Author Topic: Vector Space Systems  (Read 232782 times)

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #760 on: 03/10/2018 06:16 am »

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4731
  • California
  • Liked: 4431
  • Likes Given: 2689
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #761 on: 03/10/2018 06:57 am »
Flight valves?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 8742
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #762 on: 03/10/2018 11:37 am »
Latest picture of their engine

How odd.

Apart from the top end I am reminded of the Microcosm 5000 LOX/RP1 pressure fed that was designed to be parallel clustered (IE wide, but short, with progressive outer rings of propellant/engine modules peeling off during ascent).
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #763 on: 03/10/2018 03:05 pm »
I came across that old website when looking for that engine: https://gulker.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/industrial-revolution/

Not a lot of information, but an interesting tidbit: the article states costs of 4000$ in 2007 for a Scorpius(Microcosm) rocket engine.

My big question is: those engines have been around for at least a decade, John Garvey flew the first composite LOX tank in 2001 (manufactured also by microcosm).
Why is this all only happening now?

Is it Jim Cantrell bringing venture capital together with John Garvey? Why didn't anything materialise from the Microcosm/Scorpius plans for a smallsat launcher?
« Last Edit: 03/10/2018 03:50 pm by Bananas_on_Mars »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 8742
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #764 on: 03/10/2018 08:08 pm »
I came across that old website when looking for that engine: https://gulker.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/industrial-revolution/

Not a lot of information, but an interesting tidbit: the article states costs of 4000$ in 2007 for a Scorpius(Microcosm) rocket engine.

My big question is: those engines have been around for at least a decade, John Garvey flew the first composite LOX tank in 2001 (manufactured also by microcosm).
Why is this all only happening now?

Is it Jim Cantrell bringing venture capital together with John Garvey? Why didn't anything materialise from the Microcosm/Scorpius plans for a smallsat launcher?
Who knows? The same question could be asked of the Flometrix pump. Low temp system makes most of the pumps low temp and eliminates complex turbo machinery, leaving a smaller (standard type) high pressure tank.

Sounded like a winner.  Went nowhere.  :(
« Last Edit: 03/10/2018 11:23 pm by john smith 19 »
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2911
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #765 on: 03/10/2018 11:26 pm »
Latest picture of their engine

FWIW - some ways of explaining what you might be seeing:

The metal box with the red label in the left lower corner is perhaps one of the gimbal actuators (the other is in the background behind and to the left - it's not locked into place yet), the gimbal's joint/pivot and thrust attachment  (cone) is above it. Below the round object is one of the two "flight valves" (the other is on the other side in the background seen in side relief, above and to the left). The light gray material bolted to the black combustion chamber and nozzle (the part that looks like carbon overwrapped composite) is the injector (possibly a plate injector). The blue item looks like a connector cover. Looks like some bleed lines as well.

Pressure fed engines are very simple - the valves are the moving parts. The clever part can't be seen - how the injector works.

Flight valves?
I know  ::)  I'd read that to mean "parts not likely to change before orbital flight". It would not surprise me if they constantly tweak the injector, or change out the combustion chamber/nozzle.

My big question is: those engines have been around for at least a decade, John Garvey flew the first composite LOX tank in 2001 (manufactured also by microcosm).
Yes.

Quote
Why is this all only happening now?

Is it Jim Cantrell bringing venture capital together with John Garvey? Why didn't anything materialise from the Microcosm/Scorpius plans for a smallsat launcher?
I would time things from the moment Rocket Labs got their Series A.

Last week witnessed a new aerospace venture have a surprise success with investment. Immediately a key engineer wanted to get paid (ahead of all the others who hadn't/wouldn't) with earnest funds and leave. In the 40+ years I'd never seen anything like it before. (The firm adroitly adapted and continues to do well). Many have a "fruit stand" mentality of make it and eat it, hand to mouth.

Not everyone can pitch for significant funds, especially in aerospace, where a lot hang on to tiny funds, hoping to eek out a living from  sparse revenues and speculative projects. If you jump for the big brass ring, you not only may get nothing, you may lose what keeps you alive. GSC was very hand to mouth that I saw.

My read is that a consolidated business impressed, where before it was bits and pieces. It's true that with Vector it reminds me more of when the circus comes to town (or  space port), but it fits with an opportunistic approach to microlaunch.

Which as you see here with Vector, is a lot of "over promise and under deliver". (Like other space ventures, key thing is "do they get enough each time they fail, that they eventually bring it off anyways?") A "big picture" that holds together is potentially finance-able even if the tech (like with Falcon 1) has holes, however, aerospace engineers don't ever care for "big picture" even when they have fixable holes in tech.

My example above was to illustrate that when you do cross the threshold of where significant interest triggers, it's often not considered positive in aerospace engineering as much as you'd expect. Often they don't keep up contacts, don't show for meetings, even go back on plans and burn bridges.

Many would rather work for the larger firm that they left to do a start-up with, or struggle along with SBIR crumbs, thinking small the whole time (most small aerospace firms that make it have NO private investment, bootstrap finance and then lead narrow existences for 10-60 years).

Space start-up culture isn't like Silicon Valley (or LA or NY or ...) where you can through things together on the fly when things get rough. So its also perceived as riskier and more "go it alone". Thus the "showmanship" attributes of a Musk matter a great deal to fill the void - others follow that "inflated" model.

Plain and simple, its nuts.

Online ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #766 on: 03/11/2018 05:45 am »

FWIW - some ways of explaining what you might be seeing:

The metal box with the red label in the left lower corner is perhaps one of the gimbal actuators (the other is in the background behind and to the left - it's not locked into place yet)

Some slightly better explaining ;o)

It's a load cell. http://www.futek.com/product.aspx?stock=FSH01043

Which given the packaging of the gimbal point, leads to a conclusion about that engine, on that flight.

Right?
« Last Edit: 03/11/2018 05:55 am by ringsider »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 8742
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #767 on: 03/11/2018 07:57 am »
Which as you see here with Vector, is a lot of "over promise and under deliver". (Like other space ventures, key thing is "do they get enough each time they fail, that they eventually bring it off anyways?") A "big picture" that holds together is potentially finance-able even if the tech (like with Falcon 1) has holes, however, aerospace engineers don't ever care for "big picture" even when they have fixable holes in tech.
Which begs the question would people invest in a competent team that under promised and over delivered?
Quote from: Space Ghost
My example above was to illustrate that when you do cross the threshold of where significant interest triggers, it's often not considered positive in aerospace engineering as much as you'd expect. Often they don't keep up contacts, don't show for meetings, even go back on plans and burn bridges.
You mean because they don't really have a "management team" that can do those meetings, which others can actually get on with fullfilling their contracts? It always astounded me seeing reports of some little outfit going back decades and thinking "How can they still be around, and yet not seem to grow?"

Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
Many would rather work for the larger firm that they left to do a start-up with, or struggle along with SBIR crumbs, thinking small the whole time (most small aerospace firms that make it have NO private investment, bootstrap finance and then lead narrow existences for 10-60 years).
I'm guessing they do have a fairly solid business plan though.
Quote from: Space Ghost
Space start-up culture isn't like Silicon Valley (or LA or NY or ...) where you can through things together on the fly when things get rough. So its also perceived as riskier and more "go it alone". Thus the "showmanship" attributes of a Musk matter a great deal to fill the void - others follow that "inflated" model.

Plain and simple, its nuts.
I suspect many engineers who start their own business underestimate the level of marketing involved. This is a mistake.  :(
« Last Edit: 03/11/2018 07:58 am by john smith 19 »
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Online ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #768 on: 03/11/2018 08:57 am »

Edit to add: next suborbital test launch planned to be

Quote
... to about 10,000 feet in late March or April in Mojave, California. That will serve to test the vehicle's thrust vector control, the payload fairing, and a new version of the flight computer software among other things, Cantrell said. After that, he believes Vector will be ready to attempt an orbital flight.


Can anyone explain to me how this proposed launch is going to be more capable than this one, done by amateurs on a shoestring budget a few years ago, and which seems to have reached more than 8000 meters / 26000 feet altitude?


« Last Edit: 03/11/2018 09:01 am by ringsider »

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #769 on: 03/11/2018 09:44 am »
They conducted their first test flights from hobby rocketry sites, with a FAA waiver because of staying below 10 000 feet.

Seems to be a lot easier, they don't need any range to supervise them...
Of course there's still a long way from below 10 000 feet to orbit...

But they seem to be able to get good data, and, which might be more important, have launches to impress some VC with some launches while the orbital vehicle is not completed yet.

It's a different approach to Rocketlab or other companies, that build "their best orbital vehicle" right away. It worked for Rocketlab, but Vector is trying an incremental approach. That's not inherently wrong IMO.

Jim Cantrell knows how to do the "VC talk" as he has been on both sides several times. I don't think he's as much into the engineering and "inspiring humanity" side as other "New Space" bosses.

If they're successful, i think Vector might be the first candidate for a merger with an "old Space" company and Cantrell might go back to collecting race cars...

Edit:
Found this Spacenews Article about Microcosm that sheds some light on technologies that Vector will use.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2018 10:25 am by Bananas_on_Mars »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 8742
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #770 on: 03/11/2018 06:24 pm »

If they're successful, i think Vector might be the first candidate for a merger with an "old Space" company and Cantrell might go back to collecting race cars...

Edit:
Found this Spacenews Article about Microcosm that sheds some light on technologies that Vector will use.
Interesting article. I did not know Gwynn Shotwell is Ex-Microcosm.  She's clearly pretty familiar with the application of composites to LOX tank mfg.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2018 09:08 am by john smith 19 »
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #771 on: 03/11/2018 06:46 pm »


Interesting article. I did not Gwynn Shotwell is Ex-Microcosm.  She's clearly pretty familiar with the application of composites to LOX tank mfg.

I went down the internet rabbithole a bit today. Not only Gwynne is ex-Microcosm, Hans Koenigsmann also is.
And there's more between SpaceX and Vector, of course Jim Cantrell is ex-SpaceX (I think he had Gwynne's Job in the early days?), and Elon Musk met Tom Mueller in John Garveys workshop as they were building (hobby) rocket engines together. Jim Cantrell was the one who recommended Mueller to Elon Musk.

Seems like a small community, those rocket people...

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7255
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 7557
  • Likes Given: 2530
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #772 on: 03/11/2018 07:53 pm »
Quote
Our @vectorspacesys next generation Stage 1 main engine putting out nominal 6,000 lbs of thrust and one of three engines powering the first stage.  This new generation engine uses #3dprinted injectors and carbon fiber wound ablative nozzles burning cryogenic liquid propylene/LOX

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/972886015906955264?s=21

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2911
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #773 on: 03/11/2018 07:57 pm »

FWIW - some ways of explaining what you might be seeing:

The metal box with the red label in the left lower corner is perhaps one of the gimbal actuators (the other is in the background behind and to the left - it's not locked into place yet)

Some slightly better explaining ;o)

It's a load cell. http://www.futek.com/product.aspx?stock=FSH01043

Which given the packaging of the gimbal point, leads to a conclusion about that engine, on that flight.

Right?
Yes - serves me right for writing a post looking at a cellphone image. Both are load cells, and the pivot is fixed too.

Which explains the uncontrolled flight path, where the thrust vector must have been slightly off center, not through CG.

(Note that the gimbal pivot isn't a spherical bearing, but with a trunnion.)

Which as you see here with Vector, is a lot of "over promise and under deliver". (Like other space ventures, key thing is "do they get enough each time they fail, that they eventually bring it off anyways?") A "big picture" that holds together is potentially finance-able even if the tech (like with Falcon 1) has holes, however, aerospace engineers don't ever care for "big picture" even when they have fixable holes in tech.
Which begs the question would people invest in a competent team that under promised and over delivered?
That used to be a "kiss of death".

Ironically, it has become a peculiar "advantage" for certain professional investors, who think bravado is a a show of confidence. (They think when it doesn't come off, they can extract a pound of flesh advantage each time, and buy back increasing share of the business, because they have them over a barrel.  ::)  )

Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost
My example above was to illustrate that when you do cross the threshold of where significant interest triggers, it's often not considered positive in aerospace engineering as much as you'd expect. Often they don't keep up contacts, don't show for meetings, even go back on plans and burn bridges.
You mean because they don't really have a "management team" that can do those meetings, which others can actually get on with fulfilling their contracts?
No.

They all have/had management teams. In this day and age, people pick and choose casually if they feel they need to be professional/genuine (or for that matter even betray), on a case by case basis. It's another evasion of professionalism that boggles.

Fulfilling contracts doesn't mean success in aerospace, often its just about keeping one's head above water.

Quote
It always astounded me seeing reports of some little outfit going back decades and thinking "How can they still be around, and yet not seem to grow?"
Because they have a niche that they stubbornly cling to.

And there are many stories in aerospace/arsenal where obscure tiny firms become huge too.

Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
Many would rather work for the larger firm that they left to do a start-up with, or struggle along with SBIR crumbs, thinking small the whole time (most small aerospace firms that make it have NO private investment, bootstrap finance and then lead narrow existences for 10-60 years).
I'm guessing they do have a fairly solid business plan though.
In the case of Vector more of a "going where others cannot/will not".

And as a result opportunistically always getting the best deal for frequent small launches. Which in this case allows one investor to eat the heart out of an arrogant rival who they think over invested by undercutting them. Just as much spite as "bragging rights".

Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost
Space start-up culture isn't like Silicon Valley (or LA or NY or ...) where you can through things together on the fly when things get rough. So its also perceived as riskier and more "go it alone". Thus the "showmanship" attributes of a Musk matter a great deal to fill the void - others follow that "inflated" model.

Plain and simple, its nuts.
I suspect many engineers who start their own business underestimate the level of marketing involved. This is a mistake.  :(
Not just marketing.

It's a mentality. Most aerospace engineers are trained to accept the worst case and to minimize potential success, because they are trying to secure success usually by overthinking things with tremendous special case constraints. That's not how entrepreneurs work.

(BTW, I don't think Musk knew what he was doing until long after Falcon 1 flight 4.)

Seems like a small community, those rocket people...
Absolutely. BTW, Musk has taught Mueller how to be an entrepreneur. That played a significant role in the success of M1D.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 8742
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #774 on: 03/12/2018 08:37 am »
Which begs the question would people invest in a competent team that under promised and over delivered?
That used to be a "kiss of death".

Ironically, it has become a peculiar "advantage" for certain professional investors, who think bravado is a a show of confidence. (They think when it doesn't come off, they can extract a pound of flesh advantage each time, and buy back increasing share of the business, because they have them over a barrel.  ::)  )

Hmmm.  Did not see that one coming.  :(
Just... bizarre.
So as a company making bolder claims is better, even if your claims are pretty bold to begin with?


Quote from: Space Ghost
My example above was to illustrate that when you do cross the threshold of where significant interest triggers, it's often not considered positive in aerospace engineering as much as you'd expect. Often they don't keep up contacts, don't show for meetings, even go back on plans and burn bridges.
You mean because they don't really have a "management team" that can do those meetings, which others can actually get on with fulfilling their contracts?
[/quote]
No.

They all have/had management teams. In this day and age, people pick and choose casually if they feel they need to be professional/genuine (or for that matter even betray), on a case by case basis. It's another evasion of professionalism that boggles.

Fulfilling contracts doesn't mean success in aerospace, often its just about keeping one's head above water.


I'm clearly not cut out for this sort of thing. I'm getting more boggled by the minute.  :(
Quote from: Space Ghost
Because they have a niche that they stubbornly cling to.

And there are many stories in aerospace/arsenal where obscure tiny firms become huge too.
Well that's something to hope for.


Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
In the case of Vector more of a "going where others cannot/will not".

And as a result opportunistically always getting the best deal for frequent small launches. Which in this case allows one investor to eat the heart out of an arrogant rival who they think over invested by undercutting them. Just as much spite as "bragging rights".
Indeed.
In theory "It's just business," but IRL  there's usually a sense of satisfaction involved.
The trouble comes when someone's desire for satisfaction makes them willing to exceed what is good business, and they make poor choices.  :(

Quote from: Space Ghost
Not just marketing.

It's a mentality. Most aerospace engineers are trained to accept the worst case and to minimize potential success, because they are trying to secure success usually by overthinking things with tremendous special case constraints. That's not how entrepreneurs work.
Indeed.

It's taken me a while to stop thinking in terms of "I can get so far in a plan but I can't see past this bit. Not viable. Don't do it" and start thinking in terms of "I get to here, and by then I should have learned enough to work out how to do the rest." Of course that does not always work.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the demise of the thinking behind "X" Planes, where the goal is find out information, not to design the next aircraft, to gain the knowledge to design the next generation of aircraft.  :(
Quote from: Space Ghost
(BTW, I don't think Musk knew what he was doing until long after Falcon 1 flight 4.)
Assuming he had absolute control of the F1 design process some of his choices seemed pretty odd.
Quote from: Space Ghost
Absolutely. BTW, Musk has taught Mueller how to be an entrepreneur. That played a significant role in the success of M1D.
I wonder if SX will turn out to be the equivalent of Fairchild semiconductor and it's spawing of the "Fair children" competitors from former employees?
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2911
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #775 on: 03/12/2018 07:19 pm »
Which begs the question would people invest in a competent team that under promised and over delivered?
That used to be a "kiss of death".

Ironically, it has become a peculiar "advantage" for certain professional investors, who think bravado is a a show of confidence. (They think when it doesn't come off, they can extract a pound of flesh advantage each time, and buy back increasing share of the business, because they have them over a barrel.  ::)  )

Hmmm.  Did not see that one coming.  :(
Just... bizarre.
So as a company making bolder claims is better, even if your claims are pretty bold to begin with?
It's why we have had in the past so many investment nightmares.

In essence, since they are in the "highest risk game", they are attracted to the "insane rewards" as well, and get used to thinking that the engineering/tech is like magic that somehow materializes to make it so.

Which is nuts but how things seem to work these days (especially in enterprise software, where I'm seeing things like 100k long database queries for complex metrics for example). Think of valuable high wire acts as a form of value proposition.

Over the top to prevent "topper".

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost
My example above was to illustrate that when you do cross the threshold of where significant interest triggers, it's often not considered positive in aerospace engineering as much as you'd expect. Often they don't keep up contacts, don't show for meetings, even go back on plans and burn bridges.
You mean because they don't really have a "management team" that can do those meetings, which others can actually get on with fulfilling their contracts?
No.

They all have/had management teams. In this day and age, people pick and choose casually if they feel they need to be professional/genuine (or for that matter even betray), on a case by case basis. It's another evasion of professionalism that boggles.

Fulfilling contracts doesn't mean success in aerospace, often its just about keeping one's head above water.

I'm clearly not cut out for this sort of thing. I'm getting more boggled by the minute.  :(
Its how we got Groupon and Uber.

Perhaps because they are used to upping the intensity on the "reality distortion field".

Musk attempts to use it as a super power. (Which also is nuts).

Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
In the case of Vector more of a "going where others cannot/will not".

And as a result opportunistically always getting the best deal for frequent small launches. Which in this case allows one investor to eat the heart out of an arrogant rival who they think over invested by undercutting them. Just as much spite as "bragging rights".
Indeed.
In theory "It's just business," but IRL  there's usually a sense of satisfaction involved.
The trouble comes when someone's desire for satisfaction makes them willing to exceed what is good business, and they make poor choices.  :(
Very true.

(And with someone like me, who is used to painfully grounding certain big egos with harsh reality, doesn't always go well either.)

Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost
Not just marketing.

It's a mentality. Most aerospace engineers are trained to accept the worst case and to minimize potential success, because they are trying to secure success usually by overthinking things with tremendous special case constraints. That's not how entrepreneurs work.
Indeed.

It's taken me a while to stop thinking in terms of "I can get so far in a plan but I can't see past this bit. Not viable. Don't do it" and start thinking in terms of "I get to here, and by then I should have learned enough to work out how to do the rest." Of course that does not always work.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the demise of the thinking behind "X" Planes, where the goal is find out information, not to design the next aircraft, to gain the knowledge to design the next generation of aircraft.  :(
Not a bad analogy.

It also reminds of working on half working black projects, where you improvise right up to the last minute, and maybe it comes off and maybe it doesn't.

(Which is where one learns how to be brutally concise as to what can/can't be done at times, because you have to address the issue head on.)

Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost
(BTW, I don't think Musk knew what he was doing until long after Falcon 1 flight 4.)
Assuming he had absolute control of the F1 design process some of his choices seemed pretty odd.
He didn't let that stop him. "Just do it"?

Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost
Absolutely. BTW, Musk has taught Mueller how to be an entrepreneur. That played a significant role in the success of M1D.
I wonder if SX will turn out to be the equivalent of Fairchild semiconductor and it's spawing of the "Fair children" competitors from former employees?
Interesting. (I've worked at Fairchild's AI Lab, and was an advisor to National Semiconductor (Sporck, Lamond, Kvamme) on going up against Intel in processors and memory, so I know those guys quite well - they wanted to sell to aerospace.)

It's true that there was an enormous amount of entrepreneurial energy in both. But Fairchild wasn't as "cultish" and inwardly directed as SX is - much more button down, like Xerox. I'd say that both PARC and parts of Fairchild illustrated potential opportunities, that the larger firm couldn't put into action (sounds like ULA?), so provided the motive/opportunity to link up with outside investment "initiative" to start.

It was a "validator" that if you were from Fairchild, you probably knew what you were talking about and could bring it off.

That part is true for many including SX.

The limitations for Fairchild wasn't vision/ambition, but sales/channels and finance.

Back to topic - best way I think to see Vector/RL is as "sounding rockets and model rocketry on steriods attempt to grow into launch systems".

From a standpoint of traditional aerospace investment and R&D, both are crazy to consider and even crazier to think you can turn into a business.

From a standpoint of paradigm shift venture investment, since it might work, possible, and given extreme operating/fixed cost advantage, might payoff by doing the impossible, so with good chance of bragging rights at owning the impossible, fund-able.

The return/value/ROI is "how impossibly big", later monetized. That's the difference.

Online ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #776 on: 03/15/2018 06:09 am »
Its how we got Groupon and Uber.

And Theranos.

The thing is, just like Theranos, the facts have a habit of catching up with Chief Executives eventually, when investors and regulators start looking into claims vs. facts:-

http://time.com/5200246/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-fraud-sec-charges/

Stunt blood tests that are designed to dazzle the press and hook investors... The SEC charges will just be the start of the problems for that young lady.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7255
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 7557
  • Likes Given: 2530
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #777 on: 03/18/2018 11:17 pm »
Quote
Successful test of our Gen II first stage engine for @vectorspacesys Vector-R launch vehicle with 3D printed injector and ablative cooled chamber/nozzle. This engine met performance targets and we will now work to finish qualifying engine for 1st flight

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/975525592740216832

Online ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #778 on: 03/23/2018 07:42 am »
off topic but vaguely amusing: this photo of Cantrell from his Twitter feed makes him look like an aging lounge singer who is slightly tired and emotional:

« Last Edit: 03/23/2018 07:43 am by ringsider »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7255
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 7557
  • Likes Given: 2530
Re: Vector Space Systems
« Reply #779 on: 03/29/2018 07:39 pm »
Quote
Vector’s proposed new launch pad at Pacific Spaceport Complex – Kodiak Alaska. Arguably one of the most amazing views of any pad in the world.

https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/979431012601094150

Tags: