Author Topic: Ripple Aerospace  (Read 16482 times)

Offline vaporcobra

Ripple Aerospace
« on: 03/30/2018 06:16 am »
While they formed as a company barely two years ago, Ripple has begun (subscale) hardware testing. I had no clue they had a presence in the US, but they've begun testing a small prototype of their sea launch system, with the intent of testing the ballast tank disconnect in April 2018, about a mile off the coast of Florida.
https://www.facebook.com/ripple.space/posts/797210403822414

No doubt their aspirations are eons away from where they are today, but one can no longer call their work paper rocketry.

Quote
Ripple's Sea Serpent rocket class is mobile, reusable and scalable enabling a cost effective rocket which can be integrated into the global logistical network and provide payloads of varying sizes and mission profiles to customers.  Designed to be built in shipyards to utilize maritime manufacturing processes, Sea Serpent rockets will be massed produced to empower customers the ability to gain access to launch systems by means of Ripple's launch provider services or direct rocket ownership.
https://rippleaerospace.com

« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 06:17 am by vaporcobra »

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39046
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32344
  • Likes Given: 8024
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #1 on: 03/30/2018 07:05 am »
Ripple was also here last year in Adelaide at the Australian Review meeting. I had a short chat with the Ripple Co-founder and President, who gave me his business card. His phone number is from Australia, so he must be based here! Its a small world. :-) He talked about the Agar 1 and Sea Serpent rocket. Ripple is based in Norway. Their website confirms they have a presence here in Australia.

https://rippleaerospace.com/about-us/

"The Sea Serpent team is comprised of a diverse group of rocket scientists, engineers, shipbuilders and space operators from companies in Norway, United States, and Australia with the unifying goal of developing Sea Serpent rockets."
« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 07:14 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #2 on: 03/30/2018 10:42 am »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

The "Sea Serpent" stats say 2.6 metric tons into LEO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in the same neighborhood as Trident II payload?

This is a pretty great concept, not least because you don't need a launch facility and can launch from almost anywhere, to anywhere, with maximum efficiency.

It would also allow boomers to deploy ICBMs at a distance; drop the tube, get out of tactical nuke counterstrike radius, then fire. Or use a drone to send it well away from the sub before firing.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this is the kind of thing that gets you disappeared by the DoD. :)
« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 10:45 am by JQP »

Offline vaporcobra

Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #3 on: 03/30/2018 04:40 pm »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

The "Sea Serpent" stats say 2.6 metric tons into LEO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in the same neighborhood as Trident II payload?

This is a pretty great concept, not least because you don't need a launch facility and can launch from almost anywhere, to anywhere, with maximum efficiency.

100% coincidental, but I saw this posted yesterday evening on Twitter :)
Quote
This "giant torpedo" was a WWII unbuilt German design to hold a sea launched V2 #rocket. Note the small crewman near the bottom.
https://mobile.twitter.com/runnymonkey/status/979629950666977280

And I agree, sea-launched rockets have always been an intriguing concept. Being able to launch in international waters doesn't hurt, either.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 04:41 pm by vaporcobra »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #4 on: 03/30/2018 05:56 pm »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

The "Sea Serpent" stats say 2.6 metric tons into LEO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in the same neighborhood as Trident II payload?

This is a pretty great concept, not least because you don't need a launch facility and can launch from almost anywhere, to anywhere, with maximum efficiency.

100% coincidental, but I saw this posted yesterday evening on Twitter :)
Quote
This "giant torpedo" was a WWII unbuilt German design to hold a sea launched V2 #rocket. Note the small crewman near the bottom.
https://mobile.twitter.com/runnymonkey/status/979629950666977280

And I agree, sea-launched rockets have always been an intriguing concept. Being able to launch in international waters doesn't hurt, either.
Navies build ICBM subs because they are very difficult to detect.

You don't know exactly where they are.

Once you put the ICBM in a pod it's much less mobile and hence much more easy to find, negating the benefits of ocean basing in the first place.

The actual benefits of ocean launch for  a space launch  system are
1) Use an ocean going tug to tow it, rather than a ship to carry it.
2) In principle vehicle size is set by size of a ship yard you can build it in.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #5 on: 03/30/2018 06:21 pm »
Quote
Navies build ICBM subs because they are very difficult to detect.

The actual benefits of ocean launch for  a space launch  system are
1) Use an ocean going tug to tow it, rather than a ship to carry it.
2) In principle vehicle size is set by size of a ship yard you can build it in.
And you can launch from the equator, or wherever else you like, and get as much Atlantic/Pacific/Indian Ocean as you want to land stages in.

Quote
Once you put the ICBM in a pod it's much less mobile and hence much more easy to find

How so (genuinely curious)?

Revision 2.0, put a camouflaged portable "silo" on the sea floor. Orient it horizontally for better camouflage. The tube pops out horizontally and rises to launch depth, then the rocket is launched.

Edit:
Course now I'm wondering how to communicate with the weapon to tell it to fire...I know I've wondered about undersea communications before, and either didn't get very far last time I looked at it, or forgot the details...
« Last Edit: 03/31/2018 01:34 pm by JQP »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #6 on: 03/31/2018 07:06 pm »
And you can launch from the equator, or wherever else you like, and get as much Atlantic/Pacific/Indian Ocean as you want to land stages in.
True.
Quote from: JQP
Quote
Once you put the ICBM in a pod it's much less mobile and hence much more easy to find

How so (genuinely curious)?
How are you moving this pod? Either you've got a sea going (surface) tug, which means you can be tracked on satellite, or you have a "sub tug" which don't actually exist outside of Frank Herberts novel "The Dragon in the Sea."

Quote from: JQP
Revision 2.0, put a camouflaged portable "silo" on the sea floor. Orient it horizontally for better camouflage. The tube pops out horizontally and rises to launch depth, then the rocket is launched.
Was (is?) a concept for some cruise missiles but is very tough to implement.
Quote from: JQP
Edit:
Course now I'm wondering how to communicate with the weapon to tell it to fire...I know I've wondered about undersea communications before, and either didn't get very far last time I looked at it, or forgot the details...
Basically if you have the tech to do this you have the tech to build full up ICBM subs to carry them anyway. It's one of those ideas that sounds clever but actually isn't.  :(

IIRC submarine comms is done mostly with Very Low Frequency radio. It needs huge antenna with huge power requirements but it reaches everywhere.  There has been talk of laser comms systems that can operate without the sub surfacing (so no sail to be detected by ASW aircraft on radar). The idea has been around for decades and DARPA had another go around 2010 but AFAIK no one's deployed it. 

MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #7 on: 03/31/2018 09:23 pm »
This isn't a military site.  Less talk about deploying ICBMs, more talk about orbital launch.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #8 on: 03/31/2018 10:21 pm »
Quote
How are you moving this pod? Either you've got a sea going (surface) tug, which means you can be tracked on satellite, or you have a "sub tug" which don't actually exist outside of Frank Herberts novel "The Dragon in the Sea."

I was thinking stationary. I was asking about the other half of the statement; what is it about being stationary that amounts to "easily detected"? But if I was going to make it mobile, first thing I think of is self-propelled designs.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6058
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9274
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #9 on: 04/03/2018 10:02 pm »
Rather than ICBMs, 'Sea Serpent' is a not-so-subtle allusion to the 'Sea Dragon' superheavy lift concept, which uses the same partially-immersed rollout and launch sequence, and even the distinctive 'stick out' engines partway up the stage.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #10 on: 04/04/2018 07:15 am »
Rather than ICBMs, 'Sea Serpent' is a not-so-subtle allusion to the 'Sea Dragon' superheavy lift concept, which uses the same partially-immersed rollout and launch sequence, and even the distinctive 'stick out' engines partway up the stage.
True.

The question of wheather you can fire a rocket under water was answered by (IIRC) Aerojet with test firing off the Californian coast of an Aerobee sounding rocket they called the "Seabee." IIRC the start up was reported as quite smooth, partly because of the sea water in the combustion chamber. It was held vertical by a "sinker" chain which separated just before ignition.

Personally I quite like sea launch of a towed vehicle. It avoids range costs, can be launched right on the Equator (or pretty much any other Longitude), avoids launch pad construction and can make the rocket more or less as big as you like.

One thing that modern designs have (that Schnitt and Truax's designs did not) are designs for relatively simple (and hence cheap) positive displacement pumps, either compressed gas or combustion products powered. Likewise some machining methods have become a lot more cost effective.

So the challenge would be to build a big (but simple) pumped engine(s) and go from there.   
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39046
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32344
  • Likes Given: 8024
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #11 on: 04/04/2018 07:29 am »
Of course, the idea of launching from water has been around for a long time. It was used to launch the Moonship in the classic film Frau Im Mond from 1929!

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline chipguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Ottawa Canada
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #12 on: 04/04/2018 04:42 pm »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

Because it is a terrible idea for all the reasons mentioned. It was also a key plot point of several
episodes of the TV series "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" more than 50 years ago.

Quote
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this is the kind of thing that gets you disappeared by the DoD. :)

They left Irwin Allen alone. Maybe he was too famous to disappear.

More on topic, it will interesting to see an aerospike nozzle operate on this size of launcher (or any
size for that matter :-).

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #13 on: 04/04/2018 04:55 pm »
Quote
Because it is a terrible idea for all the reasons mentioned.

We never really got around to explaining any of those reasons. :)

Quote
The question of wheather you can fire a rocket under water was answered by (IIRC) Aerojet with test firing off the Californian coast of an Aerobee sounding rocket they called the "Seabee." IIRC the start up was reported as quite smooth, partly because of the sea water in the combustion chamber. It was held vertical by a "sinker" chain which separated just before ignition.

I always thought SLBMs were fired underwater, until this thread made me go look them up and I found out they are launched clear of the ocean by steam explosion.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2018 05:00 pm by JQP »

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #14 on: 04/04/2018 05:12 pm »
It never occurred to me to have the SLBMs without the submarines, until now. Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles. But it makes perfect sense. Drop an ICBM in a tube into the deep ocean; when activated it rises to launch depth and fires. It's so obvious, I wonder why I've never read even a whisper about a concept like this…

The "Sea Serpent" stats say 2.6 metric tons into LEO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in the same neighborhood as Trident II payload?

This is a pretty great concept, not least because you don't need a launch facility and can launch from almost anywhere, to anywhere, with maximum efficiency.

It would also allow boomers to deploy ICBMs at a distance; drop the tube, get out of tactical nuke counterstrike radius, then fire. Or use a drone to send it well away from the sub before firing.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this is the kind of thing that gets you disappeared by the DoD. :)

HYDRA concept of Minuteman development

https://www.minutemanmissile.com/documents/SeaBasedDeploymentOfFloatingLaunchVehicles.pdf

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
  • Liked: 1079
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #15 on: 04/05/2018 05:34 am »
HYDRA concept of Minuteman development

https://www.minutemanmissile.com/documents/SeaBasedDeploymentOfFloatingLaunchVehicles.pdf

Wow, most of those deployment methods tend to be some variant of a drunken sailor yelling "YOLO" while kicking a launch container over the edge of the deck.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #16 on: 04/05/2018 07:15 am »
HYDRA concept of Minuteman development

https://www.minutemanmissile.com/documents/SeaBasedDeploymentOfFloatingLaunchVehicles.pdf
I heard they went out of business years ago, but two subsidiaries took their place.  :D
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Nick_Larcombe

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Earth
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #17 on: 04/18/2018 02:59 pm »
Hi Everyone,

I'm Nick Larcombe the Ripple Co-founder and President that Steven spoke too.

Happy to answer some questions you all might have.

Please don't take our website details as set in stone, they are changing pretty quick these days.

Online CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2372
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #18 on: 04/18/2018 11:39 pm »
Hi Everyone,

I'm Nick Larcombe the Ripple Co-founder and President that Steven spoke too.

Happy to answer some questions you all might have.

Please don't take our website details as set in stone, they are changing pretty quick these days.

Hi Nick - welcome to the forum!  :)

I have one question:  Do you have any plans to launch from Australia??
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 Nick_Larcombe

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Earth
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #19 on: 04/19/2018 02:04 am »
Thanks!

I have one question:  Do you have any plans to launch from Australia??

Short answer: Yes

Longer answer: Our system enables launch from any ocean around the world which reduces delays and lowers infrastructure overhead.

Australia is very good geographically for a rocket launch, but the lack of launch infrastructure and regulatory hurdles have held people back. We expect the law to be brought up to the same level as other countries and Ripple does not need fixed launch infrastructure. Ripple is currently exploring options for Australian operations.

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39046
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32344
  • Likes Given: 8024
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #20 on: 04/19/2018 05:44 am »
G'day Nick. Can you give us an update on the current status of your launch vehicle development? Do you have money in hand for this, or are you still looking for investors?
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #21 on: 04/19/2018 10:16 am »
Hi Everyone,

I'm Nick Larcombe the Ripple Co-founder and President that Steven spoke too.

Happy to answer some questions you all might have.

Please don't take our website details as set in stone, they are changing pretty quick these days.
Welcome to the site.

You've appear to be going with an aerospike or plug nozzle. Is that still the plan?

Historically this was suggested both as a way to increase Isp and also (in principle) to act as a heat shield for orbital re entry. I guess the notion was "We have to cool it to survive operating as a rocket engine anyway. A bit of propellant to cool it on entry is no big deal."

Is this a long range goal for the company?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Nick_Larcombe

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Earth
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #22 on: 04/19/2018 03:35 pm »
Hi Guys,

Can you give us an update on the current status of your launch vehicle development?

We have been working on the sea serpent family for a little while now, one of the key things that draw us to oceanic rocketry is that it's much easier to scale up or down as needed.

As we are currently suffering a bad case of not being billionaires, we are able to move things around depending on resources and partners.

We are making progress but we don't have every wiring diagram sorted just yet.

Do you have money in hand for this, or are you still looking for investors?

Our current grants have been focused on our ballast system as proof of concept.

We will be starting our 1st fundraise soon, as I'm sure everyone here has seen their fair share of paper rockets and now we have hardware and operations experience we feel we are in a much better position. Things look promising but its like herding cats.

You've appear to be going with an aerospike or plug nozzle. Is that still the plan?

Historically this was suggested both as a way to increase Isp and also (in principle) to act as a heat shield for orbital re-entry. I guess the notion was "We have to cool it to survive operating as a rocket engine anyway. A bit of propellant to cool it on entry is no big deal."

Is this a long-range goal for the company?


Everyone is building engines. While we have the goal of aerospike engine we at this point are looking to either build or buy engines depending on cash and time frames.

We are hoping to focus on operations (oceanic launch and refurbishment) and other rocket systems which are not receiving as much tech dev as engines. We figure the view is better from orbit rather than on the ground waiting for tech or additional resources to fully build in-house from the start.

Here is a link to our 1st test where we worked on the tow and flip of the rocket using our ballast system.



Also few photos

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #23 on: 04/19/2018 03:52 pm »
How much data do you have from the Seabee and Sea Horse rocket tests? Anything that was particularly helpful to you guys?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Nick_Larcombe

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Earth
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #24 on: 04/19/2018 04:15 pm »
How much data do you have from the Seabee and Sea Horse rocket tests? Anything that was particularly helpful to you guys?

We have a good bit of it, but you don't know what you don't know.

It's helped to guide top-level choices and answering questions we come up with.

There is quite a bit of data out and around. We really hope not to reinvent the wheel but more so change out the tire to the lastest rubber and extend its life via advance no destructive inspections.

Feel free to PM with any oceanic rocket data you might find.

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39046
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32344
  • Likes Given: 8024
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #25 on: 04/20/2018 07:46 am »
Thanks for your replies Nick!
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #26 on: 04/25/2018 06:01 pm »
Hi Everyone,

I'm Nick Larcombe the Ripple Co-founder and President that Steven spoke too.

Happy to answer some questions you all might have.

Please don't take our website details as set in stone, they are changing pretty quick these days.

Hey Nick, brave to step into the cynic's den!

There are bunch of US-based companies who have raised a lot of money recently. With PLD Space far ahead of the game in Europe, what's your plan to catch up and raise the money needed to fulfil your plans and beat those well-funded companies?

Offline Nick_Larcombe

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Earth
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #27 on: 04/26/2018 07:50 am »
Hi Everyone,

I'm Nick Larcombe the Ripple Co-founder and President that Steven spoke too.

Happy to answer some questions you all might have.

Please don't take our website details as set in stone, they are changing pretty quick these days.

Hey Nick, brave to step into the cynic's den!

There are bunch of US-based companies who have raised a lot of money recently. With PLD Space far ahead of the game in Europe, what's your plan to catch up and raise the money needed to fulfil your plans and beat those well-funded companies?


Thanks for the welcome!

Feeling much braver with hardware rather than paper rockets. Plus I can tell you right now I don't have all the answers and I'm definitely wrong about many things. Which things only time will tell :)

Yea we have a lot of catching up to do in time and money. We are pretty pleased to be compared to all these companies in fact. They are older then we are, PLD space was foundered in 2011 while we only got things rolling in 2016. What we have really come to understand is this industry is not a level playing field. Many other groups have resource advantages or have been around much longer than us. That's without getting into the politics of it. You just have to keep fighting till you get a place at the table

We are glad for every new launcher we see trying to reach the market

More rockets mean more space missions. Go, humans!
More trained and talented people with industry experience to hire
A wider range of parts and suppliers to chose from. Less time for us to have to reinvent the wheel
A lot of what sets us apart is operations, reusability, and refurbishment
The more rockets out there trying to launch means more people waiting for pads which makes our system shine even more.
More rocket companies looking to us to help convert and run their oceanic ops when they get fed with land ops

The plan to raise money is to finish our testing, point to the testing and say look we did the thing with not much. Give us more and we will do more things. In a nut shell

One of the bigger troubles we have atm is while many Non-Space VC's are interested in things they don't have the understanding or technical expertise to feel comfortable leading the round.

It's hard and full of unknowns but we are working towards the future in spite of that.

More questions?

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #28 on: 04/26/2018 10:56 am »

One of the bigger troubles we have atm is while many Non-Space VC's are interested in things they don't have the understanding or technical expertise to feel comfortable leading the round.

I guess you are aware of Seraphim?

Offline vaporcobra

Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #29 on: 04/26/2018 09:46 pm »
We are hoping to focus on operations (oceanic launch and refurbishment) and other rocket systems which are not receiving as much tech dev as engines. We figure the view is better from orbit rather than on the ground waiting for tech or additional resources to fully build in-house from the start.

Welcome to NASASpaceflight, really glad I started this topic ;D

It's a fair idea. While a lot of NewSpace can be said to exist partly because subassembly suppliers were (and many still are) mind-bogglingly slow and over-priced, it appears that the injection of serious competition is starting to pay off with some new innovative subassembly providers.

On the engine side of things, I can already think of several possible sources in the US. Ursa Major comes to mind as the clearest option.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #30 on: 04/26/2018 10:11 pm »

Hey Nick, brave to step into the cynic's den!

Yes, welcome, and thank you very much for being open to any questions here!  It's a refreshing change that sets you apart from most other launch start-ups.

We are glad for every new launcher we see trying to reach the market

More rockets mean more space missions. Go, humans!
More trained and talented people with industry experience to hire
A wider range of parts and suppliers to chose from.

The more rockets out there trying to launch means more people waiting for pads which makes our system shine even more.
More rocket companies looking to us to help convert and run their oceanic ops when they get fed with land ops

I have to say, that seems like a contradiction there.  I agree with you that more launch companies means more parts and suppliers, which makes it better for all launch companies.  But by the same logic lots of companies trying to launch from land should mean more pads get built, which makes it easier, not harder, for companies trying to launch from land.

Maybe there's some reason you think that more customers means more suppliers of everything but pads?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #31 on: 04/28/2018 09:04 pm »
"Ripple" eh? Nick my fine fellow I do like the concept and name of the vehicle.. Company name? Well, everyone I knew growing up always TALKED about "Ripple" but once "Boone's Farm" came along... :)

JQP; Not to off track this even more but canister, floating, (encapsulated, platform, and free-floating) along with sub-surface basing was extensively studied in the late 50s and early-to-mid-60s and while technically feasible the key point was no significant advantage was found and more than enough disadvantages to 'scuttle' the concept. It has come up again and again over the years, (Mobile MX was one and there was another round of studies recently and on-going for a 'new' ICBM system) but the same issues remain.

I'm not sure how you haven't heard of the idea as it comes up easily with any keyword search using "Ocean" "Floating" "Missile" "Launch Vehicle" and it helps to throw in "Concepts" as well. Here's my first hit with those terms:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/297396.pdf

1962 towed canister concept which was proposed to the Navy.

Throw in "Sea Dragon" "SEELAR" "SeaBee" or "Truax" into the engine and you're off and running.

No the DoD has no interest in people who are interested in the concept because as noted they, (and just about every other nation with SLBMs) have studied the concept and are well aware the flaws out-weigh the advantages by a good margin.
I won't go into the majority here as they are in the literature but I'll mention a few:

1) Lack of Command and Control over the missile. In an situation where you leave your 'weapon' somewhere and plan on activating or controlling it from somewhere else the biggest danger is someone will detect it and disable it before you use it. Worse they can probably, given time, actually turn the weapon against you and use it themselves. Communications underwater is difficult and limited to sound or light unless you use a hardline cable and any of them can be blocked or tapped. Even if you remain nearby the separated weapon has no propulsion, nor sensors so it is vastly more vulnerable than your submarine is. (Note you can't 'get away' from the weapon as noted effective contact range under water is VERY short. "Counterstike" on a submarine never happens because if you can't get them BEFORE they launch then taking them out afterwards is useless. Beside if the enemy is in position to even attempt a 'counterstrike' then he's already in a position to detect and prevent you from launching in the first place.

2) "Remote" platforms or containers is even worse since literally ANYONE can access them and you might never know it till all YOUR missiles suddenly launch on YOUR cities! Put them in a restricted area and limit access you say? Ok now that you've told everyone exactly WHERE to look for them what do you do? On the other hand a submerged and maneuvering missile sub can avoid detection and range far and wide over an area far to big to effectively patrol or regulate.

3) On a submarine the missiles though they can't be fully maintained or inspected can be constantly monitored and are in a controlled and 'secure' environment 100% of the time with human supervision and oversight 100% of the time. This is a VERY important factor when dealing with weapons of mass destruction.

There really are number more but these are the main ones that tend to 'kill' the idea as far as any military use goes. But this isn't ABOUT military use so...

One aside though; JS19 wrote:
Quote
I heard they went out of business years ago, but two subsidiaries took their place.

I GOT THAT ONE :) But doing a websearch I ran across something called "hydrasandhawks" (dot-org)which I can't currently access but has 'teasers' about various concepts and actual tests including this one: http://www.astronautix.com/s/sandhawk.html ) which going down my web-search a bit more finds this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23015.msg709136#msg709136
So...

To both vaporcobra and Nick; Well no, quite obviously you can't call them "paper-rockets"... It wouldn't be true anyway, or frankly work very well I mean how do you keep them from getting wet and soggy? Oh look there's my exit!


Ok to continue perusal of the concept,

Ok to address a bit of a misconception ocean launching, (really, when can we have 'sea-launch' back? It is so much better) does NOT avoid either 'range' requirements or issues because there isn't really much 'open' ocean around anymore. Pretty much you have to have the ability and capability to monitor you launch point, your entire trajectory and any and all 'landing' sites for dropped stages to include 'real-time' monitoring of all down-range areas. In some cases this gets pretty ridiculous as "SeaLaunch" will tell you having had to deal with people in light canoes 'impinging' on a down range possible impact area without their knowledge and then getting slapped with a "reckless endangerment" lawsuit. (And that's before environmental damage, loss of income/livelihood, {scared the fish off}, personal and mass health damage claims, {'hearing' loss and injury due to being startled by that big honking platform actually launching a rocket while we're protesting} and so on)

Now most of this can be addressed pretty straight forward, (radars and sensors on launch and recovery vessels and probably drones for visual and IR spotting) but you're still going to have to end up getting 'permission' from someone to launch in the first place and follow all the applicable regulations and laws for launch under the same. (And it will likely NOT differentiate between ocean and land launch)

Chipguy wrote:
Quote
More on topic, it will interesting to see an aerospike nozzle operate on this size of launcher (or any
size for that matter :-).

Several video's and pictures of both liquid and solid aerospikes in the last several years during flight testing around. Garvey Aerospace did several single and multiple chamber aerospike flights while NASA flew a couple of solid ones. Larger sizes tested were mostly 'plug-nozzle' rather than aerospikes but at least up to 250,000lbs engines were tested in the late 50s/early 60s by both the USAF and NASA so...

Nick I must ask; Why LH2 in the first stage and Methane in the second? Being honest LH2 is a crappy booster propellant though Methane's better I'd why not something denser and with a higher T/W at take off? Granted LH2 is "green" but given the amount of energy it requires to make and store I'm not sure, (other than ISP) what the advantage is?

A question on launching from Australia; How does being a signatory of the 1979 Moon Treaty effect business operations? My understanding was the difficulties with enforcement and regulation was the main reason no actual space operating nation signed it or ratified it.

Nick Larcombe wrote:
Quote
We have been working on the sea serpent family for a little while now, one of the key things that draw us to oceanic rocketry is that it's much easier to scale up or down as needed.

Is true :) And as long as you (and/or the employees :) ) don't mind getting wet the overall operations are somewhat easier. Somewhat being the key word as finding out someone forgot to remove the "Remove Before Flight" pin from the base of stage one is VASTLY easier when the rocket is less than 50 feet overall. Lot harder when that flag/pin is over 100ft underwater :)

Quote
Feel free to PM with any oceanic rocket data you might find.

Advice: Invest in "Point THIS end towards Sky" stickers now ;)

On a more serious note we'll keep an eye open I'm sure.

Quote
As we are currently suffering a bad case of not being billionaires, we are able to move things around depending on resources and partners.

Remember the wisdom, you only want to START as billionaires and then become millionaires! :)

Quote
Everyone is building engines. While we have the goal of aerospike engine we at this point are looking to either build or buy engines depending on cash and time frames.

I'd assume "the" problem is just about no one is actually selling engines currently. I know of at least four companies that at one point offered engines for sale but they were mostly 'non-standard' propellants (H2O2, Propylene, LNG, etc) and few if any engines were sold as far as I know. Which is a shame because they tended to be 'cheaper' than developing your own but at the same time they obviously didn't fit your 'exact' requirements.

Quote
We are hoping to focus on operations (oceanic launch and refurbishment) and other rocket systems which are not receiving as much tech dev as engines. We figure the view is better from orbit rather than on the ground waiting for tech or additional resources to fully build in-house from the start.

Good idea in theory but as SpaceX found out a lot of times in really IS a 'system' development that's needed. Having said that I will offer that one of the reason I personally, (which is about what it's worth as I'm neither a billionaire nor an actual rocket scientists :) ) have been looking past 'cylinders' for stages. Yes they are harder to build and frankly harder to work with on some cases, (wasted spaces in the corners and all that :) ) some of the possible operational advantages look interesting. (Not trying to be to mysterious but I don't want to offer side-tracks follow by derailment :) )
Quick example is a more 'conical' booster which now doesn't 'fit' the standard ship building pathways and tows like a 'sail barge' but offers stabilized 'launch' with little or no need for a ballasting system, (tends to need a 'sea-anchor' though, see the 'towing' issue) a broader reentry area, 'auto-stabilized' reentry and aerodynamics and a 'lower' overall height. Tradeoffs as they say and besides everyone here will tell you my ideas are nuts. (Which comes with the territory :) )

"Lessons learned" from current and past concepts is pretty much mixed in that you really need to stick close to what's being done but do it better and cheaper BUT fortune favors the bold if you can find the right flavor of bold :)

Quote
One of the bigger troubles we have atm is while many Non-Space VC's are interested in things they don't have the understanding or technical expertise to feel comfortable leading the round.

Not to worry you overly but I'm sure some of the older members will tell you that at least today it is a bit rarer for those VCs to simply take the word of someone who says "NASA says the idea sucks" as well as simply throwing money at someone who claims to have a viable 'antigravity' device so as not to 'miss' the next big thing. It's actually a bit more 'stable' compared to say the 80s/90s and right after SS1 flew.

Quote
It's hard and full of unknowns but we are working towards the future in spite of that.

Wait? You didn't purchase the optional "Mark-1 Startup Business Crystal Ball"? Were they out? I'm sure you can find a used one around on ebay or something. Watch out for the ones that claim they were "owned by Musk and/or Bezos" because those are scams. Just FYI ;)

Quote
More questions?

Airspeed of an unladen swallow? :)

Vaporcobra wrote:
Quote
On the engine side of things, I can already think of several possible sources in the US. Ursa Major comes to mind as the clearest option.

Ok amend my previous statement to "5" and at least one that IS selling. Thanks

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Nick_Larcombe

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Earth
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #32 on: 04/30/2018 03:02 pm »

Hey Nick, brave to step into the cynic's den!

Yes, welcome, and thank you very much for being open to any questions here!  It's a refreshing change that sets you apart from most other launch start-ups.

We are glad for every new launcher we see trying to reach the market

More rockets mean more space missions. Go, humans!
More trained and talented people with industry experience to hire
A wider range of parts and suppliers to chose from.

The more rockets out there trying to launch means more people waiting for pads which makes our system shine even more.
More rocket companies looking to us to help convert and run their oceanic ops when they get fed with land ops

I have to say, that seems like a contradiction there.  I agree with you that more launch companies means more parts and suppliers, which makes it better for all launch companies.  But by the same logic lots of companies trying to launch from land should mean more pads get built, which makes it easier, not harder, for companies trying to launch from land.

Maybe there's some reason you think that more customers means more suppliers of everything but pads?


I don't think its a contradiction but closer to factors at different rates. I think we can build ballast tanks faster then people can build launch pads and clear new ranges. Each new range will have its own issues while every time we build a ballast launch system we get better ( hopefully).

RanulfC: thanks for your thoughts!

Not using LH2, a website is out of date to expect changes soon. Materials too hard to deal with at the start anyway. Plus we don't have the aircraft carrier to make the fuel on site.

Yep def don't want to be leaving pins on the rocket at 100ft but we expect and have a lot of interest from folks who work/ed in oil and gas that make that kind of work look easy

The airspeed of an unladen swallow? Alt and location of birth of said bird?

SpaceX has lead the way on so many things and we hope we are 1/2 as good as they are by the time we are their kind of numbers.

Not looked at cone tanks but oceanic launch makes it much easier to try new things.

We are trying to use the term oceanic launch for our systems and ops. While sea launch is great wording, it's in everyone's mindset that it means launching from an oil platform which is not the image we are trying to share.

Yep Aus still has legal hurdles, they look to be moving ( being dragged into the modern age). If they are still there we will just launch from a different location under a different flag.

We expect a fair amount of consolidation in the market at all levels in the coming years, so as company's fold and merge I think we will start to see some stable medium-size launch outfits. The really exciting stuff happens if we as a planet can generate enough demand for payload outside of earth orbit.

Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #33 on: 06/20/2018 11:24 pm »
I glad you joined this thread to let us know what is happening with your organization. I hope you are still following it so I might get a few questions in.

I don't think its a contradiction but closer to factors at different rates. I think we can build ballast tanks faster then people can build launch pads and clear new ranges. Each new range will have its own issues while every time we build a ballast launch system we get better ( hopefully).

I think the idea that the suggestion that launch sites will get over crowded is not that realistic. Currently most of the older launch sites are not launching anywhere near capacity. SpaceX for one has rebuilt 2 launch pads with an eye at rapid reuse. The main factor that seem to contribute to the relatively low launch cadence is high prices, and long prep times for both payloads and rockets. These issues are beginning to change and we will likely see launch cadences rising sharply.

I think your argument concerning ranges as more to the point. Land based ranges are all restricted in what orbit they can cover and limited launch windows. This would be a clear advantage of your system over a land based launches. With that in mind do you see Virgin Orbital and Stratolaunch as major competitors for your initial target market?

Can you provide any time table on when you expect to start test launches?

What type of launches do you think will make up the largest part of your business?

From what you have said it sounds like you intend to initially use another companies engines in your vehicle. Have you already chosen a partner and if not are their specific ones that you believe are good candidates?

If the primary engine in the initial vehicles are not an aerospike do you plan on a multi-stage rocket?

To this point aerospike engines have had troubled development history. Do you believe you know how to get it to work where others have failed?

Offline rakaydos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2818
  • Liked: 1865
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #34 on: 12/07/2018 07:44 pm »
So with SpaceX currently maneuvering an orbital-class rocket in the shipping lanes, I remembered this company, and wondered what insight they had in the maritime aspect of sea-launch, rather than the aerospace aspect.

Offline Aeneas

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Germany
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #35 on: 05/18/2020 12:21 pm »
Where's Ripple?!

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #36 on: 05/18/2020 01:30 pm »
« Last Edit: 05/18/2020 01:30 pm by ringsider »

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • USA
  • Liked: 3273
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Ripple Aerospace
« Reply #37 on: 05/19/2020 08:07 pm »
Last update I see from them on twitter is about their ballast flip demonstration at the end of March 2018. Video:

From other information they posted before, sounds like this was probably the only actual development they ever did, probably the hope was they could show this to investors and get enough money to build an actual rocket, and then that (predictably) didn't work out

Tags:
 

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