Interorbital Systems Flights

[ChrisWilson68]

Thanks! I am personally prepared for a long wait, and have supported AmbaSat regardless of when they will launch. But I can speak only for myself. I'm willing to be patient. Space is hard, but it's also slow :)

You are right that it would have been possible for them to choose a more expensive launch option aboard an operational rocket. But then it would have been beyond the ability of at least some of us to pay for it.

It is good that initiatives like these exist. They give us hope that space would soon be affordable to those of us who aren't millionaires. I am thinking about ChipSats as the Poor Man's Space Program. To me (but again, I am speaking only about myself), I'd be happy if I just have a satellite that reaches the launch pad and then lifts off - even if it later doesn't make it to orbit. It would be very inspirational to me and I guess to some people around me who will be inspired by what I am doing. We have to start from somewhere - and my hope is that space will become even more affordable in the future.

While I sympathize with the sentiment, unfortunately, I think you've made the wrong choice.  Interorbital is not a step on the path toward making space more affordable in the future.

Wanting something doesn't make it happen.  Interorbital represents wanting and trying something without a reality check.

What will make space more affordable in the future is paying attention to reality.

There are options for people with limited budgets to fund things that can actually help.  They can participate in funding smallsats to ride SpaceX rideshare missions.  They can fund propulsion companies developing propulsion and other components for smallsats and in-space transportation.  They can fund technologies for ISRU on Mars, the Moon, and elsewhere.

There are many opportunities for funding at all levels to help improve the prospects for our future in space.  So it saddens me to see it instead wasted on the likes of Interorbital, who are simply doing a less-good version of what many others have already done.

[Svetoslav]

Well... Interorbital does have a good idea behind its Neptune rocket. It's based on a common propulsion module. The same idea, I think, is applied to the Russian Angara rocket. However in this case we have a small company.

[ChrisWilson68]

Well... Interorbital does have a good idea behind its Neptune rocket. It's based on a common propulsion module. The same idea, I think, is applied to the Russian Angara rocket. However in this case we have a small company.

It's an idea people have been trying for decades.  It's still an expendable chemical engine.  That's obsolete technology in an age of stages being reused.

[Kryten]

Well... Interorbital does have a good idea behind its Neptune rocket. It's based on a common propulsion module. The same idea, I think, is applied to the Russian Angara rocket. However in this case we have a small company.

Even if they have great ideas, there's little evidence of implementation of any ideas. They've done two flights in the past six years, both low-altitude. After the second, they promised a high altitude flight within 'a few weeks'- as i'm writing this, that was 80 weeks ago. Look through this whole thread, look at their past promises, and look at how much they've actually done in all that time. I don't see how they can get anywhere unless somebody turns up with a giant bag of money sometime soon.

[Svetoslav]

While I agree that delays are disappointing... aren't they a norm in spaceflight?

I remember Blue Origin promising human flights in 2017. Virgin Galactic was supposed to be operational 10 years ago. And even when test human crewed spaceflight started in late 2018, we're approaching a full year without any test flights for VSS unity. While SpaceX is certainly the most successful company ever and they're doing great with reusable rocket stage, I remember soon after the first Dragon flight in 2010 that they promised us that there won't be a post-shuttle gap.

What makes the IOS case different?

[ChrisWilson68]

While I agree that delays are disappointing... aren't they a norm in spaceflight?

I remember Blue Origin promising human flights in 2017. Virgin Galactic was supposed to be operational 10 years ago. And even when test human crewed spaceflight started in late 2018, we're approaching a full year without any test flights for VSS unity. While SpaceX is certainly the most successful company ever and they're doing great with reusable rocket stage, I remember soon after the first Dragon flight in 2010 that they promised us that there won't be a post-shuttle gap.

What makes the IOS case different?

Interorbital Systems was founded in 1996.  SpaceX was founded in 2002.

As to the claim by SpaceX that there would not be a post-shuttle gap, that was predicated on NASA putting up the money for COTS-C.  NASA only provided the money years later and more slowly than SpaceX had asked, and NASA put up far more bureaucratic requirements than with COTS.

Yes, SpaceX has been late on their promises.  But not anywhere near as late as IOS.  SpaceX eventually proved themselves.  IOS still hasn't.

[Steven Pietrobon]

I have to agree with the others. Interorbital doesn't even have a launch date for any of their vehicles!

[vaporcobra]

Interorbital Systems was founded in 1996.  SpaceX was founded in 2002.

As to the claim by SpaceX that there would not be a post-shuttle gap, that was predicated on NASA putting up the money for COTS-C.  NASA only provided the money years later and more slowly than SpaceX had asked, and NASA put up far more bureaucratic requirements than with COTS.

To be clear, that was almost entirely the fault of Congress and its incredibly parochial, zero-sum-gaming SLS supporters. 99% sure that NASA wanted things to move much more quickly and had reasonable budget requests that Congress then ignored. This is getting very off topic for an Interorbital thread but just wanted to correct the record.

[Svetoslav]

While we're discussing this, some updates. Last year the AmbaSat team visited the Interorbital team in Mojave and there are photos on the Facebook page of AmbaSat:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ambasat/photos/?ref=page_internal

Also... some kind of joint press release between Amba and Interorbital is supposed to happen soon:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ambasat/ambasat-1-an-educational-space-satellite-kit/posts/2723187

[QuantumG]

If ya want IOS to fly sooner, raise money for a 100km flight and don't give it all to them upfront.

$500 / km altitude perhaps.

They're a "everyone get out and push" outfit.

[ringsider]

If ya want IOS to fly sooner, raise money for a 100km flight and don't give it all to them upfront.

$500 / km altitude perhaps.

With this funding model Vector would have raised about $1500.00 ...

[Svetoslav]

Short update:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ambasat/ambasat-1-an-educational-space-satellite-kit/posts/2845229

"When will the rocket launch take place?
Well, this is, of course, the million-dollar question for us all. In our meeting with Randa at Interorbital (IOS) last month, she said that they were planning on rocket engine testing within 30-40 days. They will then have a schedule for the next steps - which I guess will depend on the test outcome. We will find out more at our next meeting. However, we are well down the launch manifest and will NOT be on the first IOS launch, so I would not be too concerned about the amount of time you have for assembly/development/programming/etc. We will go deeper into this topic with a new blog article once we have information from IOS at the next meeting. Personally I think our further timeline for development could well be extended by at least 6 months."


So... since the latest update we got was about a month ago, we can expect IOS engine test ... soonish.

[Svetoslav]

An update:

Martin from AmbaSat and Randa from Interorbital Systems (IOS) had an online meeting earlier this week.

Randa reported that:

Interorbital is currently testing the Neptune rocket guidance system. This includes both hardware & software elements

There is an upcoming large engine test for N2

Shutdown due to Covid has affected licence dates so any launch will probably not happen until the end of this year (2020) or beginning of next year, at the earliest

AmbaSat will be launched onboard the Neptune 2 rocket (N2)

There is room for the AmbaSat payload on the first flight

The N2 rocket payload capacity has increased from 30kg to 45kg

We should have a further update around the end of July

Martin asked for Interorbital expertise in completing the build of the AmbaSat launch container and will liaise with Silvan and IOS on this.

Randa also mentioned that IOS are currently in the middle of a multi-million dollar capital raise.

Comment from Martin:

Good and bad news from our meeting. Unfortunately, it looks like we may well not get to launch with IOS this year. However, the good news is that a 2021 launch looks good and there is the chance that we may also be on the first Neptune 2 rocket launch. For a 2021 launch it also gives everyone more time to complete their satellite assembly and coding tasks & testing.



https://ambasat.com/june-meeting-with-interorbital-systems-launch-date-update/

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/interorbital/status/1295413457865420800

"Big news coming soon!"
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6699484417859051520/

[Steven Pietrobon]

The vehicle is the Neptune 2. The first stage has two tanks of oxidiser (white fuming nitric acid) and two tanks of fuel (turpentine). Hopefully the "big news" is a launch date for their vehicle.

https://www.interorbital.com/Launch%20Vehicles

[trimeta]

It seems like Interorbital Systems have completely changed the design of their Neptune vehicle. Based on the Wayback Machine, some time between August 12th and November 4th of 2021 they updated their webpage, and now Neptune is a LOX/densified propane rocket, with a conventional "fuel and oxidizer tanks stacked on top of each other" design, rather than having four long-and-skinny tanks (two for fuel, two for oxidizer) arranged in a square. They also seem to have abandoned the OTRAG-like concept of building more powerful vehicles by putting lots and lots of "common propulsion modules" together: now the Neptune is just their 80 kg to 500 km SSO vehicle, while Triton is a 3-ton class vehicle with a much larger (but still monolithic, not ganged together) core, and Triton Heavy is a 9-ton class three-core version of Triton.

As for propulsion, Neptune now uses four stationary pressure-fed ablative engines on the first stage (there's a hilarious bit where they call regenerative cooling "primitive nineteenth-century steam-engine technology," as though ablative is somehow more advanced), using differential throttle for steering, while the second stage uses a single stationary pressure-fed ablative engine with cold gas thrusters for steering. They claim to be using a "proprietary pressurant system" that somehow lets them use pressure-fed engines without high-pressure propellent tanks, leading to tanks with no more extra weight than the extra mass turbopumps would weigh anyway, but I'm quite skeptical of that. They also want to launch exclusively from an ocean-going barge/launch complex, but that's the least of my concerns here -- at least that justifies their nautical-themed vehicle naming!

I've linked/attached some of their infographics below, including their vehicle design for Neptune (which includes hot staging), Neptune's performance plot, and the specs they list for Neptune, Triton, and Triton Heavy.