Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)

[IanThePineapple]

Thanks for the info guys, this is very interesting, it's basically a tiny Ares 1-X?

[TrevorMonty]

Most importantly for a startup they are flying HW successfully.

[ChrisWilson68]

This was a test flight, mostly testing the avionics systems and the engine in flight

Since the rocket was unguided, they could only have tested a limited part of the avionics.  The most important part of the avionics to test is that it can guide the rocket properly, and that couldn't have been tested with this launch.

They could have tested that the avionics were correctly calculating the position and orientation of the rocket and broadcasting that information and the output of various sensors back to the ground correctly.  But this launch couldn't have tested whether the avionics functioned outside the atmosphere.

[Space Ghost 1962]

IMHO this was a test of how to do a bootstrap finance start-up, just as much as it was a beginning of a sequence of vehicle flight tests.

There were a lot of burned investors on new space startups that never did anything.

(BTW, as to actual rocketry, anyone familiar with Garvey Space knows exactly what we are looking at.)

So unlike the 1) get a pile of money, 2) build a team, 3) build propulsion, ... n) launch ...

They appear to be taking what they have and launching quickly. Then they upgrade one/few systems, and launch again. Rinse and repeat. And that's why they are not hung up on getting everything right from the get-go. (And, why they appear to some as "fly by night", because they are expecting nearly orbital vehicles from the start.)

Because they are always building up, this attracts more investment as they return something to the investors, many of whom were really PO'd by not having the "bragging rights" of launch ... ever!

It's a different way to do agile, gets a lot of PR, builds on success. Will it work out? Have no idea.

add:

Keep in mind that you can get away with some of this given the theory behind microlaunch.  Something that among others, Airbus/Safran is totally clueless on.

The point is to roll-up to a field accessible to a range, tap in, prep, fuel, diagnose the vehicle, launch, and drive away.

If the concept works, you make money by repeat business, possibly with multiple concurrent launchers, like with weapons systems.

So, its not enough to just gear up for an orbital launch occasionally, you're doing this continually, overlapping with review and insight on performance.

Which is why they could do something like they are doing.

It also means that certain people who try to build up a term sheet to do a grand company, taking years to build up to the point of launch ... get pretty angry about this, because they get upstaged by some nobody out of nowhere.

Frankly while some can think they can try to get $0.5B valuation for the premise of eventually doing microlaunch and spinning it as a Musk look alike, by launching their first in 3-5yrs, the market they would attempt to build could never support such. Those likely will turn out to be like Firefly.

Can't see how you'd do microlaunch w/o a very lightweight operation - lithe is key to the concept. But ... can you be taking the "long way around the barn" ... by doing it ... too incrementally?

Also, do remember what happened with the too casual operations with SS1 and SS2 that got out of hand.

So my take is to be critical on the rate of improvement between test flights. If they don't go anywhere, it'll be over soon. If it doesn't, perhaps something that develops a value.

[savuporo]

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

день прошел, никого не убили, и слава богу

( loosely translated: the day come to an end, nobody got killed, and may god bless all )

These are good days.

[ringsider]

Copenhagen Suborbitals era cool.

Or Bagaveev, both are in a similar LV category, with similar results - a year earlier...

[savuporo]

Two articles, Eric Berger at ArsTechnica

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

Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/4/15543274/vector-space-systems-micro-satellite-space-launch-3d-printing

Price is less important to many satellite companies than the certainty of a launch date, Cantrell said. Vector already has a manifest of 135 launch vehicles from 2018 into the early 2020s...

If there is anything certain about the new crop of smallsat launchers, it is the uncertainty of the launch dates ..

[jongoff]

Two articles, Eric Berger at ArsTechnica

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

Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/4/15543274/vector-space-systems-micro-satellite-space-launch-3d-printing

Price is less important to many satellite companies than the certainty of a launch date, Cantrell said. Vector already has a manifest of 135 launch vehicles from 2018 into the early 2020s...

If there is anything certain about the new crop of smallsat launchers, it is the uncertainty of the launch dates ..

When people talk about having a manifest of launches, I'd really like to ask if these are customers who've put down a solid down payment for those flights, or if he's just talking about letters of intent. I've heard from more than one source that most of the smallsat launchers are shopping around almost the exact same letters of intent, from the same smallsat launch customers.

~Jon

[ringsider]

When people talk about having a manifest of launches, I'd really like to ask if these are customers who've put down a solid down payment for those flights, or if he's just talking about letters of intent. I've heard from more than one source that most of the smallsat launchers are shopping around almost the exact same letters of intent, from the same smallsat launch customers.
~Jon

W.r.t. Vector, they have some contracts.

At least 3/4 of their pipeline comes from a $60m contract with York Space Systems:-

Oct 17, 2016: A Denver startup company that makes small satellites has signed a $60 million launch agreement with a new rocket company to get six satellite missions to orbit by 2022. The seven-employee company, currently based in Denver, is establishing a satellite factory near Centennial.

York raised some seed funding in 2015:-

February 6, 2015 – York Space Systems, an aerospace company specializing in small and medium class spacecraft based in Denver, Colorado recently closed on their Seed Round of investment.

Skeptics may ask how a 7 man startup that raised seed funding can write a $60m contract. Maybe this is a clue:-

York Space Systems Advisory Director: James Cantrell

Another big announced customer is Iceye, a Finnish start-up:

02 Aug, 2016: Vector Space Systems [...] today finalized an agreement with Finnish-based Iceye to conduct 21 launches for Iceye's commercial SAR (synthetic aperture radar) satellite constellation. The payload flights, Vector's first customer flights since it started operations in early 2016, will be conducted over a four-year span as part of a larger partnership with Iceye.

Iceye raised about $5-6M in late 2015:-

November 16, 2015: Iceye, a startup developing radar-imaging microsatellites, has gained $2.8 million in Series A funding, led by True Ventures, with participation from Lifeline Ventures and Founder.org. This follows approximately $2.8 million in Research and Development (R&D) funding from SME Instrument within the European Union’s (EU) Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, received in September.

The Iceye sat is about 50kg:



Source: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/space/workshops/2016-small-sat/Documents/ICEYE-SSS-16.pdf

So that is 21 full launches of the Vector-R.... According to Vector's slides



each launch is valued at $1.5m-$2.5m... if we take the lower end and some discount for volume, let's say $1m per launch, that's $21m.

Add it all up and you get York @ $60m + Iceye @ $21m = $81M, which matches pretty well to what they claim in their pitch deck:-



Skeptics may wonder how a company like Iceye can commit to a $21m contract, and run their business for the past 18 months, and also write this kind of deal - with none other than York Space Systems:-

9 Aug 2016: Small spacecraft manufacturer York Space Systems announced they will supply global monitoring provider ICEYE with 10 spacecraft platforms supporting the deployment of ICEYE’s global constellation.

Added to this is the fact that the York S-Class bus has a mass of 65kg, without customer payload additions:-



And as we saw above the Vector-R has a nominal payload mass of just 50kg... they may be able to stretch that for lower altitudes; the Iceeye altitude is 250 miles, or circa 400km.

[Gliderflyer]

There is a new longer video of the flight:

As we get more video and data in - here's a good one from the JAFO site showing the vehicle through burnout. @vectorspacesys #space #NASA

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/860511469581946880

[QuantumG]

I assume it popped chutes after that?

[Gliderflyer]

I assume it popped chutes after that?

Apparently. There was a (now deleted) tweet a few pages back that said a parachute collapsed after deployment, so it probably landed hard. Presumably enough of it survived for them to take the "flight patches survived" picture, but it probably isn't "PR" worthy.

[ringsider]

Interesting observation from Reddit on the Vector mission patch:

Kiwinaut 3 points 8 days ago
Is that a stab at Rocket Lab with the burning Kiwi? Seems kinda childish and unnecessary... [/i]

https://www.reddit.com/r/VectorSpace/comments/67tjxw/t7_days_mission_patch_revealed/



I admit that had not occured to me but it seems to be a touch more than coincidence...

[Robotbeat]

I'd say Vector has a better chance than most. Virgin and RocketLab, the two best capitalized firms, seem to be dinking around.

At least Vector is launching SOMEthing. Even if it is just a glorified mockup. But it's a liquid propellant rocket engine, so different than most High Power Rockets. Liquids are more scalable. Once you can gimble, you can load it up with fuel and have a low acceleration lift off with high impulse.

[Lars-J]

I'd say Vector has a better chance than most. Virgin and RocketLab, the two best capitalized firms, seem to be dinking around.

At least Vector is launching SOMEthing. Even if it is just a glorified mockup. But it's a liquid propellant rocket engine, so different than most High Power Rockets.

Hardly. At least Virgin and (and likely Rocketlab) is building real hardware that appears to be capable of orbital flight. Upper stages (with engines) and all that.

Vector should certainly be applauded for flying something. But it doesn't make them leapfrog their competitors, not even close.

[TrevorMonty]

Rocketlab have everything in place to start regular commercial launches. They just need to launch. Vector still need to build all infrastructure including LV.

[ringsider]

I'd say Vector has a better chance than most. Virgin and RocketLab, the two best capitalized firms, seem to be dinking around.

At least Vector is launching SOMEthing. Even if it is just a glorified mockup. But it's a liquid propellant rocket engine, so different than most High Power Rockets.

The stakes are much lower with the Vector model rocket. It's frankly a stretch to even call it sub-orbital.

Comparing Vector's recent PR stunt to an actual orbital launch is like comparing a bicycle to a Ducati. Just the paperwork is several orders of magnitudes different, never mind all the critical subsystems. That Vector rocket yawed off by 10° in the first 200 ft, flew a mile high before flame out, then plummeted back to earth when the parachutes failed. The RL or VO vehicle has to insert to 500km at a velocity of 24,000km/h to an accuracy of about +/- 10cm.

There's no comparison in the complexity of the two tasks. Vector is several years away from anything in the same league, and it doesn't matter that it's small, or agile or whatever - the same principles, standards and regulations will apply when/if they move to real LVs.

The reason, I think, that RL (for example) are being very cautious and slow is that it's just a different league altogether going orbital, and doing it in a serious way when a lot of people - including the FAA and NASA - are watching closely to ensure you are capable of being issued a launch license. It doesn't matter if an investor is getting angry, the regulator calls the shots if you want a license, and they watch everything; it would not surprise me if there are 5-10 FAA and NASA inspectors on site right now making themselves unpopular, and that ignores the local waiver issue. I have consistently said "September 2017" for RL, since about Q3 last year. There's no magic bullet, the last 20% is 80% of the work.

Vector is launching things, but let's not pretend this is serious progress.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Virgin and RocketLab, the two best capitalized firms, seem to be dinking around.

IMHO, Virgin got greedy and overbuilt SS2 - SS1 was already pushing it. Then they got too cheap.

RocketLab was "accelerated" by big money. The problem with getting that "loving attention" is that you may do things they think will speed you up, but if they don't know the field well (largely because they were sold on "experts" that fed the investors ego), they actually slow you down (or kill your efforts). Plus the fits.

At least Vector is launching SOMEthing.

Agreed. It's the rate of improvement that matters though.

At least Virgin and (and likely Rocketlab) is building real hardware that appears to be capable of orbital flight.

On the surface yes. Keep in mind that the means to prove that they could do that are more of a challenge than with other firms.

Vector should certainly be applauded for flying something. But it doesn't make them leapfrog their competitors, not even close.

Agreed.

And their rivals also have a lot to prove. it is exactly this problem that they are all battling.

Some have tried to finesse it with ego. Others by means of "all up" vehicle development. This one is a "step by step" PR driven one. None of them have extensive testing/development structure of the traditional sort. Possibly because its impossible to capital recover such from this sector.

And one just was attempted to be financed with absolutely no aerospace background, mostly on the theory of buying everything and then it just works. Highly insulting.

Both of you are right.

Rocketlab have everything in place to start regular commercial launches. They just need to launch.

Not so sure. One concern is that they have built something they can't validate to launch. "Chicken and egg".

Vector still need to build all infrastructure including LV.

They just launched their LV off a mobile launcher.

The whole point of what they are doing is to not have launch infrastructure.

Please read the above posts/links, you seem to have missed the obvious.

The stakes are much lower with the Vector model rocket. It's frankly a stretch to even call it sub-orbital.

It's frankly a stretch to call Electron ready for a payload, let alone a lunar launch by December 10th.

Comparing Vector's recent PR stunt to an actual orbital launch is like comparing a bicycle to a Ducati.

Again, not the point. You've got a test of your GSE/TEL, verification of aeroframe/engine, and test flight.

More than a bicycle.

Just the paperwork is several orders of magnitudes different, never mind all the critical subsystems.

Have no idea what you're babbling about here. And I've see all of Garvey's subsystems earlier. So perhaps you haven't seen what they have, and you are talking out of your hat.

That Vector rocket yawed off by 10° in the first 200 ft, flew a mile high before flame out, then plummeted back to earth when the parachutes failed.

Pretty much.

They didn't need much more than this for this test. The worst was the parachute failure IMHO.

The RL or VO vehicle has to insert to 500km at a velocity of 24,000km/h to an accuracy of about +/- 10cm.

And ... we don't even know yet if it won't blow up on the pad, if the launcher will function, if the propulsion under acceleration doesn't chuff, if the gimbals and flight avionics will recover from unguided error.

There's no comparison in the complexity of the two tasks. Vector is several years away from anything in the same league, and it doesn't matter that it's small, or agile or whatever - the same principles, standards and regulations will apply when/if they move to real LVs.

You're again presuming more than you know. Or ... wish to cast doubt. Or just being a "bad mouth".

I've seen nothing at the moment that can't prevent them from achieving goals.

The reason, I think, that RL (for example) are being very cautious and slow is that it's just a different league altogether going orbital, and doing it in a serious way when a lot of people - including the FAA and NASA - are watching closely to ensure you are capable of being issued a launch license.

Don't think that's at all right, perhaps its something you wish to imagine.

I think they went too fast on Electron, and didn't test the interim systems seperately enough, to save time. Now they are stuck, attempting to insure all work before doing a test to orbital launch.

So they either guessed right, eventually attempt a launch, and it works or fails. If it fails, the fear is that they'll embarrass the investor. So they are putting things off.

It doesn't matter if an investor is getting angry, the regulator calls the shots if you want a license, and they watch everything; it would not surprise me if there are 5-10 FAA and NASA inspectors on site right now making themselves unpopular, and that ignores the local waiver issue.

All of these firms, every single one of them, have this. Including with Electron. The reason is that to make this kind of venture work, you have to shortcut the process. Falcon 1/9 continually had these issues, and some have even had objections (in re: GHe pressurization especially) to the current vehicle.

I have consistently said "September 2017" for RL, since about Q3 last year. There's no magic bullet, the last 20% is 80% of the work.

There is not enough systems analysis/test/qualification coverage to insure that will happen.

Vector is launching things, but let's not pretend this is serious progress.

Apples meet oranges.

One of these puts all the chips on Red 27 and carefully rolls the die, at the last moment. The other has small bets on slot machines, poker, and horse races place/win. More of an open development with frequent flight tests.

[savuporo]

Surprisingly rowdy peanut gallery on this one.

[ringsider]

It's frankly a stretch to call Electron ready for a payload, let alone a lunar launch by December 10th.

I haven't said that. You seem to be very upset about Rocket Lab... almost like you have a vested interest in them not succeeding.

Again, not the point. You've got a test of your GSE/TEL, verification of aeroframe/engine, and test flight.

LOL. It's not even the same airframe...

More than a bicycle.

True. A bicycle with an oversized bell, ring, ring a-ringing.

And I've see all of Garvey's subsystems earlier. So perhaps you haven't seen what they have

I must have missed GSC's orbital launches with customer satellites, and oddly I can't find any information online. Can you post information about the dates and the technology they used, please?

And ... we don't even know yet if it won't blow up on the pad, if the launcher will function, if the propulsion under acceleration doesn't chuff, if the gimbals and flight avionics will recover from unguided error.

"All of these firms, every single one of them, have this", as someone cleverly wrote earlier.

I've seen nothing at the moment that can't prevent them from achieving goals.

Interesting double negative....

What's interesting is how much you hate Rocket Lab, but make broad ranging excuses for Vector.... A cynic might wonder why.