Interorbital Systems Flights

[Sam Ho]

Interorbital plans a suborbital launch, primarily to test the guidance system, in March/April of 2016.  Payload is 11 smallsats.  Another suborbital launch is planned for mid-year and the first orbital launch in Q4.

http://www.milsatmagazine.com/story.php?number=1337072666

They earlier posted some photos of the Mobile Land-Launch System (sounding rocket launch trailer).

http://www.interorbital.com/interorbital_06222015_019.htm

[QuantumG]

That article is so confusing..

Anyway, it'll be good to see some active guidance on an Interorbital flight. If they actually reach 100 km this year I'll be (pleasantly) surprised.

[Darren_Hensley]

I welcome any flight after years of empty promises. I used to e-mail Randa, but now I just let the chips fall where they may.

I'd rather see advancements to the CPM variants we were watching. Don't get me wrong small and micro sat launches are great, but what about Lunar X-Prize stuff?

[QuantumG]

Indeed. It's pretty obvious that they've only recently entered reality and discovered just how much work is ahead of them.

Two years to develop a guidance system, for example.

[Danderman]

If they launch from their normal site, the allowed ceiling is 25,000 feet.

[savuporo]

So according to this latest update:
http://www.milsatmagazine.com/story.php?number=1337072666

the March/April launch will carry 11 commercial smallsat units

It did not launch in March i believe, so that leaves us with about 20 days

[savuporo]

Milliron will be speaking at AIAA LA-LV Section Enterprise Program Event on Apr 26

The popularity of this new service is evidenced by Interorbtial’s current orbital launch manifest of 128 picosats for upcoming sold-out LEO Missions I-V. Flight-testing continues through 2016 with first orbital launches beginning first quarter Q1 2017.

[Darren_Hensley]

OK so Randa is going to speak, more "Talk" and less "Walk" Again I'd rather see some real progress. Still nothing new and ground breaking in nearly three years. If the altitude max is only 25000 ft, what good is that? Certainly they need to launch into orbit, and then on to the moon with Neptune rocket variants. I say less talk and more backing for a properly funded, manned and forward moving X-Prize shot. No one else seems to be participating anymore. IOS was looking very good, but now more like not-so-good... Just my two cents.

[GraniteHound92]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/08/30/glxp-update-xprize-verifies-launch-agreement-team-synergy-moon/

Parabolic Arc is reporting that the GLXP team SYNERGY MOON is booking a flight to the moon on an Interorbital Neptune 8.  They are aiming to launch in the second half of 2017 from a floating launch pad off the coast of California.

This is clearly absurd.

[jongoff]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/08/30/glxp-update-xprize-verifies-launch-agreement-team-synergy-moon/

Parabolic Arc is reporting that the GLXP team SYNERGY MOON is booking a flight to the moon on an Interorbital Neptune 8.  They are aiming to launch in the second half of 2017 from a floating launch pad off the coast of California.

This is clearly absurd.

I'm glad you included that last sentence. I was worried for a second that you had drunk their koolaid. It's not impossible that IOS could eventually accomplish something, but they've been making grand claims for about half my lifetime now with almost nothing to show for it (other than a bunch of depositors who've been separated from their money).

~Jon

[ChrisWilson68]

From the GLXP update:

SYNERGY MOON has blazed their own path and demonstrated that there is more than one way to get to the Moon

The folks running the GLXP are confused about the meaning of the word "demonstrated".

[russianhalo117]

From the GLXP update:

SYNERGY MOON has blazed their own path and demonstrated that there is more than one way to get to the Moon

The folks running the GLXP are confused about the meaning of the word "demonstrated".

Demonstrated via research and computer models, but that would sound uninteresting to the public.

[ChrisWilson68]

From the GLXP update:

SYNERGY MOON has blazed their own path and demonstrated that there is more than one way to get to the Moon

The folks running the GLXP are confused about the meaning of the word "demonstrated".

Demonstrated via research and computer models, but that would sound uninteresting to the public.

To me, "demonstrate" doesn't mean research and computer models.  To me, demonstrating something is doing the thing you're claiming.  A demonstration might not be fully-featured or production-ready, but it means showing something is possible by actually doing an example of it.  That's pretty much the whole point of a demonstration.

The only exceptions I can think of would be in math or logic, where it means give a proof, since there isn't a physical way to show something.  But in engineering of all sorts, the general understanding of the word "demonstrate" is to show by example, in all my experience.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Interobital Systems has demonstrated a suborbital launch of their Neptune CPM TV (Common Propulsion Module Test Vehicle) on 29 March 2014 which reached the grand height of 3 km. They have a long way to go before they can reach the Moon.

[NaN]

That is more than synergy moon has demonstrated, judging by their website. All I could find is this video of their lunar rover concept:

[CameronD]

To me, "demonstrate" doesn't mean research and computer models.  To me, demonstrating something is doing the thing you're claiming.  A demonstration might not be fully-featured or production-ready, but it means showing something is possible by actually doing an example of it.  That's pretty much the whole point of a demonstration.

If that's your thinking, then they won't bother asking you for investment capital anytime soon.

[CameronD]

That is more than synergy moon has demonstrated, judging by their website. All I could find is this video of their lunar rover concept:

"Tesla Surveyor".. Now which company do you suppose they might be hoping will bank-roll this little project? 

[ChrisWilson68]

To me, "demonstrate" doesn't mean research and computer models.  To me, demonstrating something is doing the thing you're claiming.  A demonstration might not be fully-featured or production-ready, but it means showing something is possible by actually doing an example of it.  That's pretty much the whole point of a demonstration.

If that's your thinking, then they won't bother asking you for investment capital anytime soon. :)

You do realize I'm talking about the use of a word, right?  I never said things shouldn't be funded if they haven't been demonstrated.  I just dislike hype, and using the word "demonstrated" in this context is hype.  If you go to a venture capitalist and say you want money for an idea you have that will take time and money to produce a demo, they will listen and they might fund you if they are convinced.  But if you say you've demonstrated it and you don't actually have a demo, you're unlikely to get funding.

And it's worth pointing out that the "they" we're talking about is the GLXP organization, not Interorbital Systems.  It wasn't Interorbital that claimed it had been demonstrated, it was someone from GLXP.

[josespeck]

What is the gas pressurizing the propellant tanks?.

[savuporo]

Lets post an actual Interorbital update ( or rather, non-update as these things usually are )

www.satnews.com/story.php?number=60112970

According to IOS, by mid-2017/early 2018, the firm will initiate launch services for smallsats to a circular, polar orbit at 310 km altitude. Their current manifest numbers 135 smallsats awaiting launch.

The first flight date was early 2016 six months ago or so.