Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)

[ringsider]

Huh? I don't really see the resemblance, other than looking like a smaller upper stage on top of a first stage. Hardly a unique configuration. The engines are completely different, and Vector isn't even close to being similar in progress.

It was joke.

[ChrisGebhardt]

Camden county, Georgia, releases statement about upcoming sub-orbital, scaled test.

http://www.tribune-georgian.com/news/vector-plans-test-launch-camden

[FutureSpaceTourist]

block 0.002 Vector-R prototype awaiting second stage & payload integration @CamdenSpaceport

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/891376250362580992

[Robotbeat]

He's got a good point. "Garage" level development is incredibly capital efficient compared to RL-like development. Even if the odds of success are significantly lower, it might make sense in the early days.

[TrevorMonty]

Garage level development may get you orbital prototype but gearing up for large scale low cost production and launch requires large capital outlay. RL recent fund raising round was for volume production facilities.


 

[Space Ghost 1962]

Garage level development may get you orbital prototype but gearing up for large scale low cost production and launch requires large capital outlay.

You don't know what you're talking about. With some business models, this is pure BS.

RL recent fund raising round was for volume production facilities.

More likely payload processing facilities.

Launch providers don't usually get out in front of their headlights too far. Otherwise they have to carry that financial burden, increasing their fixed costs for launch services, negating the profit advantages desired.

And, you want a cash flow "cushion" to tide you over the occasional launch failure, common in new vehicles/providers. With SX, they've had to "dig" into that cushion too frequently.

For 6-12 launches per year, they have adequate facilities. Not the time to fund expansion.

Now, with F1, the payload stream never amounted to much. But ... they almost went bankrupt with insufficient cushion.

[savuporo]

Garage level development may get you orbital prototype but gearing up for large scale low cost production and launch requires large capital outlay. RL recent fund raising round was for volume production facilities.

Nobody will get to orbit or an orbital prototype with 'garage level development' and neither will Vector, by their own statements. They have stated the intent of hiring hundreds of people over next few years. That's not a garage.

[symbios]

Did not the Merlin Engine start in Tom Muller’s garage?

Elon Musk visited him there after watching a hobby rocket launch and that is how Muller got involved... if I remember the story correctly...

[ringsider]

The whole point of Vector is as an opposite to RL.

I don't think that is true. They compete for the same market (Cantrell says they have told investors they will capture 25% of the global smallsat market LOL) and the Vector H is due to transport 100kg. That is a directly analogous competitor to RL. They are making some bold claims on their cost reduction through a mobile launcher but that is actually irrelevant as the launch site build is mostly CAPEX, not OPEX. Even the price per kilo is similar because overheads. All they have as an ambition is to build lots of them, but so does Peter Beck, so really they are a me-too player who is 4-5 years behind RL and Virgin and maybe also behind Relativity Space - we don't yet know.

The problem is they can't build their business around the little Vector R. It's not economically viable below about 50-60 flights a year i.e., 1 per week, which is why they make those radical claims on volume - they need volume to break even. 10 minutes in Excel and some idea of real costs tells you that.

That you can start off with garage shop stuff, get 90% of the way there with it, having garage shop costs accumulating over less than a few years, then a fraction of a year at 2-5x of higher costing to refine what you're missing, and have a vehicle with a radically lower cost structure.

I would never argue it is impossible to start small. Alnost everybody starts that way. But the demos they are doing are not really proving anything they didn't already know. GSC has been launching that same unguided vehicle suborbital for years - that mockup was basically a P-19 or P-20 in a shell. Flying it is actually an expensive way to prove not much at all technically, it just gives investors a hard-on.

This could look like a scam to some, or embarrassing to others ("got to orbit on 1/100th the capital? - Wow, did I over invest in OSC/SX/RL?). It's relatively pocket change to Sequoia, so flat out they don't care about the outlay, it's a lottery ticket with "good enough" odds.

Now it has Sequoia money it has a solid chance to go somewhere, no question. But it got that money through somewhat questionable tactics. Whether investor did real DD or just drank the Koolaid is a real (if now moot) question. The arms length independence of the customer contracts for example is a potential issue.

So what you're watching here is a sequence of vehicle test flights that allow them to eventually prove to the authorities that the collateral being flow increasingly resembles an orbital launch vehicle, so that they can fly under reduced restrictions, approaching the abstract capability to reach orbit if the expensive stuff is added.

None of these flights (which are under 101 waiver - a provision explicitly for AMATEUR rockets, see CFR 101.1 (3)) prove anything that hasn't already been proven by Garvey many times. Nothing they have done in launching moves them towards getting an orbital license. The last one flew erratically for 12 seconds using a fuel tank that was about 5 feet long in tube 8 times bigger.



What does that prove beyond what Garvey did before? Those are all legacy assets.

What many of the posts here object is this means that Vector is using to reduce structural costs, the same ones that David Packard told me were essential for Hewlett Packard to be a success in Silicon Valley. Suggest one should understand the point of the approach irrespective of one's own personal biases.

I don't object to garage startups. I object to thin claims.

Also, please note that this one isn't as "pretty" as before, more of a functional model. If Cantrell was going for press, he'd likely want to spend more on the appearance.

Well they lost the last vehicle when it impacted the dirt at 122mph. I guess the aluminum is reusuable...

Plus, what pretty? If you look at the closeups of the last launch, it was a (9/10ths empty) horrorshow.



It's all for publicity and funding reasons - no doubt they are applying for public funding from Georgia too, just like they are from others (mentioned in the Spaceq.ca podcast above regarding e.g. England). Rational testing of capability avoids expensive steps and losses until they are necessary - like Rocket Lab.

These launches are not technically necessary and prove little - except that someone has a need to be the guy with the big appendage. The reason they make all this fuss is they are so far behind that they have to make big claims to look like a player.

[ringsider]

Can only guess at why.

You keep insinuating I have another interest / stake, so I changed my forum image.

Happy now?

[russianhalo117]

The whole point of Vector is as an opposite to RL.

....

how is VSS an Opposite to RL. Engine and software test flights use Aluminum whereas orbital flight versions are to be fully composite.

[ringsider]

Can only guess at why.

You keep insinuating I have another interest / stake, so I changed my forum image.

Happy now?

Feel free to PM and I'll respond respectfully, accurately, usefully, to benefit your agenda.

I was joking. I don't have a stake in any of them. I'm just a guy who knows how to research companies and who likes NewSpace.

I have praised Vector (not very often but there are a couple e.g. after they go the big investment) and hit others just as hard from time to time. I just don't like they way they do business.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Can only guess at why.

You keep insinuating I have another interest / stake, so I changed my forum image.

Happy now?

Feel free to PM and I'll respond respectfully, accurately, usefully, to benefit your agenda.

I was joking. I don't have a stake in any of them. I'm just a guy who knows how to research companies and who likes NewSpace.

Nah, you're just a dog.

I have praised Vector (not very often but there are a couple e.g. after they go the big investment) and hit others just as hard from time to time. I just don't like they way they do business.

It's different. Many different's. Think of them like the Precambrian Explosion. Some might survive. Meh.

The whole point of Vector is as an opposite to RL.

....

how is VSS an Opposite to RL. Engine and software test flights use Aluminum whereas orbital flight versions are to be fully composite.

See above post:

... in the way that RL does LV/LRE development, application of technology, and CONOPs.

[ringsider]

It's different. Many different's. Think of them like the Precambrian Explosion. Some might survive. Meh.

It's "different" alright:-

[Glom]

It's different. Many different's. Think of them like the Precambrian Explosion. Some might survive. Meh.

It's "different" alright:-

So you're saying that things are a little cartellish?

Maybe it'll be like the Japanese economic miracle I was just reading about where the myriad of companies involved were actually part of a small handful of large conglomerates (Mitsubishi, Sumotomi, etc).  So you had manufacturers selling to distributors financed by banks that were really all the same company. That worked out well for a while there.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Block 0.002 Vector-R waiting for her payload to be integrated and a beautiful Georgia sky today.. @CamdenSpaceport

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/892029614423289856

[QuantumG]

Nobody will get to orbit or an orbital prototype with 'garage level development' and neither will Vector, by their own statements.

Not really disputing you, but why do you say that? I don't think you'd get a very reliable launch vehicle from garage-level development but I can't see why you can't get to orbit. Paul Breed is making a serious attempt.

[Lars-J]

Block 0.002 Vector-R waiting for her payload to be integrated and a beautiful Georgia sky today.. @CamdenSpaceport

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/892029614423289856

I find it interesting that they crop out the engine on all their recent PR pictures.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Customers and payload showed up for @vectorspacesys Block 0.002 launch from Spaceport Camden.  #space #microlaunch

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/892531949658615808

[savuporo]

Nobody will get to orbit or an orbital prototype with 'garage level development' and neither will Vector, by their own statements.

Not really disputing you, but why do you say that? I don't think you'd get a very reliable launch vehicle from garage-level development but I can't see why you can't get to orbit. Paul Breed is making a serious attempt.

Because it's a relatively complex engineering problem, that takes a certain number of manhours of diverse engineering skills to be put into it. On top of that, it's not a trivial operational and regulatory problem either. Unless you can license or buy large parts of the design off the shelf, like engines or avionics, there is just that amount of work needs to be done, there aren't many shortcuts.

SpaceX was around 500 people when they finally reached orbit, around 100 when they first tried. No new magic technology, just using straightforward relatively low risk solutions. RocketLab is over a 100 now, and they haven't gotten to orbit yet. You can obviously do better, but as of today there aren't many ways of doing drastically better.

Keep in mind, orbital rockets are always going to be somewhat dual use technologies, and wide availability of ready made components and systems to integrate is not going to happen soon either.