeling is that like Darwinism for rockets, this may cause many innovations.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLab/comm … nt_update/

I still think that Stainless Steel for Starship and perhaps Jarvis, is a fair bet, as big rockets are different than smaller ones.

Looks like Rocket Lab says they have a fast build method for composites.

Fairings stay with the 1st Stage. Never saw that comming.

Of course then that is a tank within a tank, but I can see the advantages.

Hope the other up and coming rocket builders, innovate as well.

Done.

tahanson43206 · 2021-12-02 12:49:37

For Void re #15

Thanks for the link to this encouraging video.

I sure hope they can pull this off!

SearchTerm:Neutron rocket video

(th)

Void · 2021-12-02 13:01:05

Well, I think they will do fine. I am guessing that we are going to end up with a suite of new methods being swapped around by many rocket makers.

The taper thing is interesting. I would expect Tarran-R to consider doing it as their 2nd stage will be 3d printed metal.

I would expect that eventually Starship will be entirely 3D printed, as that can reduce weight.

Another thing to think about with Neutron, Terran-R and Dream Chaser, is that Starship with Super Heavy may have to go to "At Sea" launch pads, and I think that the smaller devices likely will not have to, or not as much.

Very exciting times.

Done.

Void · 2021-12-08 13:43:51

Oh, I picked up on this today:

https://phys.org/news/2021-12-rocket-la … n-due.html
Quote:

Rocket Lab shows off its new reusable neutron rocket, due for launch in 2024

At the time, Beck presented a design for a 40 meter (130 feet) two-stage reusable rocket that could carry 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and 1,500 kg (3,300 lbs) to Mars or Venus. In the live-streamed event that took place last week, Beck provided updated details on the rocket, which included a new shape, a new engine, a new shell, and some rather unorthodox design features. These include:
1) The new Archimedes rocket engine designed for reliability and reuse
2) Unique captive 'Hungry Hippo' fairing design to enable streamlined first stage and fairing reuse
3) Carbon composite structure, making Neutron the world's first carbon composite large launch vehicle
4) Designed for 'return to launch site' propulsive landing
In addition, Rocket Lab now indicates that while a payload of 8,000 kg to LEO will be standard for the Neutron, the updated design will accommodate a maximum payload of almost twice that to LEO—15,000 kg (33,070 lbs). As Beck summarized it, the Neutron rocket is what rockets should look like in 2050, with full-reusability and tailor-made for the burgeoning satellite "megaconstellation" market:

Exciting stuff. I hope to address the materials in that article, and also compare the Neutron and Starship.

I do not care to make this a "Binary Argument". That is, do not want to over qualify one or disqualify one. That irritates me, unless there is a necessity. Such a pseudo Darwin mode of evaluation is not very productive.

1) A new engine that is likely of a smaller size than Raptor, but is Methalox should be welcomed.

2) The "Hungry Hippo" fairings, is not quite unique actually, as we do have the notion that the Starship in some cases would have a "Front Trunk", flip up fairing.
Still Neutrons is unique as being not the same and not being used quite the same.

Where Neutron appears to be Sub-Orbital, with a "Pouch" protected 2nd stage which can be orbital, I see that eventually it may be possible for Starship to do similar. I guess this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll method can also be called "Nested Staging".

So, for Starship, it seems certain that it would be possible to put a superheavy under it and also "Nest" a stage inside of it. Unless prohibited by patent, then such a Nested stage could be built and mounted in a method similar to the Neutron. It remains to be seen how much space companies will co-operated to get profits from space activities. Sometimes yes, sometimes not so much.

Perhaps we could see Rocket Lab actually build such a stage out of composites, to "Nest" inside of a Starship. How the business deal would be conducted would be interesting.

Rocket Lab owns the stage even though collaborating with SpaceX?
Rocket Lab rents it out to SpaceX?
Rocket Lab sells it to SpaceX?
Other???

Now, would there be any possibility that Starship itself could be a 1st Stage for a Rocket Lab 2nd stage?

For Earth Starship is analyzed as being a poor chances SSTO, with no purpose to it, at least so far. With a launch tower catch system, it is not likely to have legs. That helps for SSTO. But, if it is only going to boost a Rocket Lab nested stage, then it does not have to be SSTO. It can be Sub-Orbital.

So, what about the Starship Heat Shield in this case of Sub-Orbital Boosting?
Can it be reduced/modified, made more simple, or less costly in terms of money or dry mass?

A very reduced heat shield for a Starship of this sort would be "Bare Stainless Steel" all the way around. However, I don't have any certainty that that can be obtained. You would have to be quite Sub-Orbital for that. I don't know if that would allow you to launch the Nested 2nd stage, due to possible atmospheric density. But, it seems likely that a reduction in heat shield dry mass may be available in this Sub-Orbital use.

An advantage of using a Starship as a 1st stage on Earth or Mars, is that you could get a very light Nested 2nd stage to orbit, without having to use a major launch site that is built for the full stack of Super Heavy and Starship. It may be more possible to get more launch sites that could support this mode.

So, I presume that it is not desired to put entry and landing dry mass onto the Rocket Lab, 2nd stage. You have methods to put it in orbit, and could re-use it in orbit with refueling. But to get it back down to the surface of Earth or Mars, you would need a full orbital Starship. But that option would likely exist. So, it looks rather good to me.

3) I have already mentioned the Rocket Lab composite structures method, which will make the 2nd stage propulsion system light weight. Certainly a possible advantage.

Quote:

4) Designed for 'return to launch site' propulsive landing

I am sure that there can be advantages to that. SpaceX apparently provides for it in it's Super Heavy, but......

Could you eventually have a global "Hop-Hop" launch and landing system. That is Starship used as a 1st stage, then landing from North America to Europe or Africa, and then from there to other locations? Could that save on propulsive mass?

Old space seems to be able to do collaborations with each other to some degree, how about new space? Also, NASA collaborates with SpaceX. It may be that NASA might be able to "Encourage=$$$" this collaboration.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-12-08 14:39:38)

Void · 2021-12-08 19:46:42

Well, it's sort of lonely here today. Hope members are doing OK.

I have been having more notions to think to add as continuation of the previous post.

I am thinking that more Moon landers are desired, likely having different properties/abilities/liabilities. It could be that if SpaceX might be willing to lift a Rocket Lab device to Sub-Orbit or Orbit, they might choose to make something that could be converted into a Moon lander.

I presume it would of course have to have the capacity to land and launch from the Moon.

I would expect that a "Legs Frame" could be built for that option. That is it would not normally be included in that space device from Rocket Lab but could be hooked on to it.

I am thinking that that "Legs Frame" should be built out of materials not easily available on the Moon. Crushable and Poppers materials.

I originally was thinking Aluminum but am now considering plastics. Plastics can be used in 3D printers as Plastics, but also could be rendered into Methane Fuel, and other products. I am also thinking bubble wrap to have multiple pops, stretching the popping event over time <a second? Carbon also. I used to have a Bow Flex exercise device and it had "Carbon Rods".

The intent would be to use the landing frame once, and then leave it behind for recycling.

Although the device could perhaps much like the one for use in the Neutron, I am guessing that at some point Rocket Lab could super-size it for Starship's hungry hippo hold.

Although it would not be mandated, this could be used: Lunar Free Return.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Lu … ORM%3DVDRE

So, what I am thinking is that Starship could do that, and as it passed behind the Moon, the Rocket Lab Moon Orbiter/Lander, could be ejected after being charged with propellants from the Starship. Just after that another Moon lander could power itself to join the Starship and take the somewhat "Free Return" ride.

Then upon hitting the Earth's atmosphere, it might seek to orbit the Earth by those means available or might land on Earth with the Lunar Lander from Rocket Lab, minus the "Legs Frame".

Perhaps Starship could do 9 expeditions around the Moon, and maybe on the 10th, it would land, to have greater servicing.

This method would of course raise the risk of mission failure, but would conserve propellants, I think.

Perhaps it would not be used for transporting people.

Anyway, this would put Rocket Lab into the Moon game much sooner than we might expect. And the lander might be very good for stopping down on the Moon in various locations to gather samples, and information.

I anticipate that other landers would show up by then that might be more suitable to human passengers to the Moon<>Earth.
Terran-R, maybe, perhaps Jarvis? Something else?

Well Lunar Starship, will definitely be great for landing it with a full payload, and then converting it to habitat.

I guess this is what I am seeing at this point.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-12-08 20:12:06)

Void · 2021-12-09 12:17:29

A feature of Neutron which I find very interesting, is no launch tower.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/roc … 47277.html
Quote:

The tapered shape of the rocket itself is built for reusability with a wider, more stable base. Neutron won't need a launch tower or girder to take off, Rocket Lab said. The company previously said the machine could carry up to eight metric tons to low Earth orbit versus the Electron's modest 0.3 tons (660lbs).

You would be wrong if you thought I did not want SpaceX to create the Starship successfully.

However not having a launch tower that could be part of a RUD, on Launch or Landing, could be of significance to the over-time-cost of the relative methods.

Last edited by Void (2021-12-09 12:22:13)

Void · 2021-12-09 12:42:37

I have been thinking it through. At this time there seem to be 3 basic schemes.
-Neutron Method.
-Starship Method.
-Vulcan Method.

Maybe I have missed something, but those three seem like a lot of it.

The SpaceX method seems to intend to put a "Armored" vehicle in LEO. I think that Terran-R may be rather similar.
Both the Neutron and Vulcan intend to put a "Naked" vehicle in LEO. Don't get excited, I am just saying that neither LEO+ stage seems to have the Armor and other assets to land on Earth, or Mars, but maybe they could land on the Moon in some future versions.

Neither has a direct way that I am aware of to bring assets down from orbit to the Earth's surface. However, Vulcan can be partnered with Dream Chaser, and maybe there will be something else. Neutron will possibly work with another entity that will have capsule re-entry.

Neutron is supposed to be built to be possibly human rated, so at some point the orbital ship may carry humans. Don't know if it will bring them up and down from orbit. Other space companies may do that for them.

To some degree, it may be not needed to bring the orbital stages back down. Maybe they work for a while and fail or are simply replaced periodically in orbit.

So, I have wondered about a Sized-Up Neutron would be like.

Neutron is said to be able to do 8 Metric Tons.
Terran-R is said to be ablet to do 20 Metric Tons, which in my view makes it possibly a sort of Mini-Starship.
Starship with Superheavy is supposed to do 100+ Metric Tons.

Those are all supposed to be to LEO, and in re-use modes, although, at this time the Neutron 2nd stage would appear to be for orbit re-use only.

So, basically the modes of hardware recovery will be Skydiver, as per Starship, and perhaps Terran-R, (Don't know for sure).
Tail re-entry as per 1st stage Falcon 9 and also the proposed Neutron 1st stage.

To size up a Neutron method, I expect that some kinds of additional heat shielding are needed for the tail. That could be active cooling, or plume cooling or all of the above.

I guess that is where my thinking is at this time.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-12-09 12:56:29)

Void · 2021-12-19 22:15:39

I liked this as information.
https://everydayastronaut.com/neutron-u … eter-beck/

Notions of thinking revealed.

The above may be OK, but I was watching a video.

Done

Last edited by Void (2021-12-19 22:19:18)

Void · 2021-12-20 12:15:28

OK, I think this is it:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ta … &FORM=VIRE

I am turning into a bit of a rocket nerd, space dwarf.

I think I have said before, I like to watch the various philosophies that these creators have to come up with what they produce.

I realize that some consider it to be blasphemy against existing rocket providers, and I find it funny that orthodox rigidity shows up so soon, in the notions of permissions of thought and practices.

I understand where SpaceX is no this stuff, and I don't think they are wrong.

I am curious as to how various notions of proper method may flow between hardware developers/providers.

-For instance I am wondering if eventually SpaceX will develop a Starship which can shed it's raptors in orbit, and "Plug-In" smaller engines, of a size more suitable for the Moon or asteroid mining. This would be sort of an orbital Vulcan+ maneuver.

-I am also wondering if SpaceX could eventually make a light weight composite ship specifically for the Moon, that it would carry up with the Starship. Without the constraints of atmosphere, such a vehicle could take on cargo to deliver, attached to it's outside, rather than in a cargo hold. This could compliment the delivery of one way Lunar Starships, as heavy movers, and habitats for the Moon, or maybe Phobos/Deimos/asteroids.

Done.

-

Last edited by Void (2021-12-20 12:24:51)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-02-24 08:34:15

Rocket Lab officially opens third launch pad, Next launch within a week

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Rock … k_999.html

Pad B is based within Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1, the world's first private orbital launch site, located in Mahia, New Zealand. The new pad is Rocket Lab's third for the Company's Electron launch vehicle and joins the existing Pad A at Launch Complex 1 and a third launch pad at Rocket Lab Launch Complex 2 in Virginia, USA. With two operational pads within the same launch complex, Rocket Lab doubles the launch capacity of its Electron launch vehicle.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-03-18 07:31:41)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-03-18 07:30:58

Rocket Lab's new space solar panels have a 33.3 percent conversion efficiency

https://interestingengineering.com/spac … -panels-33

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2021-03-02 19:48:43

Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#2 2021-03-03 19:54:16

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#3 2021-03-06 19:58:41

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#4 2021-03-06 20:47:59

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#5 2021-03-07 10:44:42

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#6 2021-03-30 09:48:27

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#7 2021-03-30 15:13:28

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#8 2021-08-07 20:19:23

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#9 2021-08-07 22:19:42

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#10 2021-08-08 10:44:38

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#11 2021-08-27 13:25:29

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#12 2021-08-30 07:20:03

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#13 2021-08-31 11:34:16

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#14 2021-11-20 20:28:32

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#15 2021-12-02 12:15:48

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#16 2021-12-02 12:49:37

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#17 2021-12-02 13:01:05

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#18 2021-12-08 13:43:51

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#19 2021-12-08 19:46:42

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#20 2021-12-09 12:17:29

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#21 2021-12-09 12:42:37

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#22 2021-12-19 22:15:39

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#23 2021-12-20 12:15:28

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#24 2022-02-24 08:34:15

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

#25 2022-03-18 07:30:58

Re: Rocket Labs Neutron Rocket :)

Board footer