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.
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.
Quote from: Lars-J on 05/10/2017 08:16 pmI 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 -> VanguardRedstone -> Juno I -> Mercury-RedstoneJupiter -> Juno IIThor -> Thor-Agena -> Delta -> Delta II -> Delta III
so is the first stage recovered with parachutes?I didn't see any info on this.
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:-
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:
These two vehicles and companies are not in the same category.
Quote from: ringsider on 05/12/2017 06:12 amI 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 flights 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.
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 flights 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:
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/
Here's a video I've not seen: It's another promo video by Vector.
That came down HARD.
Quote from: ringsider on 05/12/2017 06:12 amThese two vehicles and companies are not in the same category. That much is true.