Author Topic: ARCA Space Corporation  (Read 33308 times)

Online Davidthefat

ARCA Space Corporation
« on: 10/19/2015 11:48 PM »
ARCA Space Corporation has recently moved its headquarters to Las Cruces, New Mexico and has announced a partnership with Spaceport America, where it will launch and test its vehicles.

Has anyone heard of this company in the past? I've done some looking around and they seem to have chosen some interesting design choices regarding their launch vehicles. The biggest one being that the LES for the Haas 2B being incorporated into the second stage instead of the spacecraft.

http://www.arcaspace.com/index.htm

http://spaceportamerica.com/press-release/spaceport-america-and-arca-space-corporation-announce-partnership-for-space-launch-vehicle-and-high-altitude-autonomous-aircraft-testing/
« Last Edit: 10/20/2015 05:07 AM by Davidthefat »

Offline WmThomas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • An objective space fan
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 804
Re: ARCA Aerospace Corporation
« Reply #1 on: 10/20/2015 12:21 AM »
As they note on their new website, they are the Romanian group that tried to compete in the Ansari X prize and have continued to work on aerospace projects.

I don't think there is much chance they will become a reliable commercial enterprise providing some regular service. They've been more a one-shot focus organization.

But what brought about the move to the US? Or is it just a move in legal domicile, kind of like Rocketlab?

Online Davidthefat

Re: ARCA Aerospace Corporation
« Reply #2 on: 10/20/2015 12:42 AM »
But what brought about the move to the US? Or is it just a move in legal domicile, kind of like Rocketlab?

Quote
“Only in New Mexico did we find the perfect combination of aerospace assets, airspace and affordability,” emphasized Dumitru Popescu, Founder and CEO of ARCA Space Corporation. “Proximity to Spaceport America and the expansive access to airspace were crucial factors in our decision to locate our global headquarters to Las Cruces, New Mexico in the United States.”

I presume the recent tax cuts (5.9%) in New Mexico (http://archive.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_22951305/gov-susana-martinez-signs-bill-lowering-nm-corporate) and the combination of Spaceport America critically in need of clients. And there are deduction available for space companies (http://gonm.biz/why-new-mexico/competitive-business-climate/incentives/space-gross-receipts-tax-deductions)
« Last Edit: 10/20/2015 12:46 AM by Davidthefat »

Offline BrianNH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #3 on: 10/20/2015 12:03 PM »
Quote
The Accelerator is available for pre-order and will enter into production in May 2015.

Quote
The Interface is available for pre-order and will enter into production in May 2015

These are both still on pre-order.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #4 on: 10/21/2015 04:33 AM »
Thanks David for information. Another interesting company to watch. If they start flying and selling their drones in 2016 (as per website), then cashflow maybe there to build their LVs.

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #5 on: 03/29/2017 04:09 AM »
Well, this could be interesting. It looks like ARCA might be returning to rockets. From Facebook:
Quote
Starting tomorrow, ARCA Space Corporation is going to unveil more information about this space vehicle.
They included a picture (attached) of what appears to be a mockup vehicle with a linear aerospike. It looks similar in size to their SSTO concept from a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_(rocket)#Haas_2c
I tried it at home

Online Davidthefat

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #6 on: 03/29/2017 04:34 PM »
Well, this could be interesting. It looks like ARCA might be returning to rockets. From Facebook:
Quote
Starting tomorrow, ARCA Space Corporation is going to unveil more information about this space vehicle.
They included a picture (attached) of what appears to be a mockup vehicle with a linear aerospike. It looks similar in size to their SSTO concept from a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_(rocket)#Haas_2c

This company seems to pivot way too many times, from rockets to drones, hoverboards, some kind of motorized skates, back to rockets again...


Updated their website...
I don't think their math checks out.
http://www.arcaspace.com/en/haas2c.htm
« Last Edit: 03/29/2017 09:33 PM by Davidthefat »

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #7 on: 03/30/2017 03:57 AM »
Updated their website...
I don't think their math checks out.
http://www.arcaspace.com/en/haas2c.htm

Yeah, hitting that mass ratio of 29 is going to be fun. They have a video up too:
 

 
To summarize: it is an all composite pressure fed peroxide/kerosene SSTO small sat launcher powered by a differentially throttled linear aerospike, with a first flight from Wallops in 2018. Given their past performance, I will remain skeptical.
I tried it at home

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12052
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2634
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #8 on: 03/30/2017 08:49 AM »
Cool! They are using liquid Helium, heated in the engine to make gaseous Helium to pressurise the tanks. This is what SpaceX should be doing. For SSTO though, my research indicates using LOX/RP-1 gives better performance than HTP/RP-1.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2017 08:52 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #9 on: 03/30/2017 01:48 PM »
I would love to see a linear aero spike fly, but that and all carbon construction with no attempt at reuse seems like it would end up being much more expensive than a million dollars a launch.

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #10 on: 03/30/2017 03:25 PM »
Yeah, seeing an aerospike fly would be cool. The fact that they have the thing going in to dock with the ISS at the end of the video makes me even more skeptical that I would be otherwise, though.

Offline rompecabezas

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #11 on: 03/31/2017 06:24 PM »
I just want em to develop the linear aerospike, i think it could be a good start for a SSTO spaceplane.

Compared to a common engine, it has better performance in terms of thrust to weight ratio?

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #12 on: 03/31/2017 06:40 PM »
How many companies doing paper rockets now?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #13 on: 03/31/2017 09:21 PM »
It's not as high risk as it looks. This aerospike design has been proven on ground by NASA. Most of smallsat launchers are going with carbon fibre tanks. Small 3d printed pressure fed engines are far from leading edge technology, even university students build them.

If flys but doesn't quite deliver performance expected, they will still have a high performance booster to add a 2nd stage to.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 09:25 PM by TrevorMonty »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #14 on: 03/31/2017 09:52 PM »
I've been watching ARCA since the X-Prize days.  Even by the standards of start-up space companies, ARCA has been particularly bad about wild claims that never led anywhere.

For a while, ARCA was showing designs for their "Stabilo" launcher that they claimed was stabilized by having the rocket nozzles up front, showing they didn't even understand the elementary principle of the rocket pendulum fallacy.  The same fallacy tripped up Goddard in his early days, but in the modern world there's no excuse for someone who claims to know something about rockets not to know that.

They're in a league with Excalibur Almaz and only slightly better than JP Aerospace in terms of lack of credibility.  I'd believe more in a high-school drop-out deciding to start a launch company, because at least that person wouldn't have a history of extravagant claims with nothing to back them up.

Online Davidthefat

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #15 on: 03/31/2017 09:56 PM »
It's not as high risk as it looks. This aerospike design has been proven on ground by NASA. Most of smallsat launchers are going with carbon fibre tanks. Small 3d printed pressure fed engines are far from leading edge technology, even university students build them.

If flys but doesn't quite deliver performance expected, they will still have a high performance booster to add a 2nd stage to.

Brought to you by a company whose latest products were an over glorified multicopter "hover board" with a 5 minute flight time and a motorized skateboard/rover thing (not to mention, they took out all references to it on their site)?

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/24/12023744/arca-space-electric-skateboard-arcaboard-hoverboard-mini

Not much confidence in their success.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #16 on: 03/31/2017 11:12 PM »
I'm not giving company any credibility, I'd be surprise if they fly anything.

Their LV design is with in current technology levels.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Liked: 355
  • Likes Given: 326
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #17 on: 03/31/2017 11:36 PM »
They're in a league with Excalibur Almaz and only slightly better than JP Aerospace in terms of lack of credibility.  I'd believe more in a high-school drop-out deciding to start a launch company, because at least that person wouldn't have a history of extravagant claims with nothing to back them up.


JP Aerospace are, however, both wonderfully Heinlienen and wonderfully off-the-wall - I really enjoy their penny-pinching airship-to-orbit ideas, which are sorta-maybe-possibly possible, even if fuelled by Unobtanium and hand-waving.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2550
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 3055
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #18 on: 04/01/2017 12:41 AM »
Uh...A 53 foot tall 36,000 pound rocket that weighs 1200 pounds empty?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #19 on: 04/01/2017 12:51 AM »
These are the same people who claimed in 2012 that they would win the Google Lunar X Prize by launching a space plane that looks a lot like an F-22 from the water and have that carry an upper stage slung underneath that would go to the Moon.  The word "unbelievable" doesn't even begin to cover it.  You have to watch the video to see how stunningly disconnected from reality this group's claims are.



Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #20 on: 04/01/2017 01:48 AM »
That is hilarious. Rutan wants his windows back.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 232
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #21 on: 04/01/2017 05:43 PM »
Remember that it's critical to have a stealth aircraft take off from water to launch a rocket (water proof!) to orbit, Thunderbirds are go

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #22 on: 04/01/2017 10:06 PM »
Remember that it's critical to have a stealth aircraft take off from water to launch a rocket (water proof!) to orbit, Thunderbirds are go
I will just drop this here:-

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/19/norwegian-company-working-ocean-launched-rocket/

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #23 on: 04/01/2017 10:31 PM »
Launching from water isn't in itself a problem for a well designed rocket, see Seabee and Seahorse. It's the combination of a stealth seaplane with under-slung rocket that's rather... out there.

Offline ANTIcarrot

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 21
ARCA Haas 2CA (expendable SSTO)
« Reply #24 on: 04/02/2017 02:28 PM »
Reported by Newatlas suspiciously close to April first, but...

ARCA space corporation has a blueprint for an expendable SSTO with a lift off mass of 16.3 tons capable of putting ~50kg into orbit. (For an given definition of orbit presumably.) The design weight would be 510kg empty, and would run on HTP/RP-1 using a linear aerospike. Another version of the rocket would fly with 2 stages and a heavier payload.

Size, weight, cargo, and fuel look oddly similar to the UK Black Arrow, save that was a three stage launcher, and had an empty weight closer to 1.7 tons. Given the Black Arrow was built on a shoe string, in the late 60s, and was possibly over-engineered, there might be some mass savings to be made there, but 1.2 tons?

Carbon fibre woudl produce some weight reduction, as well as building it so it properly crumples on impact rather than just getting slightly dented. Balloon tanks supposedly produce some weight saving, but can't find any actual numbers.

Latter might be worth talking about even if the rest is pie in the sky. Has anyone got any hard numbers for exactly how much savings balloon tanks provide? And has anyone actually tried building a carbon fibre balloon tank? Cryo or otherwise.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2017 02:29 PM by ANTIcarrot »

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #25 on: 04/02/2017 11:32 PM »
Is there even an advantage to a linear aerospike over a toroidal aerospike for a simple cylinder body?

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #26 on: 04/03/2017 04:06 AM »
This showed up on Youtube after I watched the video linked above.



This all worked out well didn't it?

Matthew

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Liked: 466
  • Likes Given: 8285
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #27 on: 04/03/2017 04:44 AM »
Is there even an advantage to a linear aerospike over a toroidal aerospike for a simple cylinder body?

Roll control.  :)

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5045
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #28 on: 04/03/2017 04:51 AM »
Is there even an advantage to a linear aerospike over a toroidal aerospike for a simple cylinder body?

Roll control.  :)

No, the CGI looks better.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #29 on: 04/03/2017 02:46 PM »
Cool! They are using liquid Helium, heated in the engine to make gaseous Helium to pressurise the tanks. This is what SpaceX should be doing. For SSTO though, my research indicates using LOX/RP-1 gives better performance than HTP/RP-1.
SpaceX did use liquid helium heated in an engine heat exchanger to pressurize the tanks for the pressure-fed Kestrel engine. And SpaceX still uses a heat exchanger to increase the helium pressurant efficiency in the Falcon 9 first and second stages, though the heat exchanger is in the Merlin's gas generator rather than in the chamber.

Pressure-fed designs don't typically make sense for large stages, but with a composite tank/body and an aerospike engine, it's not a bad idea. The aerospike engine's high expansion efficiency means a lower chamber pressure (required for pressure-fed designs) is less punishing, and a pressure-fed design saves the mass of a turbopump, which makes up for the aerospike's lower TWR.

True, HTP/RP-1 has lower specific impulse than kerolox, but it's one of the only non-exotic combinations that has higher thrust than kerolox, which is important for the heavy aerospike engine. HTP is also cheaper than LOX, and while it has its own handling challenges, it's less challenging from a materials standpoint than LOX.

So...yeah. If you're going to do an expendable SSTO on the cheap, this isn't a half-bad way to go about it. I could try to throw together some speculative maths on this to get an idea of what sort of mass fraction it would need to hit, based on known engineering.

Whether this company has the capability for anything like this...well, that's another matter entirely.

I could see an SSTO of this type being used in combination with a SEP LEO bus to grapple comsats and toss them into a useful orbit.

Is there even an advantage to a linear aerospike over a toroidal aerospike for a simple cylinder body?

Roll control.  :)
A single-chamber toroidal aerospike has no control authority at all; a multichamber toroidal aerospike has pitch and yaw authority but no roll authority. A multichamber linear aerospike has pitch, yaw, and roll authority with no moving parts, simply by differential throttling. And for a pressure-fed design, that works rather well.

EDIT: For all their whining about the horrors of staging, this particular design could benefit greatly from the optional addition of some strap-on COTS parallel SRBs. For small LEO comsats you could just use the base configuration; for larger payloads you simply charge the customer for adding 2 or 4 SRBs as needed. Much simpler and cheaper than worrying about adding a second stage.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2017 03:36 PM by sevenperforce »

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #30 on: 04/03/2017 08:47 PM »
Looking for red flags in these specs:

Length: 16 m
Diameter: 1.5 m
Dry mass: 550 kg
Launch mass: 16,290 kg
Payload mass: 100 kg
Engine: Pressure-fed linear aerospike
Nozzle: 80:1 expansion ratio, 80% cut
Engine coolant & pressurant: Liquid helium
Number of chambers: 16
Nozzle cooling: Ablative + RP-1 film
Propellant: HTP + RP-1
Burn duration: 272 s
Thrust (SL): 22,920 kgf
Thrust (vac): 33,500 kgf
Isp (SL): 230 s
Isp (vac): 314 s
Propellant flow rate: 100 kg/s
Mixture ratio: 7.46:1
Tank pressure: 20 barg
Chamber pressure: 16 barg

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #31 on: 04/03/2017 08:56 PM »
Looking for red flags in these specs:

Length: 16 m
Diameter: 1.5 m
Dry mass: 550 kg
Launch mass: 16,290 kg

That dry mass seems awfully optimistic to me.

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #32 on: 04/03/2017 09:12 PM »
Looking for red flags in these specs:

Length: 16 m
Diameter: 1.5 m
Dry mass: 550 kg
Launch mass: 16,290 kg

That dry mass seems awfully optimistic to me.
Yeah, it does seem optimistic to me as well. That's only 12% more dry mass than the ITS Tanker, which has higher TWR engines, a lower vehicle TWR, and a huge square-cube advantage. Then again, the ITS Tanker also has TPS and RCS systems, which the ARCA rocket wouldn't have to bother with. HTP is also a great deal denser than LOX, so that helps a bit.

Anyone have an idea of ballpack TWR for a pressure-fed linear aerospike?

If ARCA added disposable air augmentation shrouds -- panels, really -- jettisoned at the same time as the payload fairing, they could make up for that horrible SL specific impulse. I bet that mixture ratio optimization could help as well.

« Last Edit: 04/03/2017 09:12 PM by sevenperforce »

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #33 on: 04/03/2017 09:49 PM »
Interesting in that rocket lab chose battery powered pumps over pressure fed due to overall mass savings and even with composite structures.
Given that they are using HTP I wouls have thought decomposition driven turbopumps would be the most efficient solution.

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #34 on: 04/03/2017 10:55 PM »
Interesting in that rocket lab chose battery powered pumps over pressure fed due to overall mass savings and even with composite structures.
Given that they are using HTP I wouls have thought decomposition driven turbopumps would be the most efficient solution.
Does RL's Electron use composite tanks or aluminum tanks? Composites, as with the ARCA vehicle, work much better with pressure-fed designs than aluminum, so that's one reason.

I'm guessing the increased dry mass of the turbopump alone would be greater than the added mass of the full liquid helium tank. The composite tank can probably handle the pressure without needing to be any thicker than it would otherwise be. HTP has poor enough specific impulse as it is; reducing its efficiency by decomposition would make it even worse.

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #35 on: 04/03/2017 11:03 PM »
Interesting in that rocket lab chose battery powered pumps over pressure fed due to overall mass savings and even with composite structures.
Given that they are using HTP I wouls have thought decomposition driven turbopumps would be the most efficient solution.
Does RL's Electron use composite tanks or aluminum tanks? Composites, as with the ARCA vehicle, work much better with pressure-fed designs than aluminum, so that's one reason.

I'm guessing the increased dry mass of the turbopump alone would be greater than the added mass of the full liquid helium tank. The composite tank can probably handle the pressure without needing to be any thicker than it would otherwise be. HTP has poor enough specific impulse as it is; reducing its efficiency by decomposition would make it even worse.

Electron is composite construction.  Somewhere in discussion on the vehicle some one calculated mass of the vehicle with required wall thickness for pressure fed vs without and found that even with the added mass of batteries it was a much more mass efficient option.

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #36 on: 04/03/2017 11:21 PM »
Hmm. They are about the same size. The ARCA vehicle is a bit smaller but significantly heavier -- due to the HTP replacing the less dense LOX -- so it has more to lose in the engine dry mass department than Electron.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #37 on: 04/04/2017 06:18 AM »
Well, Electron also isn't SSTO, so it has far more margin to play with.

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5045
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #38 on: 04/04/2017 06:23 AM »
Well, Electron also isn't SSTO, so it has far more margin to play with.

It also exists, which constrains it to laws of physics
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12052
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2634
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #39 on: 04/04/2017 07:02 AM »
HTP is also cheaper than LOX, and while it has its own handling challenges, it's less challenging from a materials standpoint than LOX.

I'm pretty sure rocket grade HTP is more expensive than LOX. 85% HTP costs $8.27/kg in a 30 kg lot, although should come down for higher volumes. Google says that LOX is $0.16/kg.

http://www.peroxidepropulsion.com/hydrogen-peroxide.php

With a propellant mass of 15,640 kg and a mixture ratio of 8.2 to 1 (the same as the British Gamma engine), that gives a HTP mass of 13,940 kg and a upper bound of the cost of $115,284.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2017 07:02 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #40 on: 04/04/2017 12:30 PM »
HTP is also cheaper than LOX, and while it has its own handling challenges, it's less challenging from a materials standpoint than LOX.

I'm pretty sure rocket grade HTP is more expensive than LOX. 85% HTP costs $8.27/kg in a 30 kg lot, although should come down for higher volumes. Google says that LOX is $0.16/kg.

http://www.peroxidepropulsion.com/hydrogen-peroxide.php

With a propellant mass of 15,640 kg and a mixture ratio of 8.2 to 1 (the same as the British Gamma engine), that gives a HTP mass of 13,940 kg and a upper bound of the cost of $115,284.
Well, color me surprised.

Well, Electron also isn't SSTO, so it has far more margin to play with.
A fair point. Taking the dry mass of nine battery packs and pumps all the way to orbit probably would have tanked the efficiency advantage.

Plus, doesn't the electron need helium pressurant anyway to maintain ullage pressure?

Online Davidthefat

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #41 on: 04/05/2017 10:34 PM »
Their latest "plan" to use tanks as habitats once in orbit...

https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/photos/a.225583008331.177238.225552438331/10155952223343332/?type=1&theater

Uploaded screen shot for prosperity

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #42 on: 04/06/2017 01:11 AM »
Their latest "plan" to use tanks as habitats once in orbit...

https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/photos/a.225583008331.177238.225552438331/10155952223343332/?type=1&theater

Uploaded screen shot for prosperity
While I am a fan of wet workshops, this is laughable. Those tanks are only ~5 feet in diameter. As depicted, I doubt a person could even fit through the docking port.
I tried it at home

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #43 on: 04/06/2017 01:58 PM »
Quote from: sevenperforce
A fair point. Taking the dry mass of nine battery packs and pumps all the way to orbit probably would have tanked the efficiency advantage.

Plus, doesn't the electron need helium pressurant anyway to maintain ullage pressure?

The whole trade is based on the increased mass required for thicker tank walls for all the propellant at a higher pressure,  not just a couple helium bottles. That mass is going to orbit in either scenario.

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #44 on: 04/08/2017 04:12 PM »
Quote from: sevenperforce
A fair point. Taking the dry mass of nine battery packs and pumps all the way to orbit probably would have tanked the efficiency advantage.

Plus, doesn't the electron need helium pressurant anyway to maintain ullage pressure?

The whole trade is based on the increased mass required for thicker tank walls for all the propellant at a higher pressure,  not just a couple helium bottles. That mass is going to orbit in either scenario.

What is the equation for tank thickness?.
What is the thickness of the Falcon9 tank and other?.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #45 on: 04/09/2017 03:03 AM »
Looking for red flags in these specs:

Length: 16 m
Diameter: 1.5 m
Dry mass: 550 kg
Launch mass: 16,290 kg
Payload mass: 100 kg
Engine: Pressure-fed linear aerospike
Nozzle: 80:1 expansion ratio, 80% cut
Engine coolant & pressurant: Liquid helium
Number of chambers: 16
Nozzle cooling: Ablative + RP-1 film
Propellant: HTP + RP-1
Burn duration: 272 s
Thrust (SL): 22,920 kgf
Thrust (vac): 33,500 kgf
Isp (SL): 230 s
Isp (vac): 314 s
Propellant flow rate: 100 kg/s
Mixture ratio: 7.46:1
Tank pressure: 20 barg
Chamber pressure: 16 barg

Gas generator pump fed , not pressure fed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_(rocket_engine)

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4410
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1347
  • Likes Given: 801
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #46 on: 04/10/2017 04:55 PM »
This one-of-a-kind rocket is designed to reach space in just 5 minutes

Tech Insider

Published on Apr 10, 2017
This rocket is about to change space travel. The Haas 2CA rocket is designed by the ARCA Space Corporation. It's set to be the cheapest rocket of its kind and could get to space faster and cheaper than similar rockets, today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcjXvjYRLRE?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #47 on: 04/10/2017 05:19 PM »
This seems to be a CG illustration of a linear aerospike on a pallet jack?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #48 on: 04/10/2017 06:05 PM »
This one-of-a-kind rocket is designed to reach space in just 5 minutes

Tech Insider

Published on Apr 10, 2017
This rocket is about to change space travel. The Haas 2CA rocket is designed by the ARCA Space Corporation. It's set to be the cheapest rocket of its kind and could get to space faster and cheaper than similar rockets, today.

Wow, Tech Insider just believed all the fantasy ARCA claimed without any attempt to verify any of it or get opinions from outside experts.  Sad.  They present themselves as journalists, but clearly there's no journalism going on here.

The focus on 5 minutes to orbit instead of 8 is also really bizarre -- as if that matters in any way whatsoever.

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #49 on: 04/10/2017 07:17 PM »
Bit disingenuous to use footage of XRS-2200 when talking about their engine. Anyone would think they've testfired it already.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #50 on: 04/10/2017 08:20 PM »
This one-of-a-kind rocket is designed to reach space in just 5 minutes

Tech Insider

Published on Apr 10, 2017
This rocket is about to change space travel. The Haas 2CA rocket is designed by the ARCA Space Corporation. It's set to be the cheapest rocket of its kind and could get to space faster and cheaper than similar rockets, today.

Wow, Tech Insider just believed all the fantasy ARCA claimed without any attempt to verify any of it or get opinions from outside experts.  Sad.  They present themselves as journalists, but clearly there's no journalism going on here.

The focus on 5 minutes to orbit instead of 8 is also really bizarre -- as if that matters in any way whatsoever.
This is why PR like this and the stories put out by Vector are so insidious. Now any serious company will be held to this "benchmark" by less well-informed investors, making genuine technology look worse.

These people hurt themselves and everybody else.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12052
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2634
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #51 on: 04/11/2017 07:18 AM »
The focus on 5 minutes to orbit instead of 8 is also really bizarre -- as if that matters in any way whatsoever.

It helps a lot, since gravity losses are reduced, meaning less delta-V is required to reach orbit.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #52 on: 04/11/2017 01:48 PM »
I'm starting to think that ARCA is actually a video/CGI production company that likes to advertise by making videos of fanciful rockets.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #53 on: 04/11/2017 02:26 PM »
The focus on 5 minutes to orbit instead of 8 is also really bizarre -- as if that matters in any way whatsoever.

It helps a lot, since gravity losses are reduced, meaning less delta-V is required to reach orbit.

The higher acceleration needed to reach orbit faster is apparently just due to the higher thrust of a SSTO, which has a TWR of 3 to 6 in the flight regime where a TSTO upper stage has a TWR of 0.6 to 0.9.

But the SSTO has considerably worse mass fractions compared to a TSTO after staging, so the reduced gravity loss isn't a net win: payload as a fraction of GLOM is still very low. And burnout acceleration is extremely high... 10 to 15g, perhaps higher if unthrottled?

Online Davidthefat

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #54 on: 04/11/2017 04:22 PM »
I'm starting to think that ARCA is actually a video/CGI production company that likes to advertise by making videos of fanciful rockets.

The CGI isn't even that good honestly...

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #55 on: 04/11/2017 04:48 PM »
The focus on 5 minutes to orbit instead of 8 is also really bizarre -- as if that matters in any way whatsoever.

It helps a lot, since gravity losses are reduced, meaning less delta-V is required to reach orbit.

That's at best an internal advantage, not an external advantage.  What I mean is that at best that helps them with something else that would matter to a payload.  For example, if it meant less propellant, maybe that means less cost.  It's the less cost that actually matters.  So taking less time to get to orbit isn't by itself something that matters, it's, at best, an aid in something else that actually matters.  So it's not something that justifies being trumpeted as an advantage of ARCA's proposed launch system.  If it helps them lower costs, let them claim the lower costs.

As another poster pointed out, this is just one factor and optimizing for lower time to orbit might bring disadvantages that more than make up for the reduced gravity losses.  Other launch providers have made different trade-offs, so others seem to think it's better to have the higher gravity losses in exchange for other benefits.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3647
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 797
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #56 on: 04/20/2017 06:31 AM »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #57 on: 04/20/2017 08:07 AM »
Another ARCA piece:

http://krqe.com/2017/04/18/new-mexico-rocket-seeks-historic-first/

The article says "Between the engine and the fuels, Popescu says his engine is 30 percent more fuel efficient than today’s traditional engines."  Anyone have any idea how they justify that?

That unbelievable claim comes right after the article says, "ARCA also does away with cryogenic fuels, the traditional super-cold liquid hydrogen and oxygen used by many space vehicles today. Instead, the Haas 2CA will use kerosene and hydrogen peroxide, which do not need to be kept cold."  Which seems to imply that they're claiming 30% better Isp than hydrolox for kerosene and hydrogen peroxide.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12052
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2634
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #58 on: 04/21/2017 06:44 AM »
The article says "Between the engine and the fuels, Popescu says his engine is 30 percent more fuel efficient than today’s traditional engines."  Anyone have any idea how they justify that?

Maybe they meant impulse density? HTP/Kero can be have up to 15% greater impulse density than LOX/Kero.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5045
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #59 on: 04/21/2017 06:56 AM »
Maybe they meant impulse density? HTP/Kero can be have up to 15% greater impulse density than LOX/Kero.

I don't think that's what they meant. I highly doubt anyone of that team speaks rocket.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #60 on: 04/21/2017 01:27 PM »
The article says "Between the engine and the fuels, Popescu says his engine is 30 percent more fuel efficient than today’s traditional engines."  Anyone have any idea how they justify that?

Maybe they meant impulse density? HTP/Kero can be have up to 15% greater impulse density than LOX/Kero.

I'm pretty sure they meant this:

Quote
A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25–30% less fuel at low altitudes, where most missions have the greatest need for thrust.

http://www.ijmetmr.com/olseptember2016/SudarsanGajula-KBabitha-KBharadwajan-225.pdf

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3298
  • California
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 1571
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #61 on: 04/21/2017 05:24 PM »
The article says "Between the engine and the fuels, Popescu says his engine is 30 percent more fuel efficient than today’s traditional engines."  Anyone have any idea how they justify that?

Maybe they meant impulse density? HTP/Kero can be have up to 15% greater impulse density than LOX/Kero.

I'm pretty sure they meant this:

Quote
A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25–30% less fuel at low altitudes, where most missions have the greatest need for thrust.

http://www.ijmetmr.com/olseptember2016/SudarsanGajula-KBabitha-KBharadwajan-225.pdf

If that was true - and there weren't other tradeoffs to make - every launch vehicle would be using aerospike engines. And despite being tested off and on since the 60's, there has been exactly ZERO launch vehicles with aerospike engines.

« Last Edit: 04/21/2017 08:54 PM by Lars-J »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #62 on: 04/21/2017 06:10 PM »
The article says "Between the engine and the fuels, Popescu says his engine is 30 percent more fuel efficient than today’s traditional engines."  Anyone have any idea how they justify that?

Maybe they meant impulse density? HTP/Kero can be have up to 15% greater impulse density than LOX/Kero.

I'm pretty sure they meant this:

Quote
A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25–30% less fuel at low altitudes, where most missions have the greatest need for thrust.

http://www.ijmetmr.com/olseptember2016/SudarsanGajula-KBabitha-KBharadwajan-225.pdf

This paper doesn't explain that quote at all.  My best guess is that it means 25-30% less fuel compared with a vacuum-optimized engine with the same thrust.  After all, being able to use the same engine at sea level and vacuum is the one big advantage of an aerospike.

Of course, the way ARCA used the 30% figure in the quote in the article, it implied that they'll get some sort of 30% improvement compared with other launch vehicles, which is just silly because other launch vehicles aren't using a vacuum engine at sea level.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #63 on: 04/21/2017 09:35 PM »
The article says "Between the engine and the fuels, Popescu says his engine is 30 percent more fuel efficient than today’s traditional engines."  Anyone have any idea how they justify that?

Maybe they meant impulse density? HTP/Kero can be have up to 15% greater impulse density than LOX/Kero.

I'm pretty sure they meant this:

Quote
A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25–30% less fuel at low altitudes, where most missions have the greatest need for thrust.

http://www.ijmetmr.com/olseptember2016/SudarsanGajula-KBabitha-KBharadwajan-225.pdf

This paper doesn't explain that quote at all.  My best guess is that it means 25-30% less fuel compared with a vacuum-optimized engine with the same thrust.  After all, being able to use the same engine at sea level and vacuum is the one big advantage of an aerospike.

Of course, the way ARCA used the 30% figure in the quote in the article, it implied that they'll get some sort of 30% improvement compared with other launch vehicles, which is just silly because other launch vehicles aren't using a vacuum engine at sea level.
ARCA probably got their information from the Wikipedia article on aerospikes, which has the exact same quote. I doubt they have a better answer in any context.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #64 on: 04/22/2017 08:23 PM »
The article says "Between the engine and the fuels, Popescu says his engine is 30 percent more fuel efficient than today’s traditional engines."  Anyone have any idea how they justify that?

Maybe they meant impulse density? HTP/Kero can be have up to 15% greater impulse density than LOX/Kero.

I'm pretty sure they meant this:

Quote
A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25–30% less fuel at low altitudes, where most missions have the greatest need for thrust.

http://www.ijmetmr.com/olseptember2016/SudarsanGajula-KBabitha-KBharadwajan-225.pdf

This paper doesn't explain that quote at all.  My best guess is that it means 25-30% less fuel compared with a vacuum-optimized engine with the same thrust.  After all, being able to use the same engine at sea level and vacuum is the one big advantage of an aerospike.

Of course, the way ARCA used the 30% figure in the quote in the article, it implied that they'll get some sort of 30% improvement compared with other launch vehicles, which is just silly because other launch vehicles aren't using a vacuum engine at sea level.
ARCA probably got their information from the Wikipedia article on aerospikes, which has the exact same quote. I doubt they have a better answer in any context.

M.Tech Gajula and professors Babitha and Bharadwajan would be well advised to think carefully what plagiarism means. The whole intro of the paper has a bit too much similarity to the wikipedia article.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7497
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3827
  • Likes Given: 804
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #65 on: 04/24/2017 05:52 AM »
The focus on 5 minutes to orbit instead of 8 is also really bizarre -- as if that matters in any way whatsoever.

It helps a lot, since gravity losses are reduced, meaning less delta-V is required to reach orbit.

How many seconds of these 3 minutes are saved during the vertical portion of the flight?

But yes, for a hypothetical SSTO, every little bit matters a lot.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #66 on: 04/24/2017 06:23 AM »
M.Tech Gajula and professors Babitha and Bharadwajan would be well advised to think carefully what plagiarism means. The whole intro of the paper has a bit too much similarity to the wikipedia article.

Wow. Except for half a dozen words in one sentence, it is exactly the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
  • Canada
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #67 on: 04/24/2017 01:51 PM »
Do we know which came first? 

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
  • Liked: 1668
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #68 on: 04/24/2017 02:37 PM »
M.Tech Gajula and professors Babitha and Bharadwajan would be well advised to think carefully what plagiarism means. The whole intro of the paper has a bit too much similarity to the wikipedia article.

Indeed:  Here is the intro to their paper.  Words identical to Wikipedia are in bold.  Wikipedia text is in brackets.

The aerospike engine is a type of rocket engine that maintains its aerodynamic efficiency within [across] a wide range of altitudes. It is a member of the class of altitude that compensaties [compensating] nozzle engines. A vehicle with an aerospike engine uses 25–30% less fuel at low altitudes, where most missions have the greatest need for thrust. Aerospike engines have been studied for a number of years and are the baseline engines for many single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) designs and were also a strong contender for the Space Shuttle Main Engine. However, no such engine is in commercial production, although some large-scale aerospike’s [ s] are in testing phases.

That's more than 100 words of extremely similar text.  The small differences that are present look like an attempt to avoid direct copying, since they do not improve the text but in fact make it worse by introducing spelling and punctuation errors.  This text was in Wikipedia as of 2012, while their article was in 2016, so almost surely their text was copied from Wikipedia and not vice versa.  Such a large stretch of uncredited identical text would constitute plagiarism in many academic contexts.

Wikipedia is *not* public domain.  You are free to use it, in any manner you like, but you need to give credit.   The license states:
Quote
You are free:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt the work
for any purpose, even commercially.

Under the following conditions:

Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.) [...]
I can't find any reference of any kind to Wikipedia in their article.

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #69 on: 04/24/2017 04:00 PM »
I know that plagiarism is rampant in less well known publications, but the editor(s) of the journal should be notified.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
  • Liked: 1668
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #70 on: 04/24/2017 07:39 PM »
OK, this is not funny.  On a hunch, I checked some of the following text.  Again, it almost exactly matched another publication, but this one is not WIkipedia, it's an uncredited academic paper.  Parts in bold are identical to words in
Design and Numerical Analysis of Aerospike Nozzleswith Different Plug Shapes to Compare theirPerformance with a Conventional Nozzle, by  Mehdi Nazarinia, Arash Naghib-Lahouti, and Elhaum Tolouei

Expansion and discharge of a gas in different propulsion systems, e.g. jet engines and rockets, is always accomplished by a nozzle. Thrust of available from a conventional fixed nozzle, discharging jet to [ in]atmosphere can be expressed by the following simple  relation:
F = ṁeVe - ṁoVo+ (PeAe - PatmAExt) (1)
For a nozzle designed to operate at constant Pe (also known as design exhaust pressure, Pdes), thrust is affected
due to altitude change with respect to operation [by change of altitude]. At the design altitude, where Patm = Pdes, the second term of the above relation (known as pressure thrust) is zero, and the nozzle is said to be working in “optimum condition”. At altitudes lower than the design altitude, where Patm>Pdes, pressure thrust assumes a negative value, and loss of thrust is inevitable. These conditions, which occur at altitudes ranging from ground level to the design altitude, are known as over-expansion conditions. Due to in-built thrust losses, [Besides the inherent loss of thrust] the conventional nozzle might suffer problems including shock waves, flow separation in divergent section; thrust oscillation; and flow asymmetry in over-expansion conditions.

From their results and discussion: (compare to results and discussion of cited paper above)

In this section, flow pattern of the ideal aerospike nozzle in different working conditions is compared to that of the truncated aerospike and conventional nozzles. [...] Exhaust flow of the aerospike nozzle is characterized by formation of a series of expansion waves, which originate from the upper lip of the convergent section. Since the exhaust flow is not bounded by a solid wall, these expansion waves can adjust their intensity and domain to match the exhaust flow with the external flow.  For the ideal aerospike, in over-expansion conditions, the domain covered by these waves ends before the end of the plug. At that station, flow properties are close to those of the optimum condition, which usually involve a higher Mach number and a lower pressure compared to the external flow. From this station onwards, flow encounters reflection of the expansion waves in form of a series of compression waves, which increase the pressure and reduce Mach number to a value close to that of the external flow. [..] But for the truncated aerospike nozzles, the situation is such that the expansion waves originated from the upper lip of the convergent section will face the truncated portion of the plug, while in the ideal case these expansion waves meet the plug surface. The flow facing the truncation first encounters a sharp expansion, then by continuing its way to the centre of the plug base a compression, stagnating exactly at the centre of the plug base. This phenomenon is due to the formation of two symmetric vortices in the base of the plug, which counteract the effect of each other at two locations, one of which is located at the centre of the plug base, where flow conditions change into the stagnation conditions. It should be pointed out that regardless of the amount of truncation and the extent of the plug base area, the flow parameter distribution pattern is the same. [..] The exhaust flow of a conventional nozzle, on contrary, does not have the chance to adapt itself to the condition prevailing outside the nozzle before leaving the nozzle. After leaving the nozzle, flow is compressed through a series of compression waves originating from the edge of the exhaust surface, which resemble converging shock waves. These compression waves contract the flow, and impose a radial velocity component, which contributes to loss of thrust in over-expansion conditions.

This goes on and on - the next paragraph matches as well.  I'm writing a letter to the editor.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
  • Liked: 1668
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #71 on: 04/24/2017 08:10 PM »
OK, this is not funny.  On a hunch, I checked some of the following text.  Again, it almost exactly matched another publication, but this one is not WIkipedia, it's an uncredited academic paper.  Parts in bold are identical to words in Design and Numerical Analysis of Aerospike Nozzleswith Different Plug Shapes to Compare their Performance with a Conventional Nozzle, by  Mehdi Nazarinia, Arash Naghib-Lahouti, and Elhaum Tolouei
[...]

This goes on and on - the next paragraph matches as well.  I'm writing a letter to the editor.
The editor wrote back, very quickly.  They will investigate, and (potentially) remove the article in whole or in part.  They will reply with their actions within 7 business days.  I'm glad they are treating this seriously.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #72 on: 04/25/2017 10:05 PM »
This sort of thread reminds me of how great NSF can be. The (likely) ferreting out of a (likely) dastard plagiarist in real time.

Matthew

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5045
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 322
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline launchwatcher

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 213
« Last Edit: 05/17/2017 12:37 AM by launchwatcher »

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 381
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #75 on: 05/16/2017 11:03 PM »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.


Offline Craftyatom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Software!
  • Arizona, USA
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 1297
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #77 on: 05/17/2017 01:42 AM »
Lol

https://twitter.com/arcaspace/status/864485699810058241

I tried to find some source on the picture they used there, since I couldn't quite tell if it was superb CGI or a mockup.  I now have no doubt that this is actually a real-life mockup that they built and put on a truck.  Two reasons: first, an example of their CGI is attached, which is pretty recognizable.  Second, they've built a mockup orbital launch vehicle before - back in 2012, when they were testing a standard de Laval nozzle that burned kerolox in a TSTO configuration.  Picture of that attached too.

At first I was running around trying to find hi-res versions of these pictures on Romanian news sites, but it turns out that ARCA's website still has the default index page set for their /images/ folder, so you can actually go through all of their images pretty easily: http://www.arcaspace.com/images/

But why spend time sifting through images when we could all be hopping on that sweet $5.3B gravy train?  ;D
All aboard the HSF hype train!  Choo Choo!

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #78 on: 05/17/2017 04:53 AM »
Lol

https://twitter.com/arcaspace/status/864485699810058241

I tried to find some source on the picture they used there, since I couldn't quite tell if it was superb CGI or a mockup.  I now have no doubt that this is actually a real-life mockup that they built and put on a truck.   

It is a real mock up, they posted a video of them ceremoniously offloading it into a hanger but then people made fun of them because is is obviously juat a painted tube and now its not on their twitter.
 
Edit: There it is, on their youtube:
« Last Edit: 05/17/2017 04:59 AM by GWH »

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5045
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #79 on: 05/17/2017 05:51 AM »
..It is a real mock up..
That's kind of their thing.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #80 on: 05/17/2017 06:17 AM »
..It is a real mock up..
That's kind of their thing.
This will seem odd from me, but I don't mind mock-ups or engineering models as long as they are clearly labelled.

Rocket Lab's original coming out party showed a mock-up rocket - the nose cone was obviously wrong and there was probably nothing behind the engine blanking plate.

Where it goes wrong is pretending that the vehicle is real, to raise money. That's highly questionable at best, fraud at worst.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #81 on: 05/17/2017 12:26 PM »

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #82 on: 05/18/2017 05:48 PM »
..It is a real mock up..
That's kind of their thing.
This will seem odd from me, but I don't mind mock-ups or engineering models as long as they are clearly labelled.

Rocket Lab's original coming out party showed a mock-up rocket - the nose cone was obviously wrong and there was probably nothing behind the engine blanking plate.

Where it goes wrong is pretending that the vehicle is real, to raise money. That's highly questionable at best, fraud at worst.

Rlabs have engine tests frequently, ARCA have almost none.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #83 on: 05/18/2017 05:52 PM »
..It is a real mock up..
That's kind of their thing.
This will seem odd from me, but I don't mind mock-ups or engineering models as long as they are clearly labelled.

Rocket Lab's original coming out party showed a mock-up rocket - the nose cone was obviously wrong and there was probably nothing behind the engine blanking plate.

Where it goes wrong is pretending that the vehicle is real, to raise money. That's highly questionable at best, fraud at worst.

Rlabs have engine tests frequently, ARCA have almost none.
They did eventually, sure I'm not comparing them directly. Just saying there is a place for a cheap mock up, as long as it is not positioned as the real thing. PLD Space has one in their office as well. More of a visual aid than anything else, like every image of a movie director has a camera in it.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2017 05:52 PM by ringsider »

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 381
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #84 on: 05/19/2017 02:59 AM »
They did eventually, sure I'm not comparing them directly. Just saying there is a place for a cheap mock up, as long as it is not positioned as the real thing. PLD Space has one in their office as well. More of a visual aid than anything else, like every image of a movie director has a camera in it.

FWIW, RocketLab's mockup is mounted horizontally out front of their office in 10 Airpark Drive, Auckland and has been for some time now.  Unfortunately I note it doesn't show on Google Street-view, but those pics do seem to be several years old.
 

« Last Edit: 05/19/2017 03:00 AM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #85 on: 05/26/2017 10:59 PM »
ARCA is seeking investment from New Mexico residents:

On their site they have a timeline poste: http://arcaspace.com/
Critical design review this month - first flight October 2018 & commercial ops that December :o

Offline buraianto

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • United States
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #86 on: 05/28/2017 03:56 AM »
The following are scheduled to be finished by May 2017. If they are meeting their schedule they should be just about done with these tasks.

Quote
- Release the final design;
- Release final test planning for Haas 2CA and associated hardware;
- Release the integration and operations procedures;
- Authorise manufacturing.

Note what has yet to take place, being scheduled for May this year to August 2018.

Quote
Build three Executor Aerospike engines for sea level tests and the test article;

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
  • Liked: 1668
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #87 on: 06/05/2017 01:09 PM »
OK, this is not funny.  On a hunch, I checked some of the following text.  Again, it almost exactly matched another publication, but this one is not WIkipedia, it's an uncredited academic paper.  Parts in bold are identical to words in Design and Numerical Analysis of Aerospike Nozzleswith Different Plug Shapes to Compare their Performance with a Conventional Nozzle, by  Mehdi Nazarinia, Arash Naghib-Lahouti, and Elhaum Tolouei
[...]

This goes on and on - the next paragraph matches as well.  I'm writing a letter to the editor.
The editor wrote back, very quickly.  They will investigate, and (potentially) remove the article in whole or in part.  They will reply with their actions within 7 business days.  I'm glad they are treating this seriously.
OK, heard back from the editor.  They asked the authors for an explanation, got no response, and are pulling the article in its entirety..

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #88 on: 06/16/2017 01:14 AM »
Arca has a new video up, talking about ramping up to fly a aerospike on a smaller dev vehicle from New Mexico in 2 months.
-Video shows them building a nose cone and a dome
-3:50 show some Iridium electronics modules and some microprocessor boards from Sparkfun.com
-No engine hardware shown

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5045
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #89 on: 06/16/2017 01:47 AM »
-3:50 show some Iridium electronics modules and some microprocessor boards from Sparkfun.com

You left out the important part. Live action from interns booting stock Raspbian distro on Rpi. This has never been done before
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #90 on: 06/16/2017 02:01 AM »
The thing that struck me the most in the video was how empty the electronics lab was.  I've never seen a room where people were working on electronics that wasn't filled with all the components and instruments that would fit.  But here was a guy sitting at a table working on avionics in a nearly empty room.  The cabinets in the background were all full of spacecraft models, not electronic components or instruments or tools.  Every piece of equipment related to electronics that was visible fit comfortably on the one table in the room.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #91 on: 06/18/2017 01:42 PM »
The moment where you have more assorted electronics parts on your desk than a real(*) rocket engineer on the workbench. Less parts from eBay/Banggood too!
* As seen on TV The Internet

What I found really bad was the mold building. Say at @1:37. Such holes are just unnecessary. Composite construction is also very old school. Just having a slight insight into boat building technology there is so much that could be improved by hiring just one or two of their guys (or gals!) for a week or two. :-\ No need to go for the latest Americas Cup racing boat technology either, a decade or two or so ago will do...

But then I wake up and remember that it's ARCA. They are obviously in a different business. 8)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #92 on: 06/18/2017 07:38 PM »
Arca are planning suborbital flights in few months to test engine and systems. Any company that can demonstrate flying HW even if it is suborbital is worth taking note of.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/18/arca-space-test-aerospike-engine-spaceport-america/#more-61833

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #93 on: 06/18/2017 08:21 PM »
Arca are planning suborbital flights in few months to test engine and systems. Any company that can demonstrate flying HW even if it is suborbital is worth taking note of.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/18/arca-space-test-aerospike-engine-spaceport-america/#more-61833

Lets not count our chickens before they're hatched -- Arca has not yet flown.  They've promised flights before that never materialized.

Maybe this time will be different and they'll actually fly, or maybe it will be another empty promise from Arca.  I'm withholding judgement until I see it.

It's also worth noting that while flying something into space on a suborbital trajectory is better than flying nothing, it's also pretty easy compared with getting something to orbit, and getting something to orbit is pretty easy compared to single-stage to orbit.  Arca is promising single-stage to orbit (HASS 2CA) in 2018.  The most charitable thing that can be said about that claim is that it's ambitious.

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #94 on: 06/19/2017 05:14 PM »



Is that fiberglass?. Would not it be better to use carbon fiber?.

Online Davidthefat

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #95 on: 06/19/2017 05:20 PM »
Arca are planning suborbital flights in few months to test engine and systems. Any company that can demonstrate flying HW even if it is suborbital is worth taking note of.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/18/arca-space-test-aerospike-engine-spaceport-america/#more-61833

Lets not count our chickens before they're hatched -- Arca has not yet flown.  They've promised flights before that never materialized.

Maybe this time will be different and they'll actually fly, or maybe it will be another empty promise from Arca.  I'm withholding judgement until I see it.

It's also worth noting that while flying something into space on a suborbital trajectory is better than flying nothing, it's also pretty easy compared with getting something to orbit, and getting something to orbit is pretty easy compared to single-stage to orbit.  Arca is promising single-stage to orbit (HASS 2CA) in 2018.  The most charitable thing that can be said about that claim is that it's ambitious.


Looks like they won't even use flight engine module for the suborbital flight... They are just decomposing the peroxide with a catalyst instead of using kerosene as a fuel...

Blow down with peroxide decomposition given their previous statements. Just literally a "let 'er rip" type of thing.

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #96 on: 06/19/2017 05:37 PM »
I keep wondering why they're proposing a linear aerospike. Wouldn't a toroidal one be lighter on a conventional rocket? Or are there performance benefits of linear over toroidal? Also, I just keep looking at that linear spike and thinking the airflow over the width of it must vary considerably, being under a cylindrical body. Would imply varying expansion ratios, and loss of efficiency, surely?

Online Davidthefat

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #97 on: 06/19/2017 06:25 PM »
I keep wondering why they're proposing a linear aerospike. Wouldn't a toroidal one be lighter on a conventional rocket? Or are there performance benefits of linear over toroidal? Also, I just keep looking at that linear spike and thinking the airflow over the width of it must vary considerably, being under a cylindrical body. Would imply varying expansion ratios, and loss of efficiency, surely?

Are you assuming that they are actually intending to fly the full scale thing?

It's easier to do a cash grab when taking "proven" technologies and presenting them as ideas instead of going down a different path. Especially given how much they referenced the X-33 engine in their promotional videos, they want to give the impression that it's feasible.

Also not to look like a Firefly copy I suppose.

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #98 on: 06/19/2017 06:35 PM »
Well, I guess I was assuming that even a cash grab needs some technical plausibility, but you're right, a fool and his money are easily parted.

Offline jeffreycornish

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #99 on: 06/19/2017 06:48 PM »



Is that fiberglass?. Would not it be better to use carbon fiber?.

It's a suborbital demonstrator to look at the performance and characteristics of the engine.  This is a small company and carbon fiber is more expensive than fiberglass. 

They are _not_ building the orbital vehicle here.  They need an airframe that is 'good enough'--not perfect.

I can fully appreciate using a less expensive material for test.

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #100 on: 06/19/2017 08:54 PM »
Is that fiberglass?. Would not it be better to use carbon fiber?.

It's a suborbital demonstrator to look at the performance and characteristics of the engine.  This is a small company and carbon fiber is more expensive than fiberglass. 

They are _not_ building the orbital vehicle here.  They need an airframe that is 'good enough'--not perfect.

I can fully appreciate using a less expensive material for test.

It isn't their orbital engine though, this is just a mono-prop with 70% concentration H2O2.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #101 on: 06/19/2017 11:52 PM »
Is that fiberglass?. Would not it be better to use carbon fiber?.

It's a suborbital demonstrator to look at the performance and characteristics of the engine.  This is a small company and carbon fiber is more expensive than fiberglass. 

They are _not_ building the orbital vehicle here.  They need an airframe that is 'good enough'--not perfect.

I can fully appreciate using a less expensive material for test.

It isn't their orbital engine though, this is just a mono-prop with 70% concentration H2O2.
It will still be flying a aerospike engine. Not something that hasn't happened for a long time.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #102 on: 06/20/2017 12:43 AM »
I can fully appreciate using a less expensive material for test.

OK, but they're claiming they'll fly the orbital vehicle in 2018.  Their test program should be using the materials they're really planning to use if they were serious about a SSTO flight in 2018.  99.9% of what they need to develop to do their claimed 2018 plans isn't being tested by this vehicle.  That's a problem.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2042
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #103 on: 06/20/2017 11:03 AM »
Has anyone an idea, if there might be a reason for these strange tandem fins on the Demonstrator-3 except from looking somewhat cool?

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #104 on: 06/20/2017 05:16 PM »


It's a suborbital demonstrator to look at the performance and characteristics of the engine.  This is a small company and carbon fiber is more expensive than fiberglass. 

They are _not_ building the orbital vehicle here.  They need an airframe that is 'good enough'--not perfect.

I can fully appreciate using a less expensive material for test.

Resistance to pressure will be worse than carbon fiber. Or does SpaceX want to pay more?.

Offline Craftyatom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Software!
  • Arizona, USA
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 1297
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #105 on: 06/20/2017 05:25 PM »


It's a suborbital demonstrator to look at the performance and characteristics of the engine.  This is a small company and carbon fiber is more expensive than fiberglass. 

They are _not_ building the orbital vehicle here.  They need an airframe that is 'good enough'--not perfect.

I can fully appreciate using a less expensive material for test.

Resistance to pressure will be worse than carbon fiber. Or does SpaceX want to pay more?.

Again, they don't need a top-of-the-line solution because this is not an orbital mission like SpaceX.  It's a suborbital vehicle, they can build as much margin into it as they want.  The decision to use fiberglass might reduce the vehicle's apogee, but as long as it exceeds 100km, the mission is a success.  Using carbon fiber would not appreciably increase the chance of mission success - but using a lower-cost option greatly increases the chance that the mission happens at all.

I can fully appreciate using a less expensive material for test.

OK, but they're claiming they'll fly the orbital vehicle in 2018.  Their test program should be using the materials they're really planning to use if they were serious about a SSTO flight in 2018.  99.9% of what they need to develop to do their claimed 2018 plans isn't being tested by this vehicle.  That's a problem.


Agreed, if they were to launch orbital in 2018, then they should be getting experience with tooling and construction now.  That said, I don't think anyone here is too confident in them actually launching an orbital LV within the next 560 days.
All aboard the HSF hype train!  Choo Choo!

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 400
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #106 on: 06/20/2017 06:15 PM »
Another video from YouTube:

After viewing this and the previous videos featured in this thread, my biggest fear as a potential investor would be of ARCA spending all of my money on toys. Seems like the shelves in every room are full of them.

Matthew

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5045
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #107 on: 06/20/2017 06:56 PM »
..my biggest fear as a potential investor would be of ARCA spending all of my money on toys. ..
Or spending more money hiring promotional models for videos than hiring engineers. Or having interns breathe fiberglass dust and wearing no protection. Or not actually building any of the products they make promotional videos about etc.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3298
  • California
  • Liked: 2563
  • Likes Given: 1571
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #108 on: 06/20/2017 09:19 PM »
These guys are vaporware until they show engine tests.

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #109 on: 06/20/2017 09:46 PM »
While I am really skeptical on ARCA Space - the basic design and non-cryo propellant combo scaled up would make a really good fit for that other improbable launch system: Stratolaunch. 

Offline Craftyatom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Software!
  • Arizona, USA
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 1297
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #110 on: 06/21/2017 08:01 PM »
While I am really skeptical on ARCA Space - the basic design and non-cryo propellant combo scaled up would make a really good fit for that other improbable launch system: Stratolaunch.

The aerospike design doesn't really lend itself to air launch - launching from 30000 feet AMSL means that you start in 1/3rd atmospheric pressure, so underexpansion is less of an issue.  The difference might not be that much, but it could tip the scales on the mass vs. Isp tradeoff.

Non-cryo propellants, however, would indeed be great for airlaunch, and the composite tooling means that it would act as a good "upper stage" after the air-launch "first stage".  I'd bet, though, that you'd get more performance out of an air-launch version using a conventional de Laval nozzle.

But then, if we're changing the design anyways, then we should just make it a two-stage rocket.  SSTO has never had any real purpose besides ease of reuse, and as far as we know reuse is nowhere on the horizon for this team. (do linear aerospikes even work when flying backwards supersonic?  I have a feeling it would mess up the flow dynamics, but then, the exhaust is significantly faster/denser than the surrounding air, so maybe not).
All aboard the HSF hype train!  Choo Choo!

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #111 on: 06/21/2017 10:36 PM »
While I am really skeptical on ARCA Space - the basic design and non-cryo propellant combo scaled up would make a really good fit for that other improbable launch system: Stratolaunch.

Two bad ideas for launch companies put together doesn't equal a good idea.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7497
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3827
  • Likes Given: 804
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #112 on: 06/24/2017 09:47 PM »
While I am really skeptical on ARCA Space - the basic design and non-cryo propellant combo scaled up would make a really good fit for that other improbable launch system: Stratolaunch.

Two bad ideas for launch companies put together doesn't equal a good idea.

Yeah, but it reduces the amount of collateral hassle.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #113 on: 06/24/2017 10:11 PM »
So they posted up another video: they claimed that the propellant tanks are the lightest around and the demonstration vehicle will be the same as the orbital yet it also looks like fiberglass... so not sure what the case is.

These guys seem a lot like Copenhagen suborbital. Just barely a step above high powered rocketry enthusiasts.  In  the unlikely event that they get to orbit it would be a huge step forward for amateurs and dreamers.

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5045
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #114 on: 06/24/2017 11:07 PM »
These guys seem a lot like Copenhagen suborbital. Just barely a step above high powered rocketry fiberglass enthusiasts. 

More accurate now
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Klebiano

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Brazil
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #115 on: 06/25/2017 12:49 AM »
So they posted up another video: they claimed that the propellant tanks are the lightest around and the demonstration vehicle will be the same as the orbital yet it also looks like fiberglass... so not sure what the case is.

These guys seem a lot like Copenhagen suborbital. Just barely a step above high powered rocketry enthusiasts.  In  the unlikely event that they get to orbit it would be a huge step forward for amateurs and dreamers.

The accelerometer that is shown in the video can be found here: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/retired/10736

I wonder if these hobby-focused devices are recommended to be the INS in such an expensive project.

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #116 on: 06/26/2017 05:24 PM »
Regarding the construction they answered my question on using fiberglass for both vehicles:

Quote from: ARCA SPACE CORPORATION
The Haas 2CA orbital launcher will be using the same composites as the Demonstrator 3. While carbon fiber would be a little more rigid, the fiberglass composites we are using have a higher strength to weight ratio, overall. And they are less expensive.


Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #117 on: 06/26/2017 08:50 PM »
I love steam rockets, no matter how hard they are to get to work.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #118 on: 06/27/2017 03:06 AM »
Regarding the construction they answered my question on using fiberglass for both vehicles:

Quote from: ARCA SPACE CORPORATION
The Haas 2CA orbital launcher will be using the same composites as the Demonstrator 3. While carbon fiber would be a little more rigid, the fiberglass composites we are using have a higher strength to weight ratio, overall. And they are less expensive.

ARCA is fascinating to watch because you never know what sort of craziness will come next.

It's just too bad they're trying to con ordinary people in New Mexico out of their hard-earned cash for their hair-brained schemes.

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #119 on: 06/27/2017 07:45 AM »
ARCA is fascinating to watch because you never know what sort of craziness will come next.

It's just too bad they're trying to con ordinary people in New Mexico out of their hard-earned cash for their hair-brained schemes.
I miss the days of the stealth-supersonic-seaplane-with-SS1-nose-air-launch..... The current iteration just seems boring in comparison.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #120 on: 06/27/2017 09:56 PM »
Regarding the construction they answered my question on using fiberglass for both vehicles:

Quote from: ARCA SPACE CORPORATION
The Haas 2CA orbital launcher will be using the same composites as the Demonstrator 3. While carbon fiber would be a little more rigid, the fiberglass composites we are using have a higher strength to weight ratio, overall. And they are less expensive.

They refer to specific strength. I don't think that istrue, CFRP is lighter for the same yield than GFRP. 

Fun fact: balsa has a higher specfic strength than titanium.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 273
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #121 on: 06/27/2017 11:07 PM »
Regarding the construction they answered my question on using fiberglass for both vehicles:

Quote from: ARCA SPACE CORPORATION
The Haas 2CA orbital launcher will be using the same composites as the Demonstrator 3. While carbon fiber would be a little more rigid, the fiberglass composites we are using have a higher strength to weight ratio, overall. And they are less expensive.

They refer to specific strength. I don't think that istrue, CFRP is lighter for the same yield than GFRP. 

Fun fact: balsa has a higher specfic strength than titanium.
It looks like an S-glass/epoxy composite can get close to the strength to weight ratio for carbon/epoxy, but their statement is still wrong.
http://www.carbonfibertubeshop.com/tube%20properties.html

Also, your mileage may vary on that balsa fact. It may be true, but this site disagrees. If you check the source of the numbers on the Wikipedia table, you see that while Balsa is really high on the list, this is only along the grain, and it is very bad perpendicular, severely limiting its usefulness. (Relatedly, fiber direction also matters for composites, the reference above at least should be apples-to-apples for the S-glass vs carbon fiber, but there is no such thing as apples to apples for titanium and balsa.)

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #122 on: 06/28/2017 03:51 PM »
Regarding the construction they answered my question on using fiberglass for both vehicles:

Quote from: ARCA SPACE CORPORATION
The Haas 2CA orbital launcher will be using the same composites as the Demonstrator 3. While carbon fiber would be a little more rigid, the fiberglass composites we are using have a higher strength to weight ratio, overall. And they are less expensive.

They refer to specific strength. I don't think that istrue, CFRP is lighter for the same yield than GFRP. 

Fun fact: balsa has a higher specfic strength than titanium.
It looks like an S-glass/epoxy composite can get close to the strength to weight ratio for carbon/epoxy, but their statement is still wrong.
http://www.carbonfibertubeshop.com/tube%20properties.html

Also, your mileage may vary on that balsa fact. It may be true, but this site disagrees. If you check the source of the numbers on the Wikipedia table, you see that while Balsa is really high on the list, this is only along the grain, and it is very bad perpendicular, severely limiting its usefulness. (Relatedly, fiber direction also matters for composites, the reference above at least should be apples-to-apples for the S-glass vs carbon fiber, but there is no such thing as apples to apples for titanium and balsa.)

Titanium can have grain direction, depending how it's been worked. But the effects aren't as significant as wood or composites.

Offline GWH

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #123 on: 07/06/2017 04:11 PM »
Well they keep on posting up videos, so I'll put this here:
This is on their aerospike engine, although only the fiberglass mold.


Quote
"How far along on testing of this engine are you? Have you completed any full duration hot fire tests?"

Quote from: ARCA SPACE CORPORATION
A static fire test of the Demonstrator 3 engine will be performed just before the launch at Spaceport America. The hot fire tests of Haas 2CA engine are to be performed in both ambient pressure and vacuum, most likely in August or October of this year.


Another "who we are".  The first 20s shows some engine testing of the "Helen" engine, which is a 70% HTP engine, 3500 lbf vacuum,  about 1/3 the thrust of the stated 12,560 lbf vac for the Demonstrator 3 vehicle which also runs on 70%HTP.

Online Davidthefat

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #124 on: 07/06/2017 04:21 PM »
They say they'll be utilizing heated helium as the tank pressurant. Where does the heat exchanger fit into all of this?

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #125 on: 07/06/2017 06:19 PM »
HTP is also cheaper than LOX, and while it has its own handling challenges, it's less challenging from a materials standpoint than LOX.

I'm pretty sure rocket grade HTP is more expensive than LOX. 85% HTP costs $8.27/kg in a 30 kg lot, although should come down for higher volumes. Google says that LOX is $0.16/kg.

http://www.peroxidepropulsion.com/hydrogen-peroxide.php

With a propellant mass of 15,640 kg and a mixture ratio of 8.2 to 1 (the same as the British Gamma engine), that gives a HTP mass of 13,940 kg and a upper bound of the cost of $115,284.

Dead website.

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #126 on: 07/06/2017 07:28 PM »
Well they keep on posting up videos, so I'll put this here:
This is on their aerospike engine, although only the fiberglass mold.

Years ago they thought to make their fiberglass engines. I have a copy on my computer, but previously translated into Spanish, I'm sorry. I have the file from 2013.
The engine was Oxygen and Kerosene.



Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12052
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2634
  • Likes Given: 380
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #128 on: 07/07/2017 04:37 PM »
Dead website.

Here's what the website looked like from last year.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161127144408/http://www.peroxidepropulsion.com/hydrogen-peroxide.php

http://www.portaltotheuniverse.org/blogs/posts/view/68331/

In the year 2010:

Quote
The company Peroxide Propulsion in Sweden has shut down production due to a fire and serious injury to the owner Erik Bengtsson. The message on the homepage: On July 22, 2010 Peroxide Propulsion suffered a terrible accident at our production facilities in Gunnilse, Sweden. Founder and co-owner, Erik Bengtsson, was working at the plant with a routine procedure when hot hydrogen peroxide steam exploded in his face. The plant subsequently burned to the ground. All stock of propellant grade hydrogen peroxide was destroyed in the fire.
Erik is currently hospitalized and listed as stable. After being temporarily blinded his vision is returning. Peroxide Propulsion, however, will not continue operations. We ask for your understanding in this matter, and wish to extend our heartfelt thanks to all our customers these past years.Some rocket projects in the US have purchased peroxide supplies from the firm.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12052
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2634
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #129 on: 07/08/2017 07:43 AM »
In the year 2010:

That's weird. The last news update on the website was May 2014 which it was going back then. Why keep the website going for six years if the facilities burnt down? Maybe he changed his mind and restarted production anyway.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #130 on: 07/08/2017 03:36 PM »
In the year 2010:

That's weird. The last news update on the website was May 2014 which it was going back then. Why keep the website going for six years if the facilities burnt down? Maybe he changed his mind and restarted production anyway.

Was there a German producer for Gilmour?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12052
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2634
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #131 on: 07/10/2017 09:30 AM »
Was there a German producer for Gilmour?

Yes. They bought 10 t of HTP from Germany for $125K. I don't know who the supplier is though.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online Davidthefat

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #132 on: 07/11/2017 04:12 AM »
Arca claiming to be "world's first flight operational aerospike rocket engine"

Too bad CSULB and Garvey had one of those flights back in '03
http://web.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/ae/rockets/aerospike/ft-1/flight-1.htm


Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 381
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #133 on: 07/11/2017 07:52 AM »


At least these guys are actually doing something!!  :)

Arca claiming to be "world's first flight operational aerospike rocket engine"

Too bad CSULB and Garvey had one of those flights back in '03
http://web.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/ae/rockets/aerospike/ft-1/flight-1.htm

There's a rider in this episode stressing that their linear aerospike is to be the first "to space", presumably to counter that argument?

« Last Edit: 07/11/2017 07:59 AM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • Houston
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #134 on: 07/13/2017 10:57 PM »
The Garvey launch was an aerospike, but it was not linear. I think that's the distinction. But you're right, it didn't make it to space, either.

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5045
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #135 on: 07/16/2017 01:42 AM »
Isp (SL): 230 s
Isp (vac): 314 s

Because of wonderfully convoluted presentation of all this, all of this is getting mixed up and looks borderline credible.

This is for the "Demonstrator 3" ( why 3 ? ) rocket
Quote
ARCA: We have 92s at sea level and 124s in vacuum, with a chamber pressure of 16 atm. This is enough to carry a payload of 30kg up to 100 km altitude.

70% peroxide monoprop, chamber temperature at 250C ...

Wonder what kind of catalyst pack would one need here...
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #136 on: 07/16/2017 07:57 AM »
Latest video:-



There seem to be 3 core guys and a lot of ladies floating around in the periphery doing video and cutesy amateur work.

I don't know if I buy any of this. Basically they are just doing a lot of low-cost GRP fabrication. It takes a lot more than that to get to any kind of launch vehicle. Even the electronics are not much more than an Arduino project.

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 381
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #137 on: 07/17/2017 06:22 AM »
I don't know if I buy any of this. Basically they are just doing a lot of low-cost GRP fabrication. It takes a lot more than that to get to any kind of launch vehicle. Even the electronics are not much more than an Arduino project.

Well.. DP was very specific in that clip saying "it will be launched in August 2017".  That's not long to wait. :)
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #138 on: 07/17/2017 07:26 AM »
I don't know if I buy any of this. Basically they are just doing a lot of low-cost GRP fabrication. It takes a lot more than that to get to any kind of launch vehicle. Even the electronics are not much more than an Arduino project.

Well.. DP was very specific in that clip saying "it will be launched in August 2017".  That's not long to wait. :)

I have a strong suspicion we'll be waiting longer than the end of August 2017.

Offline ziceva

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Bucharest
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #139 on: 07/17/2017 02:00 PM »
Even the electronics are not much more than an Arduino project.

This week we definetly saw a Raspberry Pi ... Arduino is so yesterday ... if we are lucky next week we are going to see a Teensy also ...

On a more serious note, those really are hobby electronics that have a questionable robustness when sitting nicely on a table for more than a few hours ... when shaken and stirred during a launch, would you trust them even with the most inexpesive nanosat?
IANARS, but as an automations engineer I know that you wouldn't use such equipment on a factory floor on Earth, let alone in space ...

I would say that we should wait and see .. but ...

I have a strong suspicion we'll be waiting longer than the end of August 2017.

Like forever ...

PS. Yeah, they are my countrymen, but boy do they dissapoint ...

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 273
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #140 on: 07/17/2017 02:57 PM »
On a more serious note, those really are hobby electronics that have a questionable robustness when sitting nicely on a table for more than a few hours ... when shaken and stirred during a launch, would you trust them even with the most inexpesive nanosat?
IANARS, but as an automations engineer I know that you wouldn't use such equipment on a factory floor on Earth, let alone in space ...
I happen to know for a fact that an arduino can operate successfully through a suborbital rocket launch. Granted, that was a payload where failure was acceptable, and I would have had serious doubts about the rocket if its electronics were similar.

(I still agree this is one of the multiple red flags this company is showing)

Online LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #141 on: 07/23/2017 10:39 PM »
Hey guys I have been following around ARCA for some time as well. Was checking to see if there was another video posted this week as they were supposed to complete the engine structure and looks like they still haven't uploaded anything. Though maybe they had a setback but then I ran across this on the Facebook page:












They are also offering to send your stuff for free as part of the test flight and having a competition. They do warn it could get destroyed.

EDIT: Nevermind. Looks like it's up:
« Last Edit: 07/24/2017 07:41 PM by LooksFlyable »

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #142 on: 07/25/2017 04:24 PM »
It works only with H2O2 ?.
And the kerosene ?.
« Last Edit: 07/25/2017 04:25 PM by josespeck »

Offline Ictogan

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Germany
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #143 on: 07/25/2017 04:37 PM »
It works only with H2O2 ?.
And the kerosene ?.
Demonstrator 3 will be a monoprop rocket. No kerosene involved.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2042
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #144 on: 07/25/2017 11:46 PM »
They are searching for investors on Facebook and hinting, that their stock can only gain value and not lose, regardless of the flight of their Demonstrator-3.

https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/posts/10156397089038332

« Last Edit: 07/25/2017 11:47 PM by Skyrocket »

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 381
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #145 on: 07/26/2017 03:15 AM »
Quote
Any failures encountered during launch will not result in a loss of stock value, as we are a well established company.

That's a mighty strange thing to say.  Unless they have a profitable sideline making and selling widgets somewhere, or some filthy-rich investor willing to under-write all expenses with no impact to any other investor, the money to pay for failures (and current on-going 'experiments' like Demonstrator-3) has to come from somewhere.  ???
« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 03:19 AM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Online LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #146 on: 07/26/2017 04:50 PM »
Quote
Any failures encountered during launch will not result in a loss of stock value, as we are a well established company.

That's a mighty strange thing to say.  Unless they have a profitable sideline making and selling widgets somewhere, or some filthy-rich investor willing to under-write all expenses with no impact to any other investor, the money to pay for failures (and current on-going 'experiments' like Demonstrator-3) has to come from somewhere.  ???

I think they are saying the success or failure of the Demonstrator 3 test itself, which is a test flight of a very cheap expendable test rocket, isn't going to really affect the company's value long term. If they make their timeline, they will have built and launched an entire suborbital rocket in the time it takes most companies to build a test engine, so I have to give them credit there. I would honestly hope it doesn't affect them. Tests are usually a sign of positive progress whether they go boom or not. If it was an actual commercial rocket taking a commercial payload it might be a different story. But a test of an expendable rocket is rarely a complete failure no matter what happens to the rocket. I guess your computers could crash during the test and you don't get to learn anything, which would be bad.

Since they plan on making them expendable their "tests" really began the day they started producing it. How long it takes, how to build it, all of that is part of the test of building expendable rockets that's meant to be produced in large volumes, really fast. I gotta say, if they can really pull off the August launch date that has to be some kind of record of going from paper rocket to launch. Maybe it's just me, but that seems really freaking fast. I know it's a very simple rocket, but still, definitely not what I am used to when following companies who build rockets. "Here's a new rocket design we drew up, we're going to launch it in 3 months!" I honestly thought it was a mistake and meant 2018, because it seemed like such a crazy timeline.

« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 04:51 PM by LooksFlyable »

Offline RDMM2081

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #147 on: 07/26/2017 05:00 PM »
I'm no expert, but promising a stock "can't go down" seems dubious at best, illegal at worst.

And of course #ItsATest, but there are really two options to how they fail that test.  If there is some material flaw in the engine they are testing, they have a bad day, Oh well, try again.  If they try, and the data they get from the test is drastically different from their model of what performance they think their aerospike engine design should have, that could shake them very badly.  This is a much less likely option, but this is why tests are done, and it is an option...

Edit to add: I wish them luck, they are an exciting company to watch, and I even did consider buying a handful of shares for a giggle...
« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 05:04 PM by RDMM2081 »

Online LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #148 on: 07/26/2017 05:16 PM »
I'm no expert, but promising a stock "can't go down" seems dubious at best, illegal at worst.

And of course #ItsATest, but there are really two options to how they fail that test.  If there is some material flaw in the engine they are testing, they have a bad day, Oh well, try again.  If they try, and the data they get from the test is drastically different from their model of what performance they think their aerospike engine design should have, that could shake them very badly.  This is a much less likely option, but this is why tests are done, and it is an option...

Edit to add: I wish them luck, they are an exciting company to watch, and I even did consider buying a handful of shares for a giggle...

I am thinking about it too. I have been following them a long time, haven't really pulled off anything yet, but I just see it more from the perspective of persistence. They should have been dead a long time ago. At least 100 times over. Yet they just won't go away. Immigrated a rocket company to the USA and started over. That's gotta be a first and even harder than it sounds. Stooped as low as Arcaboard and skateboards with the cringiest videos I have ever had to endure just to make a buck to keep going. I mean, somehow, he gets around. I just get the feeling he really wants a rocket bad to fly to space and he's willing to go to any length to make that happen, which could be a good thing, or a very bad, dangerous, thing. Still debating it. Rocketlab did go from 0 to a billion in 5 years, and I'd be helping a rocket company, so I guess it wouldn't be the worst way I ever threw away some money.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 05:17 PM by LooksFlyable »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #149 on: 07/26/2017 07:02 PM »
Think of it as kickstarter donation. If you get luck it might buy you a suborbital seat.

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 381
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #150 on: 07/28/2017 01:02 AM »
I am thinking about it too. I have been following them a long time, haven't really pulled off anything yet, but I just see it more from the perspective of persistence. They should have been dead a long time ago. At least 100 times over. Yet they just won't go away. Immigrated a rocket company to the USA and started over. That's gotta be a first and even harder than it sounds. Stooped as low as Arcaboard and skateboards with the cringiest videos I have ever had to endure just to make a buck to keep going. I mean, somehow, he gets around. I just get the feeling he really wants a rocket bad to fly to space and he's willing to go to any length to make that happen, which could be a good thing, or a very bad, dangerous, thing. ...

If you'd really like to know the back-story, have a read of How to Make a Spaceship by Julian Guthrie:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Make-Spaceship-Renegades-Spaceflight/dp/1594206724
He devotes more than a few pages to Mr Popescu and his determination to succeed..
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 01:03 AM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #151 on: 07/28/2017 06:31 AM »
I'm no expert, but promising a stock "can't go down" seems dubious at best, illegal at worst.

Nobody can guarantee a stock won't go to zero, not even the wizards of Wall Street, as all those super-smart employee shareholders in Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers found out in 2008. Bear Sterns had $18B in cash reserves on Monday 10 March and just $3.5B by Thursday. By Friday they didn't have enough cash to continue trading and the firm itself was worthless. Literally all the trading/analysts/management employees with stock went from multi-multi-millionaires to hard luck stories in 4 days, and most of them didn't see it coming fast enough to bail out.



The SEC actually puts out a warning note for social media-based investment schemes:

The promise of “guaranteed” returns.

Every investment entails some level of risk, which is reflected in the rate of return you can expect to receive. If your investment is 100% safe, you’ll most likely get a low return. Most fraudsters spend a lot of time trying to convince investors that extremely high returns are “guaranteed” or that the investment is a “can’t miss opportunity.” Don’t believe it.

https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/ia_socialmediafraud.html

Quote
I even did consider buying a handful of shares for a giggle...

Hey I have some magic seeds for sale, only $201.35 each. If you buy 100 I give you 100 special super magic seeds (certified *GENUINE* 114% magic content by the American Magic Seed Assay Corp. of New Orleans) for free. Let me send you my Western Union number....
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 06:39 AM by ringsider »

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #152 on: 08/03/2017 05:56 PM »

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
  • Canada
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #153 on: 08/03/2017 09:33 PM »
"I'm no expert, but promising a stock "can't go down" seems dubious at best, illegal at worst."

Unless your stock is already worth zero, I suppose.  What does the ticker say at the moment?

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #154 on: 08/06/2017 11:44 AM »
"Accusations are flying that ESA’s ExoMars Schiaparelli lander crashed into the Red Planet due to poor ground testing conducted by a Romanian company named ARCA Space."

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/11/28/arca-space-blame-failure-esas-exomars-lander/
« Last Edit: 08/06/2017 11:44 AM by ringsider »

Offline Craftyatom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Software!
  • Arizona, USA
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 1297
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #155 on: 08/06/2017 05:17 PM »
"Accusations are flying that ESA’s ExoMars Schiaparelli lander crashed into the Red Planet due to poor ground testing conducted by a Romanian company named ARCA Space."

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/11/28/arca-space-blame-failure-esas-exomars-lander/

Quote from: Dumitru Popescu, ARCA Space Corporation manager
We are at ease that we did all we could do: to run a specific test we should have flown very closely to the Russian base in Sevastopol. Russia has just annexed Crimea and we risked generating a conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO.

I'll admit, it's not an excuse I've heard before.  "We couldn't perform the test properly because if we had it might've started a war."

Which then begs the question (among others): if they couldn't perform the test properly, why was ESA content with their results?  Did ARCA fail to make clear that they weren't performing a high-fidelity test, or did ESA know about it and accept the risk?  Very interesting.
All aboard the HSF hype train!  Choo Choo!

Online LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #156 on: 08/09/2017 01:53 AM »
This week's episode is up.

Flight of the Aerospike: Episode 8 Feed System Components

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #157 on: 08/15/2017 11:03 AM »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3647
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 797
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #158 on: 08/26/2017 12:15 AM »
Quote
The test tank and the feed system are assembled and ready for aerospike engine integration.

https://twitter.com/arcaspace/status/901225667760672768

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 232
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #159 on: 08/26/2017 06:09 PM »
Just an observation - I have done a fair amount of aviation/space payload prototype and integration work - it is required in the US to use A/N (Army/Navy) series certified fasteners on anything that flies, it is also possible to use black oxide coated fasteners if they are documented - I have never, ever seen chromed fasteners on any flight hardware.

Offline xyv

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • South of Vandenberg
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #160 on: 08/27/2017 01:31 AM »
Not to worry.  The only flying this test stand vehicle will do is in pieces.  This seriously reminds me of a low cost infrared camera Indigogo project (muoptics) that several of us in (that) industry watched as they struggled to not be just a scam.  In the end they failed because they were seriously in over their head.  Interestingly enough the founder also owned an animation production company which helped with the money raising at least.  Plenty of frequent video status updates with weak looking lab equipment too.

Offline JCRM

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Great Britain
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #161 on: 08/27/2017 07:56 AM »
He's test-fired and flown two other HTP rockets, and I assume they've already pressure tested their tank so I think this test will probably work (produce some thrust) once they actually get their propellant, and I think the Demonstrator 3 will leave its rail

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2381
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #162 on: 08/27/2017 08:47 AM »
I have been following them a long time, haven't really pulled off anything yet, but I just see it more from the perspective of persistence.

Persistence by means of misleading gullible people is not admirable in my book.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3647
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 797
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #163 on: 09/03/2017 06:24 PM »
Quote
Demonstrator 3 rocket design was updated by moving the aerospike engine reaction chambers on the airframe exterior.

https://twitter.com/arcaspace/status/904376510538178561

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4410
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1347
  • Likes Given: 801
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #164 on: 09/03/2017 10:53 PM »
Flight of the Aerospike: Episode 10 - Engine Test Tank Casting

ARCA Space Corporation
Published on Aug 21, 2017


After meeting with the propellant supplier, the schedule for the Demonstrator 3 is reassessed. Work continues on the tank and stand for the test article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADPmCkF0n8?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4410
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1347
  • Likes Given: 801
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #165 on: 09/03/2017 10:55 PM »
Flight of the Aerospike: Episode 11 - Tank Mold Extraction

ARCA Space Corporation
Published on Aug 28, 2017

On this week's episode, Dumitru speaks to the local commissioners in support of MVEDA, a local economic development organization. The mold of the test article propellant tank is removed from the final structure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5-hC8wtjO0?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4410
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1347
  • Likes Given: 801
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #166 on: 09/03/2017 10:56 PM »
Flight of the Aerospike: Episode 12 - Thrust Frame

ARCA Space Corporation
Published on Sep 3, 2017

This week, development of the test stand continues, including the construction of a thrust frame that will be used to measure the thrust alignment of the aerospike engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxsxnpD_p8k?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3647
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 797
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #167 on: 09/10/2017 02:50 PM »
Quote
ARCA assembled the test stand with the aerospike engine for the Demonstrator 3 rocket.

https://twitter.com/arcaspace/status/906846230457630720

Offline josespeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #168 on: 09/13/2017 05:22 PM »
Welding with long sleeve. ;D ;D


Online LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #169 on: 09/20/2017 11:43 PM »
So I ended up investing in ARCA and got to know the team a little bit. I actually have an amazing story to tell, but maybe I will leave that for another day. Don't want to jinx it.

There is always a level of risk like with any other investment but for those of you like me that were already on the fence about it, I just wanted to give you a heads up, and say, now might be a really good time.  In the process of learning how I could go about doing it, I contacted the SEC, the NM securities division and a corporate attorney, and as long as you have a company in New Mexico or you are a NM resident, or foreign citizen, you should be ok to invest even as a non-accredited investor. If you research the rules and regulations, you can probably find this out for yourself. If you do the research, you will find out NM doesn't actually require a company to have a NM address in order to be registered in NM and it's pretty easy to set up your own company nowadays so if you had planned on starting a company anyway, NM might be a good place. That's all I am going to say about that.

Why I decided to go through with it? I did it for these reasons:

1. I love space and small space companies with big dreams. Wish more average people had the opportunity to invest in more of them.

2. An average person typically never gets to invest in a space company at this early of a stage. By the time a company goes to IPO you typically already miss out on the largest returns. Because of that, I saw it as a risk worth taking and once in a lifetime opportunity for me. Even on a small investment, there is the potential of large returns.

3. Even though I grew up in the USA, I was born in Romania, so they're also my countrymen and I just want to support them, and I have followed them for a decade. There probably isn't a single person in Romania that wouldn't call someone crazy if they said, "I want to build a rocket company". It's just not something someone dreams about doing.  Everybody knows starting a rocket company is hard enough in the USA, but in Romania? You pretty much have to be nuts to try it and good luck trying to find any real support. Yet here they are. After more than a decade, still here. Was a smart move to finally move the company to the US though.

4. I didn't know much about investing, but I do have a professional finance background, and I do know it's probably not the worst idea to bet on companies that might be undervalued. I asked myself, how do I think any aerospace company should be worth?  Even the smallest, especially those that have been around for 10 years. I'll leave it at that.

Can't really disclose any more details than that about the investment or ARCA's future plans and I can't give you any investment advice, but if you have any other questions, feel free to PM me and I'll try to answer what I can.

I am also interested in finding people that might be interested in helping me develop a space-related website and bouncing off ideas.

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 381
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #170 on: 09/21/2017 02:08 AM »
Demonstrator 3 Aerospike - Ready for Testing




EDIT: 
Quote
yes, the launch will be open to the public
« Last Edit: 09/21/2017 02:11 AM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline RDMM2081

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #171 on: 09/21/2017 03:38 AM »
Demonstrator 3 Aerospike - Ready for Testing




EDIT: 
Quote
yes, the launch will be open to the public

Anyone else notice the (new?) graphic at the end with a shadowy outline of a ~Falcon9 sized ARCA rocket? :o

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 381
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #172 on: 09/21/2017 04:01 AM »
When asked the question, Arca's response to that was:
Quote
Just a teaser. 😉 We will release details about it in the future

..so I guess only time will tell exactly what that means.

With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12052
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2634
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #173 on: 09/21/2017 08:05 AM »
Anyone else notice the (new?) graphic at the end with a shadowy outline of a ~Falcon9 sized ARCA rocket? :o

You're not a rocket scientist worth their salt unless you dream big! :-) Surprised they are not using a common bulkhead, as you get significant mass savings there. With HTP/RP-1 a single wall can be used, so its not that expensive.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Israel
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #174 on: 09/21/2017 09:39 AM »
So I ended up investing in ARCA and got to know the team a little bit.
...
Did you read this thread before making that investment?
If so, what gave you the confidence in their ability to execute, in spite of the skepticism shown here?
"If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. "
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Offline coypu76

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Southeast US
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #175 on: 09/21/2017 11:34 AM »
The only real question about this ARCA bunch is about Dmitru Popescu: how smart is he really?  Is he a testament to the Dunning-Kruger effect, or more like the unreformed Frank Abagnale when he was a kid, clever enough to think he could actually get away with the game he was playing.

As for the employees there's a similar but slightly different question:  Are they sincere dreamers in over their head or are are they fellow schemers in on the game?

Those remain questions we can pose, but one thing we can affirm with a fair degree of certitude:  this is not a serious space flight operation.  Whether they are actually aware of it is a matter of conjecture.


« Last Edit: 09/21/2017 11:39 AM by coypu76 »

Online LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #176 on: 09/21/2017 12:22 PM »
So I ended up investing in ARCA and got to know the team a little bit.
...
Did you read this thread before making that investment?
If so, what gave you the confidence in their ability to execute, in spite of the skepticism shown here?

Oh yes, I absolutely understand the skepticism. Like I said, I have been following ARCA for over a decade. I have been at times their biggest critic. I have a great story to tell one day of why I basically had to invest but like I said, now is not the time. I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch so I am not going to say everything now. One of the biggest problems is a culture barrier, where ARCA is going to have to slowly adjust to correctly presenting themselves in order not to hurt their image. And I think they have shown that recently. So they came out maybe a bit iffy at times in the past with some of the videos and products, but that will fix itself in time. It's definitely because of that, and not because of anything else.

If you are talking about execution as in the Demonstrator 3, I'm crossing my fingers like any other ARCA fan, sure. That's the thing, though, isn't it? Musk doesn't execute. He hires the right people to do that for him and to learn from them. It's the SpaceX engineers that are the unsung heroes. He dreams up things, he had the money, they execute and in turn teach him things. Luckily ARCA won't have to compete for everyone else's engineers since their tech is completely different and hopefully funding will prove successful in order to hire the right people.  But really, the CEO's job is not typically to get on your hands and knees and sweat making tanks, it's to plan a path and lead your team to follow your vision.

 If that's the type of execution we are talking about then, yeah I think Dumitru has proven he has what it takes to overcome difficulties, even start over, completely change directions when it was the right thing to do, and truly started something from 0. I think those are all important qualities. And that is really a big one. Whether a CEO is willing to listen to everyone's opinions, and take everything into consideration, and make changes for the better of the company and I can tell you he does. All I know is I honestly can't think of any other rocket manufacturer that has really started from 0. If he can do that and go from 0 to a $20 million company under the most extreme of circumstances, it's not that big of a leap of faith to believe he can do a lot better in the USA.

The truth is I would have invested in most of them, but I couldn't invest in SpaceX, I couldn't invest in RocketLab, I probably can't invest in a lot of the other ones I like, like Accion. But I could invest in ARCA and I felt I had to invest in ARCA. That makes it pretty easy to decide.

I also recently found out they share the same vision I do about the most efficient ways to launch rockets which emboldened my decision but that's all I can say about that. Sometimes cool things lurk in shadows...

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4410
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1347
  • Likes Given: 801
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #177 on: 09/23/2017 04:35 AM »
Flight of the Aerospike: Episode 14 - Open House at ARCA

ARCA Space Corporation
Published on Sep 22, 2017


This week, the load cells are integrated into the test stand, Michael explains the testing that will be done leading up to the engine test, and ARCA hosts an open house event to showcase recent developments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHowUYCEtvQ?t=001

Tony De La Rosa

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #178 on: 09/23/2017 04:57 AM »
If that's the type of execution we are talking about then, yeah I think Dumitru has proven he has what it takes to overcome difficulties, even start over, completely change directions when it was the right thing to do, and truly started something from 0.
Change to SSTO after messed up a standard turbopump design ?

Online LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #179 on: 09/23/2017 11:42 AM »
If that's the type of execution we are talking about then, yeah I think Dumitru has proven he has what it takes to overcome difficulties, even start over, completely change directions when it was the right thing to do, and truly started something from 0.
Change to SSTO after messed up a standard turbopump design ?

I am not familiar with that but I must say you are the first person I hear refer to a rocket engine turbo pump as a trivial matter.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #180 on: 09/23/2017 12:48 PM »
If that's the type of execution we are talking about then, yeah I think Dumitru has proven he has what it takes to overcome difficulties, even start over, completely change directions when it was the right thing to do, and truly started something from 0.
Change to SSTO after messed up a standard turbopump design ?

I am not familiar with that but I must say you are the first person I hear refer to a rocket engine turbo pump as a trivial matter.
So how do you think of SSTO?

Online LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Reply #181 on: 09/23/2017 08:11 PM »
If that's the type of execution we are talking about then, yeah I think Dumitru has proven he has what it takes to overcome difficulties, even start over, completely change directions when it was the right thing to do, and truly started something from 0.
Change to SSTO after messed up a standard turbopump design ?

I am not familiar with that but I must say you are the first person I hear refer to a rocket engine turbo pump as a trivial matter.
So how do you think of SSTO?

Are you asking me if I think it's trivial? No.

Tags: