Author Topic: Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)  (Read 402656 times)

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48138
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81622
  • Likes Given: 36928
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #400 on: 07/25/2017 11:21 pm »
Quote
Jim what do you charge to launch a single cube sat?
https://twitter.com/sandymazza/status/889855529928933376

Quote
We have a third party partner who is going to do this for us and it should be about 250K for a 3U cubesat
https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/889952615181635584

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #401 on: 07/26/2017 01:26 am »
Their workshop really doesn't look like i would think serious rocket manufacturing would look like...

In the picture above i see at least 3 different angle grinders within 3m of flight hardware, none of them with a guard on it.

And there's a cut-in-half bottle catching fluids dripping from the rocket, i guess.

Compared to what we see from RocketLab, it's night and day.

Yeah, but RocketLab is apparently valued at $1 billion dollars already. They also likely got hefty deposits for launches long in advance which really helped them. I personally love the garage build rocket devs. They are more inspiring to me and I think to the average person too. The mindset that only billionaires can do it is toxic to space progress and innovations. We barely just broke down the barrier that only governments can do it, so I really want one of the little guys to make it, and set down a blueprint for others to follow, so that mentality that you have to be a billionaire to do it doesn't become the next imaginary roadblock that sets in.
Bezo and Musk were not born billionaires. Musk has become a billionaire because of SpaceX and Tesla.

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #402 on: 07/26/2017 03:29 am »
Bezo and Musk were not born billionaires. Musk has become a billionaire because of SpaceX and Tesla.

..and nearly lost everything on more than one occasion.

..and if RocketLab really is worth $1billion, it isn't because Peter Beck found the money just lying around somewhere.  That guy has more frequent-flyer miles under his belt than I'll ever earn in two lifetimes!
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 imprezive

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #403 on: 07/26/2017 04:15 am »
I genuinely think that some amateur teams like Copenhagen Suborbitals have a much higher grade of technology but for some reason people treat these guys like they already built a Saturn V and personally escorted Armstrong to the surface of the moon...


I think the name Cantrell carries it pretty far, given he's associated with SpaceX, and "also played key roles in the development of Skybox Imaging (now Terra Bella) and has had developmental roles in numerous venture funded space efforts including Rocket Lab, Planet, Black Sky and Spaceflight."

To an investor that's not an aerospace engineer through and through that's a big selling point. Given most of these VC's investments have been in software it seems.

Cantrell gets a lot of mileage from the 8 months he worked at SpaceX. At the end of the day I think if they raise the funding they have the people to make a viable product. I think they like to promote that they are (much) farther along than they are but that's probably what they feel is needed for them to raise capital. I wish them the best.

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Liked: 448
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #404 on: 07/26/2017 06:48 am »

Yeah, but RocketLab is apparently valued at $1 billion dollars already. They also likely got hefty deposits for launches long in advance which really helped them. I personally love the garage build rocket devs. They are more inspiring to me and I think to the average person too. The mindset that only billionaires can do it is toxic to space progress and innovations. We barely just broke down the barrier that only governments can do it, so I really want one of the little guys to make it, and set down a blueprint for others to follow, so that mentality that you have to be a billionaire to do it doesn't become the next imaginary roadblock that sets in.

Don't get me wrong, I also really want them to succeed, i like their incremental testing approach, i love their north-korean ICBM style for their launch platform.

But I don't think running a clean workshop does need millions or billions, it's a mindset. What do you think the reaction would be if a launch with a customer fails because they forgot one of those dirty ear plugs lying around inside the LOX tank or else?

If something corrodes much faster than expected because it has been contaminated by dust from the angle grinder...

Separating the dirty work from the assembly shouldn't be a matter of the available budget.



« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 06:55 am by Bananas_on_Mars »

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #405 on: 07/26/2017 11:55 am »
Block 0.002? This means that it will be another low altitude fixed engine flight, I presume?

Since it's not another block 0.001 it's probably slightly upgraded from the previous model. Pure speculation though.
Either that or they are going to do 999 test flights before they reach 1.0. ;)

It wouldn't surprise me at this point. Vector's fun-raising strategy is pretty novel, using every small launch as a fun-raising opportunity. Which may work fine for this upcoming launch... But eventually even the gullible investors will catch on if no real progress is demonstrated.

Vector VS Masten (or Armadillo), who have more progress?

Offline Bean Kenobi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Liked: 367
  • Likes Given: 248
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #406 on: 07/26/2017 12:43 pm »
So that would make it August 4 for the launch.

I think it means more Aug 02, since Vector's original tweet is dated Jul 23. Retweet from Cantrell is dated Jul 25.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 12:44 pm by Bean Kenobi »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #407 on: 07/26/2017 04:44 pm »
It wouldn't surprise me at this point. Vector's fun-raising strategy is pretty novel, using every small launch as a fun-raising opportunity. Which may work fine for this upcoming launch... But eventually even the gullible investors will catch on if no real progress is demonstrated.

Vector VS Masten (or Armadillo), who have more progress?

Vector has a long way to go before they match either, IMO. But don't tell Vector that, they already assume that they are in LEO.  ;)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #408 on: 07/26/2017 04:52 pm »
It wouldn't surprise me at this point. Vector's fun-raising strategy is pretty novel, using every small launch as a fun-raising opportunity. Which may work fine for this upcoming launch... But eventually even the gullible investors will catch on if no real progress is demonstrated.

Vector VS Masten (or Armadillo), who have more progress?

Vector has a long way to go before they match either, IMO. But don't tell Vector that, they already assume that they are in LEO.  ;)
Yes because Initial test flights use Garvey style aluminum structure and tanks whereas orbital Vector-R and H use composite tanks and structure.

Public Source: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/vector-1.htm
Quote
...
Vector Space Systems has already begun engine-level static fire testing and is working toward the start of sub-orbital test flights that will pathfind operations and manifest key technology experiments in Q3 2016, followed by large-scale sub-orbital test flights of a aluminium structure Block 0 prototype in 2017 and composite tank vehicle orbital launches in 2018.
...

Offline LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • USA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #409 on: 07/26/2017 05:07 pm »
Their workshop really doesn't look like i would think serious rocket manufacturing would look like...

In the picture above i see at least 3 different angle grinders within 3m of flight hardware, none of them with a guard on it.

And there's a cut-in-half bottle catching fluids dripping from the rocket, i guess.

Compared to what we see from RocketLab, it's night and day.

Yeah, but RocketLab is apparently valued at $1 billion dollars already. They also likely got hefty deposits for launches long in advance which really helped them. I personally love the garage build rocket devs. They are more inspiring to me and I think to the average person too. The mindset that only billionaires can do it is toxic to space progress and innovations. We barely just broke down the barrier that only governments can do it, so I really want one of the little guys to make it, and set down a blueprint for others to follow, so that mentality that you have to be a billionaire to do it doesn't become the next imaginary roadblock that sets in.
Bezo and Musk were not born billionaires. Musk has become a billionaire because of SpaceX and Tesla.

Musk became a billionaire when he sold his shares of PayPal to Ebay. They may have not been born billionaires, but that's not what I am saying. Currently the 3 leading space companies, SpaceX, BO and VG were started by established billionaires. Well VG is a little gray but Scaled Composites was backed by Paul Allen and Branson was definitely a billionaire when he took over. We don't want to set a trend there. Go Copenhagen Suborbitals! If they can do it, we all can! I'm already planning my Kickstarter campaign  ;)

Vector probably has that southern country mechanic mentality. They want to build rockets like they build race cars. As more start-ups do rockets, I expect we'll see a lot of things like that, and fewer and fewer clean rooms. I mean even SpaceX was criticized at one point for their employees stepping on the hardware. The horror! They seem to be doing ok now, to put it mildly.

At least none of these little guys blew anything of concern up yet so I think it's a good thing to de-regulate the process for now and hold them at lower standards, at least until some accident occurs. I'm sure it will naturally resolve itself.  I just hope it doesn't kill anybody.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 05:07 pm by LooksFlyable »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48138
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81622
  • Likes Given: 36928
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #410 on: 07/26/2017 06:17 pm »
Musk became a billionaire when he sold his shares of PayPal to Ebay.

Sorry, he didn't. PayPal was sold for over a billion but Elon's share was $180M. That ended up being split between SpaceX and Tesla. From memory his total SpaceX commitment, not all in one go, was about $100M.

Yes that's still a lot of money but in aerospace it's not a huge amount and no where near the amount others (such as Bezos and Bigelow) have invested. As we know it was barely enough to get to orbit, due to the three F1 failures.

If any of the current crop of smallsat launch companies (including Vector) succeeds with less funding then it'll be a major achievement.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 06:17 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline LooksFlyable

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • USA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #411 on: 07/26/2017 06:36 pm »
Thanks for the correction, looks like you are right on that, but I think you understand the sentiment of what I am saying. There's just a lot more benefit to having 50-100 worldwide start-ups doing it than 3 or 4 billion dollar companies. At the smaller level you at least have some exciting things going on and companies willing to take risks on untried tech, whether it's aerospikes, completely 3D printed engines, SSTO attempts, sea-lunched rockets or pushing composites to the limits. I just have a hunch this is where the next big step forward in rocket development will come from.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2017 06:41 pm by LooksFlyable »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #412 on: 07/26/2017 06:53 pm »
Beck of RL started from nothing just hard work and determination. Found backers that believed in him and is now worth a few million if $100m on paper if RL valuations are to believed. RL still to prove its self but looking good.

W

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #413 on: 07/26/2017 08:02 pm »
Beck of RL started from nothing just hard work and determination. Found backers that believed in him and is now worth a few million if $100m on paper if RL valuations are to believed. RL still to prove its self but looking good.

W
LM has supported RL in the later rounds in terms of funding, use of LM's development resources (dev labs etc) and acquisition of machines for the composite manufacturing process.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #414 on: 07/26/2017 08:41 pm »
Vector probably has that southern country mechanic mentality. They want to build rockets like they build race cars. As more start-ups do rockets, I expect we'll see a lot of things like that, and fewer and fewer clean rooms. I mean even SpaceX was criticized at one point for their employees stepping on the hardware. The horror! They seem to be doing ok now, to put it mildly.

At least none of these little guys blew anything of concern up yet so I think it's a good thing to de-regulate the process for now and hold them at lower standards, at least until some accident occurs. I'm sure it will naturally resolve itself.  I just hope it doesn't kill anybody.

Sure. But you also need to keep in mind that orbital rocketry is hard. Very hard. 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.

Vector is likely very aware of this, and they are no doubt trying to avoid investing in things they don't need yet. But at some point they will have to.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #415 on: 07/27/2017 01:27 am »
. The romantic notion that any idea can be hatched and executed in a garage if you just work hard enough may not be realistic...

There isn't a lot of mystery to it: the benchmark is around a hundred fairly skilled people working for at least 4-5 years, that's apparently roughly what it takes to get to orbit.
Obviously you can't run that kind of team out of garage for long, and it also sets a low bar on the investment required.

Seems like Vector is at least in the right order of magnitude investment wise, the team size ( and I'd say, total pool of required experience) hasn't yet caught up, but they have at least indicated the intent.

Obviously having the team and investment and facilities isn't a guarantee of success, but it is a prerequisite.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline SolSystem

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • SpaceQ/SpaceRef
  • London, Ontario
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #416 on: 07/27/2017 02:29 am »
If anyone is interested I interviewed Jim about 2 weeks ago for my podcast. He provided some updated information. It's on spaceq.ca.
Editor-in-Chief, SpaceQ, co-founder SpaceRef, host of the Space Economy podcast.

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Liked: 448
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #417 on: 07/27/2017 06:32 pm »
If anyone is interested I interviewed Jim about 2 weeks ago for my podcast. He provided some updated information. It's on spaceq.ca.

Nice interview with some unique details. You got me hooked on another space podcast series!

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #418 on: 07/28/2017 11:24 am »
Iran's sub-orbital Simorgh+ launcher (launched earlier today) looks surprisingly familiar:





Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #419 on: 07/28/2017 04:38 pm »
Huh? I don't really see the resemblance, other than looking like a smaller upper stage on top of a first stage. Hardly a unique configuration. The engines are completely different, and Vector isn't even close to being similar in progress.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 04:39 pm by Lars-J »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0