Author Topic: Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)  (Read 413097 times)

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33124
  • Likes Given: 8901
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #260 on: 05/11/2017 06:10 am »
I don't know... The gap between suborbital and orbital is vast. I can't recall a design that was started out small and then was tinkered with to gradually become an orbital first stage.

Viking -> Vanguard
Redstone -> Juno I -> Mercury-Redstone
Jupiter -> Juno II
Thor -> Thor-Agena -> Delta -> Delta II -> Delta III
« Last Edit: 05/11/2017 06:11 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Nomic

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #261 on: 05/11/2017 08:55 am »
Issue with incremental testing a reusable system from day one is the lack of customer revenue during development, probably a long development losing several vehicles along the way. How many investors have the patience and trust to stick with a company through this? Starting with an ELV at least gets customers paying for the flying test stands sooner.

That said, I'm not convinced by the economics of any pressure fed launcher.

Offline imprezive

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #262 on: 05/11/2017 02:28 pm »
Issue with incremental testing a reusable system from day one is the lack of customer revenue during development, probably a long development losing several vehicles along the way. How many investors have the patience and trust to stick with a company through this? Starting with an ELV at least gets customers paying for the flying test stands sooner.

That said, I'm not convinced by the economics of any pressure fed launcher.

If Vector was fully funded for development I'd tend to agree. They seem to still be in capital raising mode so actually flying anything is probably very helpful in getting investors on-board.

Offline Nomic

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #263 on: 05/11/2017 03:00 pm »
I was thinking more about the problems of developing an RLV, for Vector I'd agree, flying anything improves their chances of attracting investors.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8487
  • Likes Given: 5385
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #264 on: 05/11/2017 06:57 pm »
I don't know... The gap between suborbital and orbital is vast. I can't recall a design that was started out small and then was tinkered with to gradually become an orbital first stage.

Viking -> Vanguard
Redstone -> Juno I -> Mercury-Redstone
Jupiter -> Juno II
Thor -> Thor-Agena -> Delta -> Delta II -> Delta III

Those are good examples, thanks! But they all started with V-2 heritage missile/stages, which were already capable of suborbital spaceflight. A much more capable starting point than what Vector is now at, but your point is taken.

Offline rsdavis9

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #265 on: 05/11/2017 08:43 pm »
so is the first stage recovered with parachutes?
I didn't see any info on this.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9266
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4489
  • Likes Given: 1126
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #266 on: 05/11/2017 09:37 pm »
so is the first stage recovered with parachutes?
I didn't see any info on this.

That would be my assumption too. Presumably with some boostback to the launch site.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 508
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #267 on: 05/12/2017 06:12 am »
I think it's worth noting one thing to compare and contrast Vector's maiden flight plan with Rocket Lab's maiden flight plan.

Vector had planned an altitude of 1.3 km, presumably straight up and straight back down again: "Company spokeswoman Sarah Nickell said that the planned maximum altitude for the rocket on this launch was 1,370 meters, but said later that the company will not release the flight’s actual peak altitude."

Rocket Lab's planned flight path is almost 2,200 km, altitude is not mentioned, probably because orbital flight is more about the gravity turn and horizontal deltaV than altitude; simple altitude does not get you to orbit:


Rocket Lab has quietly set first test dates in a new NOTAM, 22 May - 3 June:-



Here's a plot of the debris boxes, showing flight path:-



But based on those hazard zones I am not expecting this to be an orbital flight; the second hazard zone is probably the S2 drop, and normally S2 would achieve orbit and burn up on re-entry some time later.

These two vehicles and companies are not in the same category.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2017 06:20 am by ringsider »

Online CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 564
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #268 on: 05/12/2017 07:35 am »
I think it's worth noting one thing to compare and contrast Vector's maiden flight plan with Rocket Lab's maiden flight plan.

Vector had planned an altitude of 1.3 km, presumably straight up and straight back down again: "Company spokeswoman Sarah Nickell said that the planned maximum altitude for the rocket on this launch was 1,370 meters, but said later that the company will not release the flight’s actual peak altitude."

Rocket Lab's planned flight path is almost 2,200 km, altitude is not mentioned, probably because orbital flight is more about the gravity turn and horizontal deltaV than altitude; simple altitude does not get you to orbit:

You don't actually know that.. and that isn't what Notices to Mariners are for.  RL's little rocket might get somewhere or they might not get anywhere at all, but there are a lot of fishing vessels and a cruise liner or two traipsing along that coast and it's more than fair to warn them to watch out skywards if they're in the area.

What it does show is that, since they have no way to cover such a vast area of open ocean, RL have absolutely no intention of recovering any part of this "test" vehicle if it just happens to leave the launch site.

These two vehicles and companies are not in the same category.

That much is true.

« Last Edit: 05/12/2017 07:44 am by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 508
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #269 on: 05/12/2017 07:56 am »

I think it's worth noting one thing to compare and contrast Vector's maiden flight plan with Rocket Lab's maiden flight plan.

Vector had planned an altitude of 1.3 km, presumably straight up and straight back down again: "Company spokeswoman Sarah Nickell said that the planned maximum altitude for the rocket on this launch was 1,370 meters, but said later that the company will not release the flight’s actual peak altitude."

Rocket Lab's planned flight path is almost 2,200 km, altitude is not mentioned, probably because orbital flight is more about the gravity turn and horizontal deltaV than altitude; simple altitude does not get you to orbit:

You don't actually know that.. and that isn't what Notices to Mariners are for.  RL's little rocket might get somewhere or they might not get anywhere at all, but there are a lot of fishing vessels and a cruise liner or two traipsing along that coast and it's more than fair to warn them to watch out skywards if they're in the area.

Sure I know that. As I said, those boxes delineate their intended planned flight path.

Notice I said "planned".

Whether they make it or not is another question, but that debris pattern defines the flight direction and expected range.

The FAA  / CAA will have another plan that shows the exclusion zones in the airspace envelope but that pattern is a solid clue to inclination and power intentions.

In fact here are the NZ CAA AIPs affecting the Auckland Oceanic FLIR, from sea level to FL13.5 around Hawkes Bay and to FL999 beyond it:





« Last Edit: 05/12/2017 08:21 am by ringsider »

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 508
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #270 on: 05/14/2017 10:07 am »
Just saw something else about Vector's estimated $21m Iceye contract:

Iceye Advisors

James Cantrell
    Advisor
    Co Founder Vector Space
    Founding team SpaceX
    Founder of StratSpace
    Founder of Vintage Exotics Engineering
    Angel Investor

Source:https://angel.co/iceye

So Jim Cantrell is an advisor to BOTH his main anchor customers.

I hope people putting money into this company are doing due diligence on the tech and commercials.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #271 on: 05/14/2017 05:10 pm »
I doubt Vector will have any problems finding customers once flying. There are a lot Smalsat and cubesat based businesses relying on likes of RL and Vector to deliver their satellites to specific orbits.

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50668
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 85176
  • Likes Given: 38157
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #273 on: 05/18/2017 07:40 pm »
Quote
Vector-R 1st launch patch is available! A portion of proceeds goto @Kiwisforkiwi kiwisforkiwi.org foundation https://vectorspacesystems.com/product/vector-r-mission-patch-b0-001-first-flight/

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/865276411052933120

Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #274 on: 05/25/2017 08:47 pm »
Here's a video I've not seen:

It's another promo video by Vector.


Online Davidthefat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Rockets are life.
  • Greater Los Angeles Area, California
  • Liked: 288
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #275 on: 05/25/2017 09:06 pm »
Here's a video I've not seen:

It's another promo video by Vector.




That came down HARD.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1003
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #276 on: 05/25/2017 10:03 pm »
That came down HARD.
They took 'fail fast' a bit too literally.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 797
  • Houston
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #277 on: 05/25/2017 11:25 pm »
I love that you can see the old X-Prize landing pads in that video.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1003
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #278 on: 05/27/2017 10:27 pm »
Promise of livestreamed launches in the future

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/867952998781140994

Now if we could make them space launches, this would be awesome news
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8487
  • Likes Given: 5385
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #279 on: 05/28/2017 01:32 am »
These two vehicles and companies are not in the same category.

That much is true.

Yes, even more clear after the Rocketlab flight, they are far ahead. But hopefully that will be an inspiration to Vector.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0