Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Except it's not a small sat launch vehicle that they launched...

I know.

But it's nice to see any small sat launch company actually fly anything! Also even as just a first step for Vector I imagine they can retire quite a lot of risk.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Just now reviewing drone footage of launch.  One drone caught an unbelievable sequence - will post shortly

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/859870156444491776 

[Craftyatom]

What's the altitude? At the acceleration that thing was going at, and the size of the tanks can't be more than 2000ft.

Using rough, conservative estimates (frame-by-frame analysis puts upwards acceleration of the test vehicle at at least 8.5m/s^2, probably more like 9.5), I'd say an apogee of 2000 feet would involve burnout at around T+8 seconds.  Burnout at T+15 seconds could get them to a mile or so.  Depends on how quickly that engine was gobbling up propellant - and how wildly inaccurate my guesses about the vehicle's aerodynamics are.

Hopefully we'll get more video/numbers soon.

[Davidthefat]

Except it's not a small sat launch vehicle that they launched...

I know.

But it's nice to see any small sat launch company actually fly anything! Also even as just a first step for Vector I imagine they can retire quite a lot of risk.

Except getting something off the ground is trivial compared to actually making an orbital class launch vehicle... and the rest of the infrastructure required to operate an orbital class launch vehicle.

Launch vehicles aren't just rocket engines with tanks attached to them. If you want to know if your engine works, you do a hot fire, or a static fire.

The biggest reason why I may seem sour is because how much of a big fuss they are making about this, and the claims being made. Honestly, I am WAY more impressed by USC than Vector.

If they were going to do a suborbital flight test, they should have done a proper one like Firefly Space Systems was planning on doing. Full up launch vehicle suborbital test rather than a useless launch like this.

This is just noise to me.

[Davidthefat]

What's the altitude? At the acceleration that thing was going at, and the size of the tanks can't be more than 2000ft.

Using rough, conservative estimates (frame-by-frame analysis puts upwards acceleration of the test vehicle at at least 8.5m/s^2, probably more like 9.5), I'd say an apogee of 2000 feet would involve burnout at around T+8 seconds.  Burnout at T+15 seconds could get them to a mile or so.  Depends on how quickly that engine was gobbling up propellant - and how wildly inaccurate my guesses about the vehicle's aerodynamics are.

Hopefully we'll get more video/numbers soon.

Based on the numbers they give, roughly 19lb/s


edit: Based on the drone footage, the burn time may have been roughly 8-9 seconds.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Here we go:

Vector-R B0.1 ..... just passing through the neighborhood ! #SPACE #NASA

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/859872571159789568

[Craftyatom]

What's the altitude? At the acceleration that thing was going at, and the size of the tanks can't be more than 2000ft.

Using rough, conservative estimates (frame-by-frame analysis puts upwards acceleration of the test vehicle at at least 8.5m/s^2, probably more like 9.5), I'd say an apogee of 2000 feet would involve burnout at around T+8 seconds.  Burnout at T+15 seconds could get them to a mile or so.  Depends on how quickly that engine was gobbling up propellant - and how wildly inaccurate my guesses about the vehicle's aerodynamics are.

Hopefully we'll get more video/numbers soon.

Based on the numbers they give, roughly 19lb/s


edit: Based on the drone footage, the burn time may have been roughly 8-9 seconds.

It's hard to tell the exact dimensions of the tanks we've seen pictured during construction, but a pair of 100L tanks (not sure why their LOX and Propylene tanks are the same size, Propylene has half the density and the engine should be running fuel-rich, but they look the same in the picture) would just about hit that 8-9 second mark.

EDIT: What I find weird is that even though the rocket has no discernible method of attitude control - the fins appear to be bolted-on and the engine, as far as we can tell, has no TVC - it still managed to yaw a good 5 degrees after leaving the tower.  I was expecting it to fly a bit straighter, but maybe I've missed something.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Write-up by Eric Berger:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/vector-barrels-ahead-with-its-small-satellite-launcher/

Couple of key passages IMHO:

Cantrell told Ars that the goal of Wednesday’s flight was to test the rocket’s avionics and software, as well as monitor the first stage engine in flight. Future prototypes will test thrust vector control and other systems needed for orbital launches.

Cantrell said Vector is in the process of closing a second series of financing that will raise an additional $15 to $20 million.

[Davidthefat]

What's the altitude? At the acceleration that thing was going at, and the size of the tanks can't be more than 2000ft.

Using rough, conservative estimates (frame-by-frame analysis puts upwards acceleration of the test vehicle at at least 8.5m/s^2, probably more like 9.5), I'd say an apogee of 2000 feet would involve burnout at around T+8 seconds.  Burnout at T+15 seconds could get them to a mile or so.  Depends on how quickly that engine was gobbling up propellant - and how wildly inaccurate my guesses about the vehicle's aerodynamics are.

Hopefully we'll get more video/numbers soon.

Based on the numbers they give, roughly 19lb/s


edit: Based on the drone footage, the burn time may have been roughly 8-9 seconds.

EDIT: What I find weird is that even though the rocket has no discernible method of attitude control - the fins appear to be bolted-on and the engine, as far as we can tell, has no TVC - it still managed to yaw a good 5 degrees after leaving the tower.  I was expecting it to fly a bit straighter, but maybe I've missed something.

The velocity at the moment of leaving the tower was not high enough to keep it stable using the fins. High power rocketry 101. At least they knew to keep the tanks all the way upfront.

[imprezive]

The rocket was scheduled to reach an altitude of 4,500 feet (1,370 meters). 

http://www.space.com/36710-vector-space-test-launch-success.html

[FishInferno]

The velocity at the moment of leaving the tower was not high enough to keep it stable using the fins. High power rocketry 101. At least they knew to keep the tanks all the way upfront.

Could this indicate that the engine performance was not as high as expected?  I seriously doubt that Vector's engineers would fail to notice the inherent instability of a design like this.

[ChrisWilson68]

The velocity at the moment of leaving the tower was not high enough to keep it stable using the fins. High power rocketry 101. At least they knew to keep the tanks all the way upfront.

Could this indicate that the engine performance was not as high as expected?  I seriously doubt that Vector's engineers would fail to notice the inherent instability of a design like this.

Who says they failed to notice?

This is just a mock-up.  The real launch vehicle will have some method of active control, surely.  For this launch of the mock-up, it just doesn't matter that it's unstable.  It's only going up a few thousand feet.

[Craftyatom]

The velocity at the moment of leaving the tower was not high enough to keep it stable using the fins. High power rocketry 101. At least they knew to keep the tanks all the way upfront.

Could this indicate that the engine performance was not as high as expected?  I seriously doubt that Vector's engineers would fail to notice the inherent instability of a design like this.

Who says they failed to notice?

This is just a mock-up.  The real launch vehicle will have some method of active control, surely.  For this launch of the mock-up, it just doesn't matter that it's unstable.  It's only going up a few thousand feet.

True, it only moves a few hundred feet downrange, which is an advisable safety perimeter anyways.

[ChrisWilson68]

The velocity at the moment of leaving the tower was not high enough to keep it stable using the fins. High power rocketry 101. At least they knew to keep the tanks all the way upfront.

Could this indicate that the engine performance was not as high as expected?  I seriously doubt that Vector's engineers would fail to notice the inherent instability of a design like this.

Who says they failed to notice?

This is just a mock-up.  The real launch vehicle will have some method of active control, surely.  For this launch of the mock-up, it just doesn't matter that it's unstable.  It's only going up a few thousand feet.

True, it only moves a few hundred feet downrange, which is an advisable safety perimeter anyways.

And, it was supposed to come down under a parachute.  The wind can carry something coming down under a parachute quite a distance.

[Space Ghost 1962]

They launched a vehicle and flight tested it. It has issues. Such as could never have achieved orbit.

When is the next launch? What is the expectation of that flight test over this launch? Enough to close the substantial gap between what they claim as a business and what they can do as a business?

Can't say if this is any better (yet) than:
 * a firm that builds up a LV/team over years and then never gets a vehicle to an unbuilt pad.
 * a non-aerospace exec who is clueless about LV/space but is attempting to close a large round to buy it all
 * a successful sounding rocket business perpetually ready to launch an orbital vehicle "real soon now" for a year
... and these are the best ones to mention.

FWIW, the results of this launch seem to be a) one investment advancing, b) two investments broke off, c) a very prominent VC losing a bet and becoming irate, and d) many investors asking be about how to value microlaunch as a category. None of the firms have sensible valuation process against market IMHO.

It's like watching a reality TV show. Have no idea at this point ... if any of them will be viable.

Suggest best that can be said here is that they did something, and it didn't fail.

[QuantumG]

If nothing else, it's an in-flight engine test. That's pretty cool. Copenhagen Suborbitals era cool.

[IanThePineapple]

Vector noob here, what was the purpose of the flight today, what is the purpose of this rocket, and can this rocket get into orbit?

Thanks!

[ChrisWilson68]

Vector noob here, what was the purpose of the flight today, what is the purpose of this rocket, and can this rocket get into orbit?

Thanks!

There were likely several purposes, some stated, some unstated.

The rocket that flew today cannot get to orbit.  The outer mold line is the same shape and size as the orbital rocket they hope to develop, but the one that flew today was mostly empty inside.  It did have an engine of the type they hope to use in their orbital rocket, but only one, and small propellant tanks.

[QuantumG]

Vector noob here, what was the purpose of the flight today, what is the purpose of this rocket, and can this rocket get into orbit?

The end purpose of the rocket is to deliver satellites to orbit, this isn't that rocket.

People have various opinions about what the purpose of today's flight was... the most generous is that it proves the rocket engine works in flight.

[Craftyatom]

Vector noob here, what was the purpose of the flight today, what is the purpose of this rocket, and can this rocket get into orbit?

Thanks!

This was a test flight, mostly testing the avionics systems and the engine in flight (and, in the opinion of many on this thread, showing off to potential investors), and only reaching a height of a few thousand feet.  The test was performed with a (very) simplified version of Vector's "Vector-R" rocket, which aims to put 60kg into Low Earth Orbit and thus serve the "small-sat" market.  The real Vector-R is not going to be launching until at earliest next year, but it could take a fair bit longer.

The rocket launched today, called "Vector-R Block 0.1", was very different from the proposed orbital Vector-R.  It has no second stage, just a metal construction shaped like one.  Its first stage is very different - instead of the whole first stage being propellant tanks, what you see is an empty shell with a pair of ~100 liter tanks mounted to the inside.  This makes the shape and size similar to the operational version, but only provides enough fuel for ~10 seconds of rocket power (compared to 145 on the orbital version).  Furthermore, the entire assembly is made of traditional metal skin-and-stringers, while the orbital variant will be made of composite material.  This version uses fins for guidance, while the orbital variant would use thrust vectoring.  Finally, it only has a single first-stage engine - the orbital variant will have 3.  These changes mean that it can't even reach a mile in height, let alone get to space or reach orbit - hence why it's considered a test article.

I suggest reading through the articles on Vector's Website, as well as the posts in this thread, which should provide most of the information available on this company and their ambitions.

EDIT: I personally am excited to see what they can accomplish, and hope that this is just the first step, but I also don't think that today showed us anything really interesting.  I wish Vector the best with their plans, though - if they can follow through on their vision, they've got a lot to offer.