Can someone comment on the economics of this? Rocket Lab is charging $5m for 150kg to SSO. SpaceX offers 150kg to SSO on the smallsat rideshare for $1m. What sorts of payloads would not be suitable for rideshare or would be worth 5x the cost for better scheduling or a better orbit?
Ridshare orbit depends on the primary orbit requirements, if the orbit is not favourable to your sat, correcting the orbit may not be feasible at all, given the small payload size you may not have the fuel for the correction burn
Also fitting your sat to a rideshare payload adapter could be lot more complex depending on the primary and other shares
Similarly while spaceX is cheap, there are plenty of workloads where ULA is the only option, vertical assembly , certain fairing sized , some orbits etc .
IIRC, this breaks a record that no other rocket has achieved. Prior to this mission, every single Rocket Lab flight with a paying customer has been a success. Many other rockets have had 11 successes in a row, but no other rocket has had their first 11 launches with payloads be a success.
(Rocket Lab's first mission was also a failure, but it did not have a payload. That failure was with ground equipment, so this current failure is their first rocket failure).
I don't know if there's an official definition, but I'd consider the Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy to be separate launch vehicles in the same family, akin to the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Whereas with the single-stick Delta IV Medium, the variations like 4m vs 5m fairings are just different configurations.
I don't think Blue Origin as a whole is fraudulent, just that they're not showing real telemetry data. By way of comparison, I think it's commendable that Rocket Lab's stream was accurate enough for viewers to see the failure occurring live.
It shows that they're not showing unfiltered telemetry data, but it absolutely does not prove it's not real at all. Interpolation, rounding, sampling frequency in combination would easily explain this.
Not to mention that the speed freezes quite frequently at other points in the video...
Re-watching the numbers during the Blue Origin launch, it would've been tedious to fake the jumpiness using a pre-rendered animation, so perhaps the number fudging is limited to a "pause at zero" hack. Still, the presence of a "marketing telemetry" algorithm makes it seem less trustworthy for determining whether a failure occurred.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders: conflating velocity with its derivative.
The (approximately) zero-G period lasts for minutes, not milliseconds, and during that time, the velocity changes by 9.8 m/s (22 MPH) every second. The velocity should not pause at 0, or any other value.
New Shepard is not traveling perfectly vertical, there's always a horizontal component so the velocity will never be zero. Even if you fly up in a perfectly vertical line, you'll gain horizontal velocity as you climb as the Earth's surface moves away from you from it's rotation.