Author Topic: Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)  (Read 402039 times)

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #580 on: 08/05/2017 07:41 am »
About 10 seconds of flight here, before it disappears into the clouds:

https://twitter.com/astrodigitalgeo/status/893539892352831489

EDIT: also, sounds like engine shut down at around 10 second mark.

CFR §101.25   Operating limitations for Class 2-High Power Rockets and Class 3-Advanced High Power Rockets.

When operating Class 2-High Power Rockets or Class 3-Advanced High Power Rockets, you must comply with the General Operating Limitations of §101.23. In addition, you must not operate Class 2-High Power Rockets or Class 3-Advanced High Power Rockets—

(a) At any altitude where clouds or obscuring phenomena of more than five-tenths coverage prevails;

(b) At any altitude where the horizontal visibility is less than five miles;

(c) Into any cloud;

Offline Propylox

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #581 on: 08/05/2017 03:18 pm »
I'd like to congratulate VectorSS on their recent test flight, even though its rocket design and "hobbyist" flight parameters seemed oriented only toward operations development and PR/investors. Is VectorSS a half-hearted garage company, a streamlined launch provider or something in between? I've quoted previous points below that address the direction and viability of VectorSS.

And it may simply be out of range for a "garage based" operation, no matter the brilliance of some ideas. The romantic notion that any idea can be hatched and executed in a garage if you just work hard enough may not be realistic. At some point the needs of the operation will require an upgrade in resources and facilities.
The whole point of Vector is as an opposite to RL. That you can start off with garage shop stuff, get 90% of the way there with it, having garage shop costs accumulating over less than a few years, then a fraction of a year at 2-5x of higher costing to refine what you're missing, and have a vehicle with a radically lower cost structure. ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garage level development may get you orbital prototype but gearing up for large scale low cost production and launch requires large capital outlay. RL recent fund raising round was for volume production facilities.
Nobody will get to orbit or an orbital prototype with 'garage level development' and neither will Vector, by their own statements. They have stated the intent of hiring hundreds of people over next few years. That's not a garage.
Not really disputing you, but why do you say that? I don't think you'd get a very reliable launch vehicle from garage-level development but I can't see why you can't get to orbit. Paul Breed is making a serious attempt.
Because it's a relatively complex engineering problem, that takes a certain number of manhours of diverse engineering skills to be put into it.  On top of that, it's not a trivial operational and regulatory problem either. Unless you can license or buy large parts of the design off the shelf, like engines or avionics, there is just that amount of work needs to be done, there aren't many shortcuts.
SpaceX was around 500 people when they finally reached orbit, around 100 when they first tried. ... You can obviously do better, but as of today there aren't many ways of doing drastically better.
There isn't a "certain number" of hours. Nothing in physics says "well, they only put 20,000 man hours in instead of the requisite 500,000, so no orbit this time."
This is lazy thinking. It's still usually true, but not actually a certainty.

Specifically, I'm curious if VectorSS has the ingenuity, business acumen and intellectual base to develop and field a launch service without substantially expanding their company. This would dependent on a small number of brilliant minds, as well as strategic decisions production and on dual-use components. I this regard, I disagree with savoporo's assertion high number of engineers, manhours and investment is required for viability as history is full of examples of individuals besting entire industries and behemoth conglomerates in similar manner.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #582 on: 08/05/2017 03:26 pm »
Quote
Agenda next week: another first;2nd stage static engine test this time in Tucson! Busy two weeks for us at Vector stay tuned! #NewSpaceRace

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/893851505811349504

Offline imprezive

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #583 on: 08/05/2017 03:49 pm »
Specifically, I'm curious if VectorSS has the ingenuity, business acumen and intellectual base to develop and field a launch service without substantially expanding their company. This would dependent on a small number of brilliant minds, as well as strategic decisions production and on dual-use components. I this regard, I disagree with savoporo's assertion high number of engineers, manhours and investment is required for viability as history is full of examples of individuals besting entire industries and behemoth conglomerates in similar manner.

I'm curious what examples of an individual/really small team upending a heavy manufacturing industry you are thinking of? (That comes across as sarcasm/being an asshole but it's not intended to be, I'm genuinely curious).

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #584 on: 08/05/2017 05:51 pm »


I'm curious what examples of an individual/really small team upending a heavy manufacturing industry you are thinking of? (That comes across as sarcasm/being an asshole but it's not intended to be, I'm genuinely curious).
Off the top of my head -- I'd submit Wernher von Braun educating the US on rocketry, developing Redstone, those lessons leading to Atlas and Titan, and delivering the Moon.

Well you could argue that he did it after the US helped him ship his entire team and about 300 train wagons of gear to White Sands. And all his knowledge was built with the backing of the Nazi regime, which gave him amazing resources. So that's not a great example.

Quote
Techies would submit, among plenty of examples, the four-man team that developed Android and sold it to Google.

Which was based of Linux, which is actually a much better example of one guy changing everything.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #585 on: 08/05/2017 06:25 pm »
Here’s a quote that will warm your heart from Jim Cantrell:
@jamesncantrell  12h ago
“I have bug bites on my scalp after joining search for @vectorspacesys rocket yesterday in @CamdenSpaceport jungle w/ gators snakes & pigs” alongside a picture of an alligator he must have seen in the Camden "jungle."

They also posted a picture of a wild hog running by the rocket at the launch pad during their delay. Did they drive 1969 miles so they could launch with our pigs and alligators? I think these desert boys were quite surprised about Camden's wilderness!!!!

Welcome to the Georgia Coast.  :)

http://visitcoastalgeorgia.org/

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #586 on: 08/05/2017 06:30 pm »
I'm curious what examples of an individual/really small team upending a heavy manufacturing industry you are thinking of? (That comes across as sarcasm/being an asshole but it's not intended to be, I'm genuinely curious).
Off the top of my head -- I'd submit Wernher von Braun educating the US on rocketry, developing Redstone, those lessons leading to Atlas and Titan, and delivering the Moon.
Army Ordnance Corps started with 127 individuals and a functioning V2 rocket, helped to maturity by years of Nazi slave labor. Took the backing of entire country and tens of thousands of talented hands and minds to get to the moon. Great .. example.

Quote
I'd submit the brilliant young engineer E. Gifford Emery who single-handedly developed the B-17 in 11mos, only reason Boeing exists today.
I'm not sure where you read your aviation history, but without Claire Egtvedt, legendary senior engineers like Charles Monteith and Bob Minshall, other young talent like Ed Wells, full workforce of Boeing Airplane Company, solid backing by USAAC and many other contributors B-17 wouldn't have existed. Emery didn't do anything "single-handedly".

Quote
Techies would submit, among plenty of examples, the four-man team that developed Android and sold it to Google.
Come on, software ? Plus, Android wasn't much of anything at the time it was sold. It took Google many years and big teams to turn it into a viable platform.

Quote
..Which was based of Linux, which is actually a much better example of one guy changing everything.
Linus designed a kernel which isn't much good for anything on its own. Without GNU userspace on top and initially dozens and now literally tens of thousands of contributors in kernel space it wouldn't be a thing. What Linus "changed" is establishing a well functioning nucleus and nurturing a model for .. coordinating contributions endless manhours under this "Linux" umbrella.

rant: I'm not sure where this push of discounting hard work of talented people and teams comes from. I've seen faulty logic along the lines of "look at this big project that was well funded and resources and it failed. This must mean that hard work and sufficient resources aren't necessary for success!"
« Last Edit: 08/05/2017 06:39 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Propylox

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #587 on: 08/05/2017 08:47 pm »
I'm curious what examples of an individual/really small team upending a heavy manufacturing industry you are thinking of? (That comes across as sarcasm/being an asshole but it's not intended to be, I'm genuinely curious).
After a little more thought, I'd submit;
  Inventors; Preeminent, political, tech investor Edison's power grid lost to inventor Tesla's AC design. Eli Whitney's cotton gin revolutionized production and replaced all previous methods. Sam Colt made all men equal with the invention of the revolver to become the primary manufacturer. Motorhead and bike builder Glenn Curtiss developed the first self-powered flight and all early developments of aircraft design, control and production while the patent troll and conartist Wrights looked for investors and royalties. Roving gasoholic Bob Lutz saved multiple car companies from oblivion. Apple was the original technology populists and garage band.
  Scientists; This is a huge list dating back millennia, including Galileo and Copernicus for their correction of collective idiocy, Maxwell for recognizing electric and magnetic fields are one, and Einstein for recognizing mass and energy are one.
  Sociology; Individuals are the only true drivers like Mahatma Ghandhi, Che Guevera, Martin Luther King and Donald Trump overthrowing massive establishments. Religions are overthrown by individuals like Jesus, Buddah and Mohammad. Note - Let's not discuss these figures.
These examples are not applicable to VectorSS, but they may still be capable of reimagining the rocket's design, production and wisely selecting what to manufacture, to outsourced, and what off-the-shelf components can be repurposed (the "maker" approach). I'm wondering if anyone else thinks they have the mind/s to do it, or if they must compensate with quantity of minds, money and manhours.
In any system, including evolution itself, progress does not come from large institutions and collectivism. These can only offer something new, sometimes worse - sometimes better, while great advancements come from small groups and individuals. I ask if VectorSS, or any of the other rocketry garage bands have such individuals, or if they're just doing what everyone else is and have no real chance at success.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2017 08:53 pm by Propylox »

Offline imprezive

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #588 on: 08/06/2017 12:09 am »
After a little more thought, I'd submit;
  Inventors; Preeminent, political, tech investor Edison's power grid lost to inventor Tesla's AC design. Eli Whitney's cotton gin revolutionized production and replaced all previous methods. Sam Colt made all men equal with the invention of the revolver to become the primary manufacturer. Motorhead and bike builder Glenn Curtiss developed the first self-powered flight and all early developments of aircraft design, control and production while the patent troll and conartist Wrights looked for investors and royalties. Roving gasoholic Bob Lutz saved multiple car companies from oblivion. Apple was the original technology populists and garage band.
  Scientists; This is a huge list dating back millennia, including Galileo and Copernicus for their correction of collective idiocy, Maxwell for recognizing electric and magnetic fields are one, and Einstein for recognizing mass and energy are one.
  Sociology; Individuals are the only true drivers like Mahatma Ghandhi, Che Guevera, Martin Luther King and Donald Trump overthrowing massive establishments. Religions are overthrown by individuals like Jesus, Buddah and Mohammad. Note - Let's not discuss these figures.
These examples are not applicable to VectorSS, but they may still be capable of reimagining the rocket's design, production and wisely selecting what to manufacture, to outsourced, and what off-the-shelf components can be repurposed (the "maker" approach). I'm wondering if anyone else thinks they have the mind/s to do it, or if they must compensate with quantity of minds, money and manhours.
In any system, including evolution itself, progress does not come from large institutions and collectivism. These can only offer something new, sometimes worse - sometimes better, while great advancements come from small groups and individuals. I ask if VectorSS, or any of the other rocketry garage bands have such individuals, or if they're just doing what everyone else is and have no real chance at success.

First of all, I appreciate the thought that went into your answers. However. Edison was the creator of the industrial research park and had over 5,000 employees and obviously Tesla worked there. Tesla then started his own lab then of course hired a bunch of his own employees. Curtiss had 21,000 employees by 1916. Bob Lutz worked for GM which has tens of thousands of employees. All those people ran the industrial giants of their time.

Secondly, yes there are a lot of scientists and programmers that create kernels of ideas with small teams. However almost all of those still have to scale rapidly to be a commercial success. Snapchat has almost 2,000 employees and they put electronic filters on photos. Similarly of course leaders as individuals can effective huge change but they do it through the convincing of masses of people.

I didn't necessarily mean to drag this so OT but there is certainly a romantic notion that individuals upend entire industries by working out of their garage. That's just not based in reality. Some great ideas start at that scale but I don't know of any heavy manufactured product that has been a commercial success without access to large amounts of capital and talent to scale that idea. Point being Vector is going to need a factory and at least a few hundred people to have any chance of success.  They only thing that would enable them to avoid that is a crazy amount of manufacturing automation which they haven't even attempted let alone have some kind of novel step change approach to.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2017 12:10 am by imprezive »

Offline Propylox

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #589 on: 08/06/2017 12:09 am »
-snips-
According to the NOTAM, Vector was only approved to 5,500 feet but I saw the engine flameout at about 10 seconds which was probably about 1,200-1,500 feet. A back of the envelope calculation indicated that they might not have reached 200mph. Not only did they veer well off target (their video was clear on that), but to make things worse, they must have had a hard landing.
...
The attached file is the spot they launched from and is validated from their video. The rocket began to curve westerly almost as soon as it left the launch pad.
...
Beyond the promotional value for the proposed Spaceport Camden, Vector and their customer, it is hard to see what advancement was made by launching an unguided Class 3 amateur to a tiny fraction of the altitude and velocity needed to orbit.
This being the second of up to six test flights culminating in an orbital launch, does anyone expect the next to have an avionics package and articulating engine? That's really the point where a hobbyist rocket becomes a real one, even before VectorSS starts mounting their 2nd stage.
Will their launches be limited to 3,000m until avionics are added (not familiar with hobbyist rules) and will SOP be to run like he[[ from a wayward liquid rocket?

Offline Craftyatom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
  • Software!
  • Arizona, USA
  • Liked: 720
  • Likes Given: 9169
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #590 on: 08/06/2017 05:42 pm »
This being the second of up to six test flights culminating in an orbital launch, does anyone expect the next to have an avionics package and articulating engine? That's really the point where a hobbyist rocket becomes a real one, even before VectorSS starts mounting their 2nd stage.

Vector has confirmed that their next test will have TVC, and thus presumably be able to fly in a straight line:
Quote from: Vector Space Systems Twitter
Will be under the same FAA waiver as Camden lots of good engineering can be had at low altitudes. Block 0.003 will feature thrust vectoring
https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/893875895563206656
All aboard the HSF hype train!  Choo Choo!

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #591 on: 08/12/2017 12:03 am »
Quote
First ever remote test & our very first engine test at the proposed new Vector factory location in Tucson, AZ #Tucson

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/896109209959321600

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #592 on: 08/12/2017 12:27 am »
Quote
Video of todays successful prototype 2nd stage engine test in Tucson, AZ

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/896121051985231873

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Liked: 448
  • Likes Given: 251
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #593 on: 08/19/2017 06:42 am »
Quote
Highlight video of the historic first launch at @CamdenSpaceport of our Vector-R prototype block 0.002 on August 3rd



Again I'm amazed they think nothing about showing OSHA violations in their promotional videos...
Working from a pallet on a forklift is not a good practice!

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #594 on: 08/19/2017 10:02 am »
Quote
Highlight video of the historic first launch at @CamdenSpaceport of our Vector-R prototype block 0.002 on August 3rd



Again I'm amazed they think nothing about showing OSHA violations in their promotional videos...
Working from a pallet on a forklift is not a good practice!
I love the way we never see anything more than the lift off. Everybody knows these things basically only fly just out of the frame at about a 30° angle to vertical.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2017 01:14 pm by ringsider »

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2372
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #595 on: 08/20/2017 11:22 pm »
That's an interesting choice of location for "Camden Spaceport":  lots of highly flammable trees around and a high-voltage power line only meters from the pad.

Still, we know nothing ever goes wrong with rocket launch.   ::)
 
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 FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #596 on: 08/23/2017 10:00 pm »
Quote
2 B.002 patches avail now celebrating 1st launch @CamdenSpaceport & special Vector friends #LEMANS24 @CorvetteRacing goo.gl/hTQLvZ

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/900474362595127296

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #597 on: 08/28/2017 05:16 am »
Not directly Vector, but Iceye, their prospective anchor customer raised a significant round

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/23/microsatellite-radar-imaging-startup-raises-13m-to-launch-new-constellation/
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #598 on: 09/10/2017 04:39 pm »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #599 on: 09/15/2017 05:32 pm »
Quote
Just arrived our new composite winding machine! It will be used to wind carbon fiber fuel tanks and composite nozzles

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/908741131667570688

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1