Author Topic: Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)  (Read 402727 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #240 on: 05/07/2017 10:52 am »
By the way, Chris G has interviewed the Vector people and there's an article coming soon.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #241 on: 05/07/2017 11:03 am »
By the way, Chris G has interviewed the Vector people and there's an article coming soon.

Look forward to it.

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.
 http://spacenews.com/vector-tests-prototype-small-launch-vehicle/

Some quotes:-

"Company spokeswoman Sarah Nickell said that the planned maximum altitude for the rocket on this launch was 1,370 meters, but said later that the company will not release the flight’s actual peak altitude."

"The P-19H designation appears to be a holdover from Garvey Spacecraft Corporation, which tested a small suborbital rocket called the P-19 in 2014."

"The use of small propellant tanks, he explained, limited the vehicle’s performance for this flight and allowed them to meet Federal Aviation Administration regulations for a waiver from a commercial launch license."


Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #242 on: 05/07/2017 07:44 pm »
(Oh, and since Chris will ask questions of Vector, we should all help him with ones we might suggest.)

"In December, you announced target hires of 200 over next three years, in Tucson. Where are you on that hiring curve, about 6 months in ? How hard is it to find talent, and are you currently looking for very experienced or very junior roles?"
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ThePhugoid

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #243 on: 05/07/2017 11:45 pm »
Quote
Quote
Again, 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.)


It does have the shape, but it can't accept the same loads if it doesn't weigh the same, thrust as much, nor fly through the portions of the trajectory that define vehicle stresses. There is not much of anything meaningful tested here in the progress of structures or aerodynamics for an orbital launch. Maybe more so in propulsion & propellant handling.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #244 on: 05/08/2017 12:43 am »
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.

That sounds like a great way to go, especially if you actually manage to recover the vehicle (or at least the engines) after each test. All-up disposable testing is so over.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #245 on: 05/09/2017 05:02 pm »
I'll give this a standalone, as this will be introducing Vector Space to a lot of people, as opposed to the ones following this long thread, but here's Chris Gebhardt's interview/feature article!

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/05/vector-space-first-test-flight-aims-small-sat-expansion/
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #246 on: 05/09/2017 08:41 pm »
Quote
Comparing 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.

But they didn't test any of that :(

I have to say I was extremely underwhelmed with this showing. It did not look like a meaningful step towards their goals. SpaceX's first flight was an orbital attempt and it provided lessons needed to make it to orbit. This did not. To me it seemed more like this:

« Last Edit: 05/09/2017 08:53 pm by saliva_sweet »

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #247 on: 05/09/2017 09:56 pm »
Again, 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. 

Online Gliderflyer

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #248 on: 05/09/2017 10:06 pm »
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.
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).
I tried it at home

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #249 on: 05/09/2017 10:12 pm »
Again, 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. 

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. 

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #250 on: 05/09/2017 10:14 pm »
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.
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).
Are you also a major shareholder in Rocket Lab USA with a devious agenda to crush the technical mastery of this mighty competitive force?

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #251 on: 05/09/2017 10:14 pm »
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.
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).

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.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #252 on: 05/09/2017 10:37 pm »
SpaceX'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. The company might not have been on the brink of failing. Elon might not have been sleeping on friend's couches, etc. I can't imagine why anyone things developing a few million dollars worth of rocket hardware and dropping it in the ocean is a good thing. Incremental reuse is the way to test a new vehicle.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #253 on: 05/09/2017 10:47 pm »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2017 10:50 pm by ringsider »

Online Gliderflyer

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #254 on: 05/09/2017 10:48 pm »
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.
I didn't mean to imply that they used permanent tanks. I was pointing out that they appeared to use 100-200 liter dewars in this test, and I would assume they would need something closer to a semi trailer bulk dewar for the orbital version. Regardless of tank size, it would be interesting to know how "flight like" the vehicle QD's were. I'm looking forward to the next article; it will be interesting to see how their mobile architecture works.
I tried it at home

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #255 on: 05/09/2017 11:16 pm »
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.

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.


Excellent.  This is all great information that I can ask about -- and I shall.  :)

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #256 on: 05/10/2017 09:08 am »
SpaceX'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.

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #257 on: 05/10/2017 04:42 pm »
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.

Hmm, I guess we should pitch this idea to Dave Masten. He should start iteratively adding bigger tanks, engines, structures, TPS to Xombie to ultmately make a reusable orbital launcher. Get into that lucrative EELV business. I bet it never occurred to him and I'm sure he'll give us a modest cut of the DOD money too :)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #258 on: 05/10/2017 06:27 pm »
Masten said if missed out on XS1 contract he would develop a smaller version for smallsat.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #259 on: 05/10/2017 08:16 pm »
SpaceX'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.

I don't know... The gap between suborbital and orbital is vast. I can't recall a design that was started out small and then was tinkered with to gradually become an orbital first stage. This to me suggests that you have to at some point start-from-scratch and drastically scale up. (perhaps more than once)

And being able to design and build rocket engines does not mean that even reaching suborbital space is likely. How many startups even reach 100km? I wish Vector well but the odds are stacked against them.

Tags:
 

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