Latest picture of their engine
I came across that old website when looking for that engine: https://gulker.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/industrial-revolution/Not a lot of information, but an interesting tidbit: the article states costs of 4000$ in 2007 for a Scorpius(Microcosm) rocket engine.My big question is: those engines have been around for at least a decade, John Garvey flew the first composite LOX tank in 2001 (manufactured also by microcosm).Why is this all only happening now?Is it Jim Cantrell bringing venture capital together with John Garvey? Why didn't anything materialise from the Microcosm/Scorpius plans for a smallsat launcher?
Flight valves?
My big question is: those engines have been around for at least a decade, John Garvey flew the first composite LOX tank in 2001 (manufactured also by microcosm).
Why is this all only happening now?Is it Jim Cantrell bringing venture capital together with John Garvey? Why didn't anything materialise from the Microcosm/Scorpius plans for a smallsat launcher?
FWIW - some ways of explaining what you might be seeing:The metal box with the red label in the left lower corner is perhaps one of the gimbal actuators (the other is in the background behind and to the left - it's not locked into place yet)
Which as you see here with Vector, is a lot of "over promise and under deliver". (Like other space ventures, key thing is "do they get enough each time they fail, that they eventually bring it off anyways?") A "big picture" that holds together is potentially finance-able even if the tech (like with Falcon 1) has holes, however, aerospace engineers don't ever care for "big picture" even when they have fixable holes in tech.
My example above was to illustrate that when you do cross the threshold of where significant interest triggers, it's often not considered positive in aerospace engineering as much as you'd expect. Often they don't keep up contacts, don't show for meetings, even go back on plans and burn bridges.
Many would rather work for the larger firm that they left to do a start-up with, or struggle along with SBIR crumbs, thinking small the whole time (most small aerospace firms that make it have NO private investment, bootstrap finance and then lead narrow existences for 10-60 years).
Space start-up culture isn't like Silicon Valley (or LA or NY or ...) where you can through things together on the fly when things get rough. So its also perceived as riskier and more "go it alone". Thus the "showmanship" attributes of a Musk matter a great deal to fill the void - others follow that "inflated" model.Plain and simple, its nuts.
Edit to add: next suborbital test launch planned to beQuote... to about 10,000 feet in late March or April in Mojave, California. That will serve to test the vehicle's thrust vector control, the payload fairing, and a new version of the flight computer software among other things, Cantrell said. After that, he believes Vector will be ready to attempt an orbital flight.
... to about 10,000 feet in late March or April in Mojave, California. That will serve to test the vehicle's thrust vector control, the payload fairing, and a new version of the flight computer software among other things, Cantrell said. After that, he believes Vector will be ready to attempt an orbital flight.
If they're successful, i think Vector might be the first candidate for a merger with an "old Space" company and Cantrell might go back to collecting race cars...Edit:Found this Spacenews Article about Microcosm that sheds some light on technologies that Vector will use.
Interesting article. I did not Gwynn Shotwell is Ex-Microcosm. She's clearly pretty familiar with the application of composites to LOX tank mfg.
Our @vectorspacesys next generation Stage 1 main engine putting out nominal 6,000 lbs of thrust and one of three engines powering the first stage. This new generation engine uses #3dprinted injectors and carbon fiber wound ablative nozzles burning cryogenic liquid propylene/LOX
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/10/2018 11:26 pmFWIW - some ways of explaining what you might be seeing:The metal box with the red label in the left lower corner is perhaps one of the gimbal actuators (the other is in the background behind and to the left - it's not locked into place yet)Some slightly better explaining ;o)It's a load cell. http://www.futek.com/product.aspx?stock=FSH01043Which given the packaging of the gimbal point, leads to a conclusion about that engine, on that flight. Right?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/10/2018 11:26 pmWhich as you see here with Vector, is a lot of "over promise and under deliver". (Like other space ventures, key thing is "do they get enough each time they fail, that they eventually bring it off anyways?") A "big picture" that holds together is potentially finance-able even if the tech (like with Falcon 1) has holes, however, aerospace engineers don't ever care for "big picture" even when they have fixable holes in tech. Which begs the question would people invest in a competent team that under promised and over delivered?
Quote from: Space GhostMy example above was to illustrate that when you do cross the threshold of where significant interest triggers, it's often not considered positive in aerospace engineering as much as you'd expect. Often they don't keep up contacts, don't show for meetings, even go back on plans and burn bridges.You mean because they don't really have a "management team" that can do those meetings, which others can actually get on with fulfilling their contracts?
It always astounded me seeing reports of some little outfit going back decades and thinking "How can they still be around, and yet not seem to grow?"
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962Many would rather work for the larger firm that they left to do a start-up with, or struggle along with SBIR crumbs, thinking small the whole time (most small aerospace firms that make it have NO private investment, bootstrap finance and then lead narrow existences for 10-60 years). I'm guessing they do have a fairly solid business plan though.
Quote from: Space GhostSpace start-up culture isn't like Silicon Valley (or LA or NY or ...) where you can through things together on the fly when things get rough. So its also perceived as riskier and more "go it alone". Thus the "showmanship" attributes of a Musk matter a great deal to fill the void - others follow that "inflated" model.Plain and simple, its nuts.I suspect many engineers who start their own business underestimate the level of marketing involved. This is a mistake.
Seems like a small community, those rocket people...
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/11/2018 07:57 amWhich begs the question would people invest in a competent team that under promised and over delivered?That used to be a "kiss of death".Ironically, it has become a peculiar "advantage" for certain professional investors, who think bravado is a a show of confidence. (They think when it doesn't come off, they can extract a pound of flesh advantage each time, and buy back increasing share of the business, because they have them over a barrel. )
Which begs the question would people invest in a competent team that under promised and over delivered?
Because they have a niche that they stubbornly cling to.And there are many stories in aerospace/arsenal where obscure tiny firms become huge too.
In the case of Vector more of a "going where others cannot/will not".And as a result opportunistically always getting the best deal for frequent small launches. Which in this case allows one investor to eat the heart out of an arrogant rival who they think over invested by undercutting them. Just as much spite as "bragging rights".
Not just marketing.It's a mentality. Most aerospace engineers are trained to accept the worst case and to minimize potential success, because they are trying to secure success usually by overthinking things with tremendous special case constraints. That's not how entrepreneurs work.
(BTW, I don't think Musk knew what he was doing until long after Falcon 1 flight 4.)
Absolutely. BTW, Musk has taught Mueller how to be an entrepreneur. That played a significant role in the success of M1D.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/11/2018 07:57 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 03/11/2018 07:57 amWhich begs the question would people invest in a competent team that under promised and over delivered?That used to be a "kiss of death".Ironically, it has become a peculiar "advantage" for certain professional investors, who think bravado is a a show of confidence. (They think when it doesn't come off, they can extract a pound of flesh advantage each time, and buy back increasing share of the business, because they have them over a barrel. )Hmmm. Did not see that one coming. Just... bizarre.So as a company making bolder claims is better, even if your claims are pretty bold to begin with?
QuoteQuoteQuote from: Space GhostMy example above was to illustrate that when you do cross the threshold of where significant interest triggers, it's often not considered positive in aerospace engineering as much as you'd expect. Often they don't keep up contacts, don't show for meetings, even go back on plans and burn bridges.You mean because they don't really have a "management team" that can do those meetings, which others can actually get on with fulfilling their contracts? No.They all have/had management teams. In this day and age, people pick and choose casually if they feel they need to be professional/genuine (or for that matter even betray), on a case by case basis. It's another evasion of professionalism that boggles.Fulfilling contracts doesn't mean success in aerospace, often its just about keeping one's head above water.I'm clearly not cut out for this sort of thing. I'm getting more boggled by the minute.
QuoteQuote from: Space GhostMy example above was to illustrate that when you do cross the threshold of where significant interest triggers, it's often not considered positive in aerospace engineering as much as you'd expect. Often they don't keep up contacts, don't show for meetings, even go back on plans and burn bridges.You mean because they don't really have a "management team" that can do those meetings, which others can actually get on with fulfilling their contracts? No.They all have/had management teams. In this day and age, people pick and choose casually if they feel they need to be professional/genuine (or for that matter even betray), on a case by case basis. It's another evasion of professionalism that boggles.Fulfilling contracts doesn't mean success in aerospace, often its just about keeping one's head above water.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962In the case of Vector more of a "going where others cannot/will not".And as a result opportunistically always getting the best deal for frequent small launches. Which in this case allows one investor to eat the heart out of an arrogant rival who they think over invested by undercutting them. Just as much spite as "bragging rights".Indeed. In theory "It's just business," but IRL there's usually a sense of satisfaction involved. The trouble comes when someone's desire for satisfaction makes them willing to exceed what is good business, and they make poor choices.
Quote from: Space GhostNot just marketing.It's a mentality. Most aerospace engineers are trained to accept the worst case and to minimize potential success, because they are trying to secure success usually by overthinking things with tremendous special case constraints. That's not how entrepreneurs work.Indeed. It's taken me a while to stop thinking in terms of "I can get so far in a plan but I can't see past this bit. Not viable. Don't do it" and start thinking in terms of "I get to here, and by then I should have learned enough to work out how to do the rest." Of course that does not always work. I wonder if this has anything to do with the demise of the thinking behind "X" Planes, where the goal is find out information, not to design the next aircraft, to gain the knowledge to design the next generation of aircraft.
Quote from: Space Ghost(BTW, I don't think Musk knew what he was doing until long after Falcon 1 flight 4.)Assuming he had absolute control of the F1 design process some of his choices seemed pretty odd.
Quote from: Space GhostAbsolutely. BTW, Musk has taught Mueller how to be an entrepreneur. That played a significant role in the success of M1D.I wonder if SX will turn out to be the equivalent of Fairchild semiconductor and it's spawing of the "Fair children" competitors from former employees?
Its how we got Groupon and Uber.
Successful test of our Gen II first stage engine for @vectorspacesys Vector-R launch vehicle with 3D printed injector and ablative cooled chamber/nozzle. This engine met performance targets and we will now work to finish qualifying engine for 1st flight
Vector’s proposed new launch pad at Pacific Spaceport Complex – Kodiak Alaska. Arguably one of the most amazing views of any pad in the world.
Hot off the presses (printer), our new Vector-R first stage engine 3D printed injector...