Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)

[imprezive]

Honest question, what has Vector achieved above what Garvey already had when they were acquired?

About $32M in funding and about 30 FTEs.

I was specifically referring to this.

“Their technical progress relative to the timing of when they've received money isn't bad.”

[tvg98]

If anything, they have a good taste in music.

[TrevorMonty]

Strange video for rocket company. Looks more like what building architect produced to sell their design to Vector.

[Kosmos2001]

Uff, too much bright orange for my tastes. It would make to work overexcited all day long.

[gongora]

It was such a gray, dreary, depressing morning and now I can't stop laughing.  Thanks Vector.

Vector Announces Selection of Construction Team, Begins Production of First Orbital Vehicle


TUCSON, Ariz., Dec. 6, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Vector, a nanosatellite launch company comprised of new-space and enterprise software industry veterans from SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Sea Launch and VMware, today announced it has selected a final construction team to build its state-of-the-art launch vehicle manufacturing facility in Tucson, Ariz. Vector selected Holladay Properties as the lead developer on the project, Barker Contracting as the contractor, and architects from Swaim Associates LTD to carry out Vector's vision for the new factory.

Over the last year, the City of Tucson, Pima County and the Arizona Commerce Authority led the facility development through a public-private partnership agreement to further the economic advancement of the Arizona technology and aerospace industry. Vector's new facility, expected to be completed by early 2019, will bring 200 jobs to the Tucson area including jobs in engineering, manufacturing and technical support. The public-private partnership is expected to have an overall direct and indirect economic impact on the region totaling $290 million over the next five years.

"Vector is extremely proud to call Arizona home and we look forward to growing our foothold in the area with this brand-new manufacturing facility," said Jim Cantrell, CEO and co-founder of Vector.  "We've made huge strides in technical progress and vehicle production this year, ramping up to producing our goal of one hundred rockets per year. By building this new facility, we're not only going to be adding jobs, but we will be providing many with the ability to launch careers in aerospace."

Vector's 92,500 square-foot factory will feature two soft-production facilities, a 30,750 square-foot two-story office space for its headquarters and a dedicated area for special projects including research and development.  The future facility is designed to produce 100 vehicles per year to start, with room to expand production across two additional manufacturing floors, increasing potential production to up to 200 vehicles per year. Vector has also begun production of its first orbital launch vehicle in its existing facilities, also in Ariz., continuing its progress towards achieving the company's goal of a successful orbital launch in Q2 2018.

"We are thrilled to be partnering with Vector to build their new home in Arizona," said Brian Barker, President at Barker Contracting. "Vector's vision for their manufacturing facility and headquarters was a natural fit for Barker Contracting's expertise and we look forward to building a space designed specifically for their team."

About Vector

Founded by the original founding team of SpaceX, Vector is a disruptive company that connects space startups and innovators with dedicated, affordable and reliable launch services, enabling platforms and vehicles to access space efficiently and in a more optimized way than ever before possible. For more information, visit http://www.vectorspacesystems.com/

SOURCE Vector

Related Links

http://www.vectorspacesystems.com/

[Space Ghost 1962]

Agree this is way over the top.

Met with a Vector investor yesterday. Seems quite happy with the state of things.

Suggest its the Musk time dilation factor and hype, only taken to a new level. Inspires early investors in a like kind.

Suggest that scoring it, like scoring early SX was, is more of on a capability demonstration basis. Not "dangerous" yet, "mostly harmless".

[Davidthefat]

Not "dangerous" yet, "mostly harmless".

Can you elaborate on that?

[Space Ghost 1962]

Not "dangerous" yet, "mostly harmless".

Can you elaborate on that?

Sure. By example?

RL has left "mostly harmless". SX has been "dangerous" for about a decade. Majority of new space launchers never reach "mostly harmless".

[ringsider]

If anything, they have a good taste in music.

I wonder if they paid the copyright owner to use that song?

[QuantumG]

Met with a Vector investor yesterday. Seems quite happy with the state of things.

Confirmation bias is like that.

I like watching Vector... they do stuff... much better than watching Virgin Orbit - or basically any of the other microlauncher companies (except RocketLab of course), who don't share their progress.

[ThePhugoid]

Met with a Vector investor yesterday. Seems quite happy with the state of things.

Confirmation bias is like that.

I like watching Vector... they do stuff... much better than watching Virgin Orbit - or basically any of the other microlauncher companies (except RocketLab of course), who don't share their progress.

I think there's a reason for that.  More often than not, the hype is inversely related to what's actually under the hood.  As companies progress, develop IP, and build ITAR-restricted facilities, tweeting and filming everything you do on the march to launch becomes untenable.  Dollars to donuts if Vector actually gets somewhere, they'll be sharing a lot less in the future too.

I've also seen a lot of publicity on progress out of those other companies, over and above what you'd expect from the launch business.

[Svetoslav]

I see a lot of people joking about Vector, but I've been following the company on Twitter, as well as Cantrell ... well, I like this guy. He's chatty, always responds when asked something, always willing to show what's going on. Maybe you have reasons to be sceptical, but hey - I like how things are being done there.

Meanwhile, there are two low atmospheric flights of the rocket, and the second one carried a customer payload. Thus I'm optimist.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

S1 Flight Tank for @vectorspacesys B1.001 ready for delivery. This is a carbon fiber wound liquid oxygen tank that also serves as the main vehicle fuselage. We are on schedule for a mid 2018 vehicle ready for orbital launch. Stay tuned.

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/938793982825414656

[meberbs]

I see a lot of people joking about Vector, but I've been following the company on Twitter, as well as Cantrell ... well, I like this guy. He's chatty, always responds when asked something, always willing to show what's going on. Maybe you have reasons to be sceptical, but hey - I like how things are being done there.

Meanwhile, there are two low atmospheric flights of the rocket, and the second one carried a customer payload. Thus I'm optimist.

I'd like them to succeed, but those "flights of the rocket" raised my skepticism. The available information indicates that other than the engine, nothing in the structure of what they flew had any commonality with their actual rocket whatsoever. (Correct me if I missed something) They do seem to be making progress, but their flights seem to have basically been publicity stunts, which is not a reason you want a company to be launching.

[whitelancer64]

I see a lot of people joking about Vector, but I've been following the company on Twitter, as well as Cantrell ... well, I like this guy. He's chatty, always responds when asked something, always willing to show what's going on. Maybe you have reasons to be sceptical, but hey - I like how things are being done there.

Meanwhile, there are two low atmospheric flights of the rocket, and the second one carried a customer payload. Thus I'm optimist.

I'd like them to succeed, but those "flights of the rocket" raised my skepticism. The available information indicates that other than the engine, nothing in the structure of what they flew had any commonality with their actual rocket whatsoever. (Correct me if I missed something) They do seem to be making progress, but their flights seem to have basically been publicity stunts, which is not a reason you want a company to be launching.

Yes, it's all for publicity, but frankly I think it's not much different than what SpaceX was doing early on. For example, in 2003 Elon Musk took a mockup of a Falcon 1 to Washington DC for a grand unveiling. A launch of the Falcon 1 wasn't even attempted until 2006.

[TrevorMonty]

RL did something similar with Electron last year. I think their display Electron had real engines and tanks.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Jim Cantrell was at early SX as VP Business Development. Quite the self-promoter too. John Garvey was also involved in the formation of SX (part of DD IIRC). Both have a different view than SX as to how to prove a launch business.

A fair comparison is that they are at the "extreme model rocketry" level in terms of demonstrated capability, largely from GSC components placed in new aeroframe, and launched on a mobile launcher that used a rail from a model rocketry site.

Hard to separate the huge hype cloud from a potential capability proving. What makes it worse is an investor rivalry where a "fog of war" is a deliberate, intentional means to make it hard here. (It also makes it a joke or foolish all the time.)

That tank upthread is the most interesting development. If they fly with it, they'll need range access and likely either a special waiver or license, as they'll well exceed certain heights.

Garvey's propulsion has been pressure fed propylene and LOX. You could make the disposable, automated manufacturable concept work in theory. But will it always remain a "model rocketry" project? A joke forever?

(Have evaluated lots of "low tech" launch before, including spin stabilized systems in the past that have made orbit. There have been much more ridiculous things that have succeeded. But they never got a foothold.)

All small LV's are up against the "Falcon 1" problem - you get it to work, and then you leave it for something more desirable.

(I talk to those with payloads. The unseen thing here isn't the LV but the business case served. Narrow and problematic.)

If you're going to succeed at it, you have to address that narrow case deftly. Falcon 1 did not, and never could have. Yet it was an admirable success that launched SX.

[imprezive]

Confirmation bias is like that.

I like watching Vector... they do stuff... much better than watching Virgin Orbit - or basically any of the other microlauncher companies (except RocketLab of course), who don't share their progress.

I agree that Vector is the most fun company to follow. They definitely post a lot more than others on social media and some pretty detailed stuff. To be fair to Virgin Orbit they do answer questions in their thread on this forum. None of us just ask any very often.

[ringsider]

A fair comparison is that they are at the "extreme model rocketry" level in terms of demonstrated capability, largely from GSC components placed in new aeroframe, and launched on a mobile launcher that used a rail from a model rocketry site.

This is a reasonably fair description of what we have seen so far.

That tank upthread is the most interesting development.

I am more impressed by that tank than anything else they have done to date. I don't think they built it, but still that looks a credible piece of hardware.

The unseen thing here isn't the LV but the business case served. Narrow and problematic

Not a problem if the core plan is to ramp up the value and parachute out as soon as possible...

[FutureSpaceTourist]

10 min talk giving Vector overview:

Jim Cantrell: Lift-off for More Accessible Space Exploration
Published on 7 Dec 2017
Slush 2017 gave a good lift-off for more accessible space exploration. Here's a keynote by Jim Cantrell, CEO and Co-Founder of Vector.