Author Topic: Vector Space Systems  (Read 102292 times)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3933
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2596
  • Likes Given: 866
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #600 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

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3933
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2596
  • Likes Given: 866
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #601 on: 09/21/2017 03:35 AM »
Quote
Some rocket eye candy for you today - Vector-R engineering/prototype composite fairing.

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/910656431514304512

Offline RDMM2081

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #602 on: 09/21/2017 03:56 AM »
Quote
Some rocket eye candy for you today - Vector-R engineering/prototype composite fairing.

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/910656431514304512

Cool pictures.  Shiny.  Am I missing the part where it splits in half, or is that just the "prototype" factor?

Online Davidthefat

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #603 on: 09/21/2017 08:26 PM »
Quote
Some rocket eye candy for you today - Vector-R engineering/prototype composite fairing.

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/910656431514304512

Cool pictures.  Shiny.  Am I missing the part where it splits in half, or is that just the "prototype" factor?

It's a nosecone for their suborbital vehicle. "Engineering prototype"

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #604 on: 10/03/2017 12:31 AM »
Had to remove a post (and a couple of responses to it) as it was from a since removed article on another site.

Also a time to point out that, unlike the person who posted it here, you never copy and paste from another site. It's called copyright and I'll ban people who breach that rule. If it was posted correctly, just the URL, it would still be a dead post due to the URL now being 404, but yeah. I hate it when people copy and paste my articles on other sites, so I'll come down hard on that.

(Imagine me with a "stern facial expression* whilst reading that ;))

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3933
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2596
  • Likes Given: 866
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #605 on: 10/06/2017 09:49 PM »
Quote
Mass manufacturing rocket parts is part of plan to make & fly @vectorspacesys rockets by the 100's. Prototype nozzle in carbon fiber winding

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/916411874249338880

Online Davidthefat

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #606 on: 10/07/2017 01:00 AM »
Quote
Mass manufacturing rocket parts is part of plan to make & fly @vectorspacesys rockets by the 100's. Prototype nozzle in carbon fiber winding

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/916411874249338880

Is it just me, or is it looking really wobbly there?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26896
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6795
  • Likes Given: 4815
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #607 on: 10/07/2017 01:49 AM »
Quote
Mass manufacturing rocket parts is part of plan to make & fly @vectorspacesys rockets by the 100's. Prototype nozzle in carbon fiber winding

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/916411874249338880

Is it just me, or is it looking really wobbly there?
Yeah, but it's probably fine for what they're doing.

However, I don't understand the idea that they think they can make aerospace-quality carbon fiber rockets, throw them away each time, and out-compete those who reuse them. Especially if you're talking hundreds of launches. If "mass production" was just something you could throw in the mix to get cheap aerospace vehicles, you'd think Boeing would've mastered this long ago. Boeing makes over 500 737s every year, and they're not even cheaper per kilogram dry mass than SpaceX's rockets.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online imprezive

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • CA
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #608 on: 10/07/2017 03:24 AM »
Quote
Mass manufacturing rocket parts is part of plan to make & fly @vectorspacesys rockets by the 100's. Prototype nozzle in carbon fiber winding

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/916411874249338880

Is it just me, or is it looking really wobbly there?
Yeah, but it's probably fine for what they're doing.

However, I don't understand the idea that they think they can make aerospace-quality carbon fiber rockets, throw them away each time, and out-compete those who reuse them. Especially if you're talking hundreds of launches. If "mass production" was just something you could throw in the mix to get cheap aerospace vehicles, you'd think Boeing would've mastered this long ago. Boeing makes over 500 737s every year, and they're not even cheaper per kilogram dry mass than SpaceX's rockets.

Airplanes are significantly more complicated than rockets. Like an order of magnitude more complicated. Airplanes have thousands of more parts, are pressurized, have to carry people, and last for 30 years+ with daily use.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #609 on: 10/08/2017 12:45 PM »
Vector won a small grant to experiment with autogenous pressurization systems:

https://govtribe.com/contract/award/nnx17cm65p

FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION OF A MICROPUMP-BASED STAGE PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM:

VECTOR LAUNCH, INC. PROPOSES TO APPLY RECENT ADVANCES IN MICROPUMP AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES TO DEVELOP AND DEMONSTRATE A MICROPUMP-BASED AUTOGENOUS PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM FOR ITS COMMERCIAL VECTOR-R FIRST STAGE AND MATURE THE TECHNOLOGY WITH MULTIPLE STATIC-FIRE-TESTS LEADING TO A DEMONSTRATION FLIGHT TEST (TRL 6). THE VECTOR-R IS A 2-STAGE PRESSURE-FED, LOX/SUBCOOLED PROPYLENE COMMERCIAL SMALL LAUNCH VEHICLE, DESIGNED TO PLACE UP TO 60 KG IN LOW EARTH ORBIT. IN THE PROPOSED CONCEPT, ELECTRICALLY-DRIVEN MICROPUMPS DRIVE A SMALL PORTION OF EACH PROPELLANT OVER A HEAT EXCHANGER AT THE ENGINE TO PRESSURIZE THE TANKS. EXCESS FLOW CAN BE DIVERTED TO THE ENGINE AS NEEDED.

So many documents on Vector on the web... stay tuned Jimmy.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 02:04 PM by ringsider »

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #610 on: 10/11/2017 07:24 AM »
Wonder what kind of micropump...

Electric pump with expander output for chamber or autogenous pressurization. Neat trick.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1371
  • Liked: 851
  • Likes Given: 266
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #611 on: 10/11/2017 05:41 PM »
Wonder what kind of micropump...

Electric pump with expander output for chamber or autogenous pressurization. Neat trick.

TRW proposed a very similar solution for pressurization of a storable launch vehicle in the early 1970s; instead of a HX, it used direct injection of opposing propellant into tanks to generate pressurant gas.

Offline LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #612 on: 10/15/2017 11:01 PM »
Quote
Mass manufacturing rocket parts is part of plan to make & fly @vectorspacesys rockets by the 100's. Prototype nozzle in carbon fiber winding

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/916411874249338880

Is it just me, or is it looking really wobbly there?
Yeah, but it's probably fine for what they're doing.

However, I don't understand the idea that they think they can make aerospace-quality carbon fiber rockets, throw them away each time, and out-compete those who reuse them. Especially if you're talking hundreds of launches. If "mass production" was just something you could throw in the mix to get cheap aerospace vehicles, you'd think Boeing would've mastered this long ago. Boeing makes over 500 737s every year, and they're not even cheaper per kilogram dry mass than SpaceX's rockets.

Who's really reusing small sat launchers though? And more importantly, does it even make sense right now at this size? We've learned that a reusable system, basically means a rocket almost twice as big than an expendable one if you want the same payload. That does a lot to the cost of building that rocket in addition to the R&D of reusable technology.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #613 on: 10/16/2017 05:23 AM »
Who's really reusing small sat launchers though? And more importantly, does it even make sense right now at this size? We've learned that a reusable system, basically means a rocket almost twice as big than an expendable one if you want the same payload. That does a lot to the cost of building that rocket in addition to the R&D of reusable technology.

Vector's "reusable" == add some parachutes. Usual BS.

Actually you are right - at this size the economics are totally against real reusablity. I don't think Rocket Lab would (or with electric motors could) do it.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
  • Liked: 1163
  • Likes Given: 731
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #614 on: 10/16/2017 02:28 PM »
Who's really reusing small sat launchers though? And more importantly, does it even make sense right now at this size? We've learned that a reusable system, basically means a rocket almost twice as big than an expendable one if you want the same payload. That does a lot to the cost of building that rocket in addition to the R&D of reusable technology.

Vector's "reusable" == add some parachutes. Usual BS.

Actually you are right - at this size the economics are totally against real reusablity. I don't think Rocket Lab would (or with electric motors could) do it.

Parachutes work way better for small systems, so I wouldn't rule that out just because it wouldn't work for EELV. Also, reuse economics are a lot more feasible at high flight rates, which could be much easier to achieve with a small vehicle.

Offline ThePhugoid

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #615 on: 10/16/2017 08:26 PM »
Who's really reusing small sat launchers though? And more importantly, does it even make sense right now at this size? We've learned that a reusable system, basically means a rocket almost twice as big than an expendable one if you want the same payload. That does a lot to the cost of building that rocket in addition to the R&D of reusable technology.

Vector's "reusable" == add some parachutes. Usual BS.

Actually you are right - at this size the economics are totally against real reusablity. I don't think Rocket Lab would (or with electric motors could) do it.

Parachutes work way better for small systems, so I wouldn't rule that out just because it wouldn't work for EELV. Also, reuse economics are a lot more feasible at high flight rates, which could be much easier to achieve with a small vehicle.

Not necessarily.  It's still a 2-stage vehicle where the spent first stage accommodates half the dV needed to go orbital, so bringing it back down at those speeds and heating levels isn't so easily fixed despite the low mass.  Any level of recovery systems needed for bringing the stage back home will count against the favorability of reuse.  The more mass they take up also counts against your sellable payload.  There's a lot more to it than just the parachutes.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • USA
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #616 on: 10/17/2017 03:05 AM »
Actually you are right - at this size the economics are totally against real reusablity. I don't think Rocket Lab would (or with electric motors could) do it.

OT for this thread, but why should electric motors be incompatible with reusability? Rutherford has a quite impressive specific impulse by kerolox standards, getting into the low end of staged combustion territory (about halfway in between NK-33 and RD-180). Thrust to weight ratio is not great because of the battery mass, but likely isn't that horrible either (complete first stage mass can't be more than a couple hundred kg, and most of that is going to be structures and plumbing), and both should improve a little if they scaled up the engine (RocketLab did just trademark a couple more names for rocket engines). Operating conditions should be pretty gentle too, and engine restart is easier when you don't need a separate ignition to drive the turbopumps. Electron as it exists now is too small for reuse, but I think the overall concept would scale well to a large enough system

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #617 on: 10/17/2017 06:21 AM »
Power density. In principle it's possible of course but you need to add a lot more dead mass in terms of batteries to land it again if you have to power the pumps for a landing, in addition to the extra fuel - a double hit. They are much less efficient than a turbopump in that scenario. The electric cycle is both their greatest asset and greatest weakness IMHO. First stage mass in that vehicle will be about a 1000kg I would imagine - engines are a big chunk of that, plus batteries - and you can't jettison (all) batteries if you need them to land again.
« Last Edit: 10/17/2017 06:21 AM by ringsider »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3933
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2596
  • Likes Given: 866
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #618 on: 10/19/2017 02:44 PM »
Quote
Cantrell: demand for larger Vector-H (150 kg payload,$3M) rocket at least as great, if not greater, as for Vector-R (60kg, $1.5M).

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/921021742730145793

Quote
Cantrell: next Vector test flight in January to test thrust vector control. First orbital launches in July from Wallops.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/921023565415239681

Orbital in July with next flight in January is quite a ramp-up.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2879
  • Likes Given: 687
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #619 on: 10/19/2017 02:46 PM »
January - thrust vector control. July - orbit!

That's pretty funny.

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Tags: