Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Payload info:

Vector micro-rocket launch w/ Astro Digital

This morning Vector Space Systems successfully completed their second launch test of the Vector-R rocket, this time with an experimental Landmapper-HD payload onboard. This is just the start of hundreds of micro-rockets that Vector plans to launch with a small sat payload beginning in 2018. We are thrilled to be a part of this huge milestone.[...]

https://blog.astrodigital.com/vector-micro-rocket-launch-w-astro-digital-cce05084309

[ringsider]

Whoever thought it was fine to delete my parody tweets, reality is better than any comedy....

"This founder split from Elon Musk and is now launching rockets for one-twentieth the cost of SpaceX"

https://t.co/7T0XLMq1mW

[Lars-J]

Whoever thought it was fine to delete my parody tweets, reality is better than any comedy....

"This founder split from Elon Musk and is now launching rockets for one-twentieth the cost of SpaceX"

https://t.co/7T0XLMq1mW

That is indeed high comedy. 

[Steven Pietrobon]

Okay, who are the "AD" people, i.e. The white triangle logo?

We now have an answer. That is Astro Digital. Their Landmapper-HD payload was carried on the flight.

https://astrodigital.com/

[Lars-J]

Okay, who are the "AD" people, i.e. The white triangle logo?

We now have an answer. That is Astro Digital. Their Landmapper-HD payload was carried on the flight.

https://astrodigital.com/

What useful data was collected during this short flight to 2(?) miles altitude?

[Steven Pietrobon]

What useful data was collected during this short flight to 2(?) miles altitude?

From https://blog.astrodigital.com/vector-micro-rocket-launch-w-astro-digital-cce05084309

"Having the experimental Landmapper-HD payload onboard the Vector-R rocket means that we test integration — mechanical fit and compatibility of the electronics — of our satellite payload with this new launch vehicle . We have also been able to test some of our new hardware designs under real life launch conditions."

[whitelancer64]

OK. Lets grade this launch. What's your score, using objective facts to support, based on my prior suggested means to assess?

How to "score" this next launch:
1. How much of the LV systems necessary for the most minimal orbital launch are present (not as full capability)?
2. Did the flight test prove the systems worked as planned?
3. Did the flight expand the envelope substantially

The point here is to measure objectively the differences between flight .001 and .002.

Not inviting rants which is too easy and pointless. Not a team sport. Inviting informed, considered analysis.

Do we even know any of those criteria?

[ethan829]

OK. Lets grade this launch. What's your score, using objective facts to support, based on my prior suggested means to assess?

How to "score" this next launch:
1. How much of the LV systems necessary for the most minimal orbital launch are present (not as full capability)?
2. Did the flight test prove the systems worked as planned?
3. Did the flight expand the envelope substantially

The point here is to measure objectively the differences between flight .001 and .002.

Not inviting rants which is too easy and pointless. Not a team sport. Inviting informed, considered analysis.

Do we even know any of those criteria?

Some:

New flight computers, code upgrades, AFTS, upgraded engines.  Same FAA license restricting altitude.  Customer payloads.  New launch site

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/889853907387666432

[savuporo]

OK. Lets grade this launch. What's your score, using objective facts to support, based on my prior suggested means to assess?

I'd score them below Interstellar Technologies launch just a few days ago as it objectively went through a more challenging launch campaign, and definitely flew through a more representative flight regime for far longer.

1. How much of the LV systems necessary for the most minimal orbital launch are present (not as full capability)?

IST seemed to have their full rocket intended for suborbital flights on the pad. That included all GSE as thoroughly demonstrated

2. Did the flight test prove the systems worked as planned?

Large part of IST flight worked as intended i'm guessing, unless the roll was unintentional

3. Did the flight expand the envelope substantially

Far above they had gone before.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Another great image of yesterday's successful launch at @CamdenSpaceport

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/893483299133206528

[LooksFlyable]

I love how it looks like they are just launching off some backroad in the country.

[Lars-J]

OK. Lets grade this launch. What's your score, using objective facts to support, based on my prior suggested means to assess?

I'd score them below Interstellar Technologies launch

You get a passing grade because you did the process outline. Appreciate that.

You get an "A" in writing opinion of how it related to another, but that wasn't the point.

The point was relative improvement from .001 to .002. You might want to try again to better your score.

Huh? You're grading people now on how to respond to your "questionnaire" based on insufficient data.  Or did I miss some detailed info-dump on what changed with block .002?

BTW, I've been meaning to ask: Do you have any connection to the Vector people? You seem to be very defensive of the Vectors progress. (my apology if I missed such a statement earlier)

[savuporo]

The point was relative improvement from .001 to .002. You might want to try again to better your score. Easy to be an a-hole, hard to do the job.

I know what the point was, i specifically wanted to call out comparable capabilities elsewhere.

Edit/Lar: several people get a c grade in being excellent to each other

[savuporo]

We had two small rocket teams with orbital aspirations do envelope expansion flights in close succession, if a comparison isn't a valid discussion topic then I don't know what is.

Nevermind that there are pages full of back and forth here about Rocket lab vs Vector, which are at far more different stages of evolution than IST/Vector 

[Spaceportfacts]

Vector was approved to launch between 8 am and 8 pm. They had trouble associated with the delay until launch at 12:30. The confusion about launch time was speculation and rumor because Camden officials seemed to have washed their hands of the event and Vector did not give out the specifics until the day before launch. Notice was not given to the newspapers or the general public but rather was submerged in the FAA Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) written in FAA jargon. For instance, times are given in Zulu time requiring the addition of 8 hours for EST. That's why many thought that the launch window opened at noon but the time was actually indicated as Z12:00 (midnight + 8 hours = 8 am local). The location was identified in True North bearings from the Brunswick VORTAC beacon on the Jekyll Island Causeway (true north correction is required from magnetic north compass readings by subtracting 6.73 degrees from the compass reading). Not very friendly to the general public considering that Camden County put out their confusing official press release only on the Friday before the launch.

According to the NOTAM, Vector was only approved to 5,500 feet but I saw the engine flameout at about 10 seconds which was probably about 1,200-1,500 feet. A back of the envelope calculation indicated that they might not have reached 200mph. Not only did they veer well off target (their video was clear on that), but to make things worse, they must have had a hard landing. The landing site has not been identified but is thought that it might be on the Union Carbide property. Vector has failed to show the rocket after it landed.
 
Here’s a quote that will warm your heart from Jim Cantrell:
@jamesncantrell  12h ago
“I have bug bites on my scalp after joining search for @vectorspacesys rocket yesterday in @CamdenSpaceport jungle w/ gators snakes & pigs” alongside a picture of an alligator he must have seen in the Camden "jungle."

They also posted a picture of a wild hog running by the rocket at the launch pad during their delay. Did they drive 1969 miles so they could launch with our pigs and alligators? I think these desert boys were quite surprised about Camden's wilderness!!!!

The attached file is the spot they launched from and is validated from their video. The rocket began to curve westerly almost as soon as it left the launch pad.

The results seen so far are similar to Vector's last launch at FAR where they also did not show video of the entire flight, the parachute deployment or the rocket after landing. Beyond the promotional value for the proposed Spaceport Camden, Vector and their customer, it is hard to see what advancement was made by launching an unguided Class 3 amateur to a tiny fraction of the altitude and velocity needed to orbit.

[Jamesvanderbeek]

Hey everyone... is anyone familiar with the connection between Vector and Nexus scamcurrency?  Colin Cantrell is the son of James Cantrell, and has developed a scamcurrency called Nexus.  There have been "cryptic" hints in scamcurrency land that Nexus and Vector are partnered together and are waiting to officially announce it sometime whenever in the future... Obviously, I'm new so if this post is inappropriate for the forum, feel free to delete it, mods. 

I have no aerospace background, but invest partially in scamcurrency and am intrigued by Nexus, but I can't find anything concrete on their partnership if there is one.  Nexus wants to offer decentralized internet over a mesh network of cubesats... and is their ticket to it.  However, I've seen them claim they will have the first Nexus cubesat launch in 2018 and then I come on here and you guys say Vector is nothing special and is just trying a different style of fundraising. Reading the sentiment from you guys, tells me that I might have been falling for the hype somewhat around Vector.  Are any of you here invested in Nexus or even aware of it?  James is speaking at their conference next month, so I figure there is something "there," but I'm having a hard time sniffing out the legitimacy.

Once again, I don't mean this to come across as an ad, so feel free to delete if inappropriate, but hopefully I can get some answers.

Thanks

[ringsider]

Vector was approved to launch between 8 am and 8 pm. They had trouble associated with the delay until launch at 12:30. The confusion about launch time was speculation and rumor because Camden officials seemed to have washed their hands of the event and Vector did not give out the specifics until the day before launch. Notice was not given to the newspapers or the general public but rather was submerged in the FAA Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) written in FAA jargon. For instance, times are given in Zulu time requiring the addition of 8 hours for EST. That's why many thought that the launch window opened at noon but the time was actually indicated as Z12:00 (midnight + 8 hours = 8 am local).

Good analysis of the flight except that it was Zulu - 4. Zulu is UTC/GMT, so + 8 would be Singapore local time, and 1200Z is midday, not midnight - midnight would be 0000Z.

So 1200Z - 4 = 8AM local.

[imprezive]

Hey everyone... is anyone familiar with the connection between Vector and Nexus scamcurrency?  Colin Cantrell is the son of James Cantrell, and has developed a scamcurrency called Nexus.  There have been "cryptic" hints in scamcurrency land that Nexus and Vector are partnered together and are waiting to officially announce it sometime whenever in the future... Obviously, I'm new so if this post is inappropriate for the forum, feel free to delete it, mods. 

I have no aerospace background, but invest partially in scamcurrency and am intrigued by Nexus, but I can't find anything concrete on their partnership if there is one.  Nexus wants to offer decentralized internet over a mesh network of cubesats... and is their ticket to it.  However, I've seen them claim they will have the first Nexus cubesat launch in 2018 and then I come on here and you guys say Vector is nothing special and is just trying a different style of fundraising. Reading the sentiment from you guys, tells me that I might have been falling for the hype somewhat around Vector.  Are any of you here invested in Nexus or even aware of it?  James is speaking at their conference next month, so I figure there is something "there," but I'm having a hard time sniffing out the legitimacy.

Once again, I don't mean this to come across as an ad, so feel free to delete if inappropriate, but hopefully I can get some answers.

Thanks

If you are asking if Jim Cantrell is a scam artist I would say no he's not. Vector is a real company with some funding who is legitimately intending to build rockets someday. If you are asking if Vector is going to be launching cubesats into orbit in 2018 I highly doubt it.

[savuporo]

About 10 seconds of flight here, before it disappears into the clouds:

https://twitter.com/astrodigitalgeo/status/893539892352831489

EDIT: also, sounds like engine shut down at around 10 second mark.

[ringsider]

The point was relative improvement from .001 to .002. You might want to try again to better your score. Easy to be an a-hole, hard to do the job.

I know what the point was, i specifically wanted to call out comparable capabilities elsewhere.. you get a "C" grade in a-holiness

I didn't see the point of your post either as you didn't even actually answer the question he asked just posted a load of OT stuff about another company. After all you weren't actually asked to present a comparison were you.

Or was the point of your post just to make cheap shots at the efforts of Vector?

Accepting the premise of that framework would be an analytical mistake. Pretending that marginal improvements to a Honda Accord is the same as building an Indycar is a false premise.

The benchmark is orbital spaceflight, not sub-orbital amateur rocketry. But given that that is all Vector can do right now, the comparison to the Interstellar flight was very appropriate and fair, in my opinion.