By the way, Chris G has interviewed the Vector people and there's an article coming soon.
(Oh, and since Chris will ask questions of Vector, we should all help him with ones we might suggest.)
QuoteQuoteAgain, not the point. You've got a test of your GSE/TEL, verification of aeroframe/engine, and test flight.LOL. It's not even the same airframe...It has the shape, it accepts the loads, it simulates the CG/CP necessary. Could serve as a baseline before being replaced by a carbon fiber one on the next flight.So why would you do this? Perhaps because you'd have the before/after flight data, where you can tell the benefit (structural, performance, ...) of the added components.I understand that you have a strength in rhetoric and a weakness in aerospace engineering, so I'll assist you to balance the two by pushing back on the former, and giving you detail on the second. (And, if you request it, I'll even do you the courtesy of supplying comparatives between rivals - at a high level.)
QuoteAgain, not the point. You've got a test of your GSE/TEL, verification of aeroframe/engine, and test flight.LOL. It's not even the same airframe...
Again, not the point. You've got a test of your GSE/TEL, verification of aeroframe/engine, and test flight.
There was one by JF in Spacenews a couple of days ago where Cantrell said they will launch 6 increasingly complex vehicles every 2 months from now on - bigger tanks, TVC, more engines, GNC etc. leading to a mid-2018 orbital launch.
QuoteComparing Vector's recent PR stunt to an actual orbital launch is like comparing a bicycle to a Ducati.Again, not the point. You've got a test of your GSE/TEL, verification of aeroframe/engine, and test flight.
Comparing Vector's recent PR stunt to an actual orbital launch is like comparing a bicycle to a Ducati.
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 05/09/2017 08:41 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/07/2017 12:05 amAgain, not the point. You've got a test of your GSE/TEL, verification of aeroframe/engine, and test flight.But they didn't test any of that Excuse me, but ... the second picture (in Chris's article) shows a Vector rocket launching off of a launcher/TEL, with GSE next to it.The vehicle has an aeroframe and flies. Using one of the engines. It is a test flight.Your point is ... ?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/07/2017 12:05 amAgain, not the point. You've got a test of your GSE/TEL, verification of aeroframe/engine, and test flight.But they didn't test any of that
Excuse me, but ... the second picture (in Chris's article) shows a Vector rocket launching off of a launcher/TEL, with GSE next to it.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/09/2017 09:37 pmQuote from: saliva_sweet on 05/09/2017 08:41 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/07/2017 12:05 amAgain, not the point. You've got a test of your GSE/TEL, verification of aeroframe/engine, and test flight.But they didn't test any of that Excuse me, but ... the second picture (in Chris's article) shows a Vector rocket launching off of a launcher/TEL, with GSE next to it.The vehicle has an aeroframe and flies. Using one of the engines. It is a test flight.Your point is ... ?The weight, thrust, total impulse, everything about the rocket has to be on another level completely. The only thing they showed was that the launch button works. That's not the long pole.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/09/2017 09:37 pmExcuse me, but ... the second picture (in Chris's article) shows a Vector rocket launching off of a launcher/TEL, with GSE next to it.As I understand it, that is one of FAR's launch rails, and not Vector's (http://friendsofamateurrocketry.org/Launchers.html). Vector's launcher doesn't have a rail (https://vectorspacesystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vector-r-expanded-view-768x648.png ); so I don't know if we can say that their launcher has been tested. I don't know anything about their GSE, but it's possible the hookups could have been similar to the flight version (but with reduced ground storage capacity).
SpaceX's first flight was an orbital attempt and it provided lessons needed to make it to orbit.
The article specifically talks about this being the first of six test flights over the next year, each of which will test a different element of the system or ramp up intensity and size of the test vehicle.
Vector does not use unmovable ground storage -- so there was nothing to "reduce" in this case. They use a completely mobile system that's tailorable to each specific mission and rocket. My interview with Vector was an hour long, and way too much info for one article. We have a second one planned soon that will cover the mobile aspect of the entire launch system.
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 05/09/2017 10:12 pmThe article specifically talks about this being the first of six test flights over the next year, each of which will test a different element of the system or ramp up intensity and size of the test vehicle. Well, they need to ramp up a lot of things that are really not that easy to switch on in 12 months and they show no sign of having advanced e.g. mastery of thin ply CFRP; IMUs with an ARW of less than 0.01 degrees per hour; aerothermal flux measurement systems that can handle greater 1000kw per m2; a working metric AFTS that is FAA approved and verified against a tracking solution; load balancing of TVC across several engines; pneumatic staging collets and pushers; reliable vacuum engine reignition for circularization; and so on, and on, and on. The reason some people are skeptical about this "test" is that it doesn't seem to test any critical subsystems like these that are essential to an actual orbital vehicle. It looks more like a re-skinned GSC Prospector, probably using the same subsystems GSC have flown suborbital for years.
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 05/09/2017 08:41 pmSpaceX's first flight was an orbital attempt and it provided lessons needed to make it to orbit.Imagine how much money they would have saved if they'd done incremental testing.
QG's point is extremely valid. Suppose they fielded a successful variation on what Masten was doing, on the scale of Falcon 1. Done first like Grasshopper, then with better legs, then with tanks/skin/structures that would survive max-Q (like what BO did but with orbital scale). If they did it deftly, few vehicles constantly refitted would get you to a re-flyable booster first, to which you add a second stage.
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 05/10/2017 09:08 amQuote from: QuantumG on 05/09/2017 10:37 pmQuote from: saliva_sweet on 05/09/2017 08:41 pmSpaceX's first flight was an orbital attempt and it provided lessons needed to make it to orbit.Imagine how much money they would have saved if they'd done incremental testing. I tried to imagine, and I believe Elon tried too, but concluded that he can't afford to develop six different rockets. Five of which would only fly once and not replicate the conditions you would actually want to test against. They tested everything incrementally on the ground and flew their best attempt at the real deal. Then learned from failures.Musk was skeptical of recovery (initially engines only), and wanted a viable business first.QG's point is extremely valid. Suppose they fielded a successful variation on what Masten was doing, on the scale of Falcon 1. Done first like Grasshopper, then with better legs, then with tanks/skin/structures that would survive max-Q (like what BO did but with orbital scale). If they did it deftly, few vehicles constantly refitted would get you to a re-flyable booster first, to which you add a second stage.
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/09/2017 10:37 pmQuote from: saliva_sweet on 05/09/2017 08:41 pmSpaceX's first flight was an orbital attempt and it provided lessons needed to make it to orbit.Imagine how much money they would have saved if they'd done incremental testing. I tried to imagine, and I believe Elon tried too, but concluded that he can't afford to develop six different rockets. Five of which would only fly once and not replicate the conditions you would actually want to test against. They tested everything incrementally on the ground and flew their best attempt at the real deal. Then learned from failures.