Vast, a Startup for "human habitation, first in LEO, and then beyond"

[Twark_Main]

I haven't seen this mission statement posted before.

https://www.factoriesinspace.com/vast

The expansion of humanity beyond Earth is important for many reasons. People crave a frontier, and there is none greater than taking our first real step into space. Humans can perform assembly and repair tasks that robots are nowhere near being able to do. And, we need more resources and the room to use them without destroying our one biosphere—while Earth is finite and fragile, space is vast.

We’ve seen visions of large numbers of people living and working in space since the 1950s. But the high cost of launch has repeatedly brought those dreams down to Earth. Now however, that is changing. Launch costs have already come down two orders of magnitude. The impending availability of Starship and other next-generation launch vehicles promises to transformationally reduce the cost of launch even further, enabling much larger structures and grander visions than any current player is proposing. Everyone else is designing for legacy launch vehicles while we’re designing for the scale of what’s next.

When enough people are living, working, and playing in space, the game fundamentally changes: you can assemble huge structures, harvest space resources, repair satellites & space telescopes with human dexterity instead of finicky robots, and develop the vibrant space ecosystem that enables further expansion.

Space is still dominated by large government contractors with little incentive to take risks, resulting in calcified and expensive designs. SpaceX and other NewSpace companies have demonstrated that agility, first-principles thinking, and approaching problems at sufficient scale can drastically reduce the cost of operating in space. What they have done for rockets and satellites, we will do for human habitation, first in LEO, and then beyond. We have both the monetary resources and the talented team to achieve this vision.

[Coastal Ron]

I haven't seen this mission statement posted before.

https://www.factoriesinspace.com/vast

The expansion of humanity beyond Earth is important for many reasons. People crave a frontier, and there is none greater than taking our first real step into space. Humans can perform assembly and repair tasks that robots are nowhere near being able to do. And, we need more resources and the room to use them without destroying our one biosphere—while Earth is finite and fragile, space is vast.

We’ve seen visions of large numbers of people living and working in space since the 1950s. But the high cost of launch has repeatedly brought those dreams down to Earth. Now however, that is changing. Launch costs have already come down two orders of magnitude. The impending availability of Starship and other next-generation launch vehicles promises to transformationally reduce the cost of launch even further, enabling much larger structures and grander visions than any current player is proposing. Everyone else is designing for legacy launch vehicles while we’re designing for the scale of what’s next.

When enough people are living, working, and playing in space, the game fundamentally changes: you can assemble huge structures, harvest space resources, repair satellites & space telescopes with human dexterity instead of finicky robots, and develop the vibrant space ecosystem that enables further expansion.

Space is still dominated by large government contractors with little incentive to take risks, resulting in calcified and expensive designs. SpaceX and other NewSpace companies have demonstrated that agility, first-principles thinking, and approaching problems at sufficient scale can drastically reduce the cost of operating in space. What they have done for rockets and satellites, we will do for human habitation, first in LEO, and then beyond. We have both the monetary resources and the talented team to achieve this vision.

Wow, they almost sound like Luddites when they talk about robots. Not sure if they realize that robots are just smart machines, and we rely on lots of kinds of smart machines here on Earth to build huge structures. Humans have fine dexterity, but lack the strength to lift and move large masses, in gravity or zero-G. Ironically they could probably afford to be build their station quicker if they could use less people, but that obviates the need for more people in space that would want to live on their station!

And they kind of have an impossible task of needing enough humans in space to assemble their huge structure (i.e. the Vast rotating space station), yet, they say that can't happen until they have enough people in space. Where are those people going to be living before the Vast station is built?

However, according to them, they "...have both the monetary resources and the talented team to achieve this vision." 

[Robotbeat]

I haven't seen this mission statement posted before.

https://www.factoriesinspace.com/vast

The expansion of humanity beyond Earth is important for many reasons. People crave a frontier, and there is none greater than taking our first real step into space. Humans can perform assembly and repair tasks that robots are nowhere near being able to do. And, we need more resources and the room to use them without destroying our one biosphere—while Earth is finite and fragile, space is vast.

We’ve seen visions of large numbers of people living and working in space since the 1950s. But the high cost of launch has repeatedly brought those dreams down to Earth. Now however, that is changing. Launch costs have already come down two orders of magnitude. The impending availability of Starship and other next-generation launch vehicles promises to transformationally reduce the cost of launch even further, enabling much larger structures and grander visions than any current player is proposing. Everyone else is designing for legacy launch vehicles while we’re designing for the scale of what’s next.

When enough people are living, working, and playing in space, the game fundamentally changes: you can assemble huge structures, harvest space resources, repair satellites & space telescopes with human dexterity instead of finicky robots, and develop the vibrant space ecosystem that enables further expansion.

Space is still dominated by large government contractors with little incentive to take risks, resulting in calcified and expensive designs. SpaceX and other NewSpace companies have demonstrated that agility, first-principles thinking, and approaching problems at sufficient scale can drastically reduce the cost of operating in space. What they have done for rockets and satellites, we will do for human habitation, first in LEO, and then beyond. We have both the monetary resources and the talented team to achieve this vision.

Wow, they almost sound like Luddites when they talk about robots. Not sure if they realize that robots are just smart machines, and we rely on lots of kinds of smart machines here on Earth to build huge structures. Humans have fine dexterity, but lack the strength to lift and move large masses, in gravity or zero-G. Ironically they could probably afford to be build their station quicker if they could use less people, but that obviates the need for more people in space that would want to live on their station!

And they kind of have an impossible task of needing enough humans in space to assemble their huge structure (i.e. the Vast rotating space station), yet, they say that can't happen until they have enough people in space. Where are those people going to be living before the Vast station is built?

However, according to them, they "...have both the monetary resources and the talented team to achieve this vision." 

I honestly agree with them. Robots probably would take longer to build an equivalent thing. Space robotics is incredibly slow. And expensive. Humans are orders of magnitude faster and you could make EVA suits cheaper than space rated robotics. (Although NASA seems intent on making EVA suits as expensive as possible.)

This flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but I'm convinced it's true.

[edzieba]

Robots probably would take longer to build an equivalent thing. Space robotics is incredibly slow. And expensive.

The same could have been said of the launch industry up until a decade or so ago.
There is no fundamental need for robots in space to be expensive or slow (and since they don't need to fight gravity or air resistance, that relieves a lot of design constraints on industrial robotics, which are already pretty fast), just as there is no fundamental need for rockets to be expensive and singe-use.

[Coastal Ron]

Wow, they almost sound like Luddites when they talk about robots. Not sure if they realize that robots are just smart machines, and we rely on lots of kinds of smart machines here on Earth to build huge structures. Humans have fine dexterity, but lack the strength to lift and move large masses, in gravity or zero-G. Ironically they could probably afford to be build their station quicker if they could use less people, but that obviates the need for more people in space that would want to live on their station!

And they kind of have an impossible task of needing enough humans in space to assemble their huge structure (i.e. the Vast rotating space station), yet, they say that can't happen until they have enough people in space. Where are those people going to be living before the Vast station is built?

However, according to them, they "...have both the monetary resources and the talented team to achieve this vision." 

I honestly agree with them. Robots probably would take longer to build an equivalent thing. Space robotics is incredibly slow. And expensive. Humans are orders of magnitude faster and you could make EVA suits cheaper than space rated robotics. (Although NASA seems intent on making EVA suits as expensive as possible.)

This flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but I'm convinced it's true.

Maybe we need to distinguish between "robots" that are autonomous, and "robots" that are telerobotic systems, because I would agree that autonomous robots may not be ready for space station assembly tasks, but I can't imagine having humans manipulating large masses in space while in their inflatable spacesuits.

I have a Mars-gravity rotating space station in mind that can use a moveable construction shack that will rely on telerobotic systems to move material and modules around, and maybe even do some of the assembly, but likely humans will be needed to supervise and do the small tasks. But the majority of the mass of the station will be handled by telerobotic systems.

How were you thinking space construction would be done using humans?

[Redclaws]

Robots probably would take longer to build an equivalent thing. Space robotics is incredibly slow. And expensive.

The same could have been said of the launch industry up until a decade or so ago.
There is no fundamental need for robots in space to be expensive or slow (and since they don't need to fight gravity or air resistance, that relieves a lot of design constraints on industrial robotics, which are already pretty fast), just as there is no fundamental need for rockets to be expensive and singe-use.

I think zero g design and movement is actually harder, since there’s no planet/wall/floor to brace on while pushing or pulling on something.  Equal and opposite reaction can’t just be dampened in to the floor any more.

Still agree there’s no reason they have to be expensive and boutique single systems with the associated costs

[Twark_Main]

And they kind of have an impossible task of needing enough humans in space to assemble their huge structure (i.e. the Vast rotating space station), yet, they say that can't happen until they have enough people in space. Where are those people going to be living before the Vast station is built?

Seems like standard well-proven modular space station assembly to me. I don't understand the hand-wringing here.

[Twark_Main]

I think zero g design and movement is actually harder, since there’s no planet/wall/floor to brace on while pushing or pulling on something.  Equal and opposite reaction can’t just be dampened in to the floor any more.

In practice people just hook their feet behind the grab rails. Astronauts report getting callouses on the tops of their feet.

Still agree there’s no reason they have to be expensive and boutique single systems with the associated costs

Everything in space is "expensive and boutique" right now. But as pointed out earlier, there's no fundamental reason why space station costs can't come down dramatically.

[mikelepage]

Interview with VAST founder.

https://payloadspace.com/vast-space-station-interview/

New render dropped along with this interview.

Hardware evolution seems to be a straightforward iteration upon the previous design shown. So much for "reading way more into a hand-drawn sketch than is there." 

Great interview. My confidence in this company is growing as the information we have around their approach is growing. Especially so because they have the scam $$ to go far without taking outside funding. That's huge. Hearing him check off the list of potential issues with any spin-G design is also reassuring.  There's been far too many sketch-on-a-piece-of-paper-companies that were all hype that I don't think our initial skepticism was unjustified.

If you recall, you showed such conviction that every aspect of this drawing was 100% accurate that I asked you if you had some inside word. Even in the interview Jed hints at the potential for building it out into a torus, so technically, you are showing more conviction for the baton design than the founder of the company.

Aside from any of that though, I've long said that what it will take is just someone with serious $$ making it their personal mission to figure out spin-G. Really glad this is happening.

[JohnFornaro]

From that interview with the Vast founder:

I mean, we’re kind of building like a spoke of the Stanford Torus. Or like one spoke of Arthur C. Clarke’s rotating station. The idea is eventually you could build a ring on this thing, but we’re focused on one spoke first, which gives you gravity, at least.

Ya gotta start building a ring station somehow.

[Twark_Main]

Interview with VAST founder.

https://payloadspace.com/vast-space-station-interview/

New render dropped along with this interview.

Hardware evolution seems to be a straightforward iteration upon the previous design shown. So much for "reading way more into a hand-drawn sketch than is there." 

Great interview. My confidence in this company is growing as the information we have around their approach is growing. Especially so because they have the scam $$ to go far without taking outside funding. That's huge.

I wouldn't be so sure.

https://www.forbes.com/profile/jed-mccaleb/

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-ripple-xrp-lawsuit%3A-what-you-need-to-know

If you recall, you showed such conviction that every aspect of this drawing was 100% accurate

I would appreciate it if you don't try to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

My position was that the renderings were all we had to go by, so it's better to assume accuracy than assume inaccuracy. If you want to put it in numbers, that would be >50%.

I never asserted (or believed) 100% accuracy, because that would be silly.

Even in the interview Jed hints at the potential for building it out into a torus, so technically, you are showing more conviction for the baton design than the founder of the company.

I don't follow. I, too, was explicit in pointing out that this modular architecture could be used to construct a torus, so the founder and I are 1-for-1 on that point.

I'd mention it too, in his shoes! It's good marketing to the laymen, who love watching movies but hated learning how to do geometric problem-solving in school.

[Twark_Main]

From that interview with the Vast founder:

I mean, we’re kind of building like a spoke of the Stanford Torus. Or like one spoke of Arthur C. Clarke’s rotating station. The idea is eventually you could build a ring on this thing, but we’re focused on one spoke first, which gives you gravity, at least.

Ya gotta start building a ring station somehow.

If you don't care about radiation (or you never plan to venture out of VLEO), a ring station is fine.

If you care about such things, it's equally feasible (though perhaps Vast hasn't realized it yet) to attach a cluster of modules to each end of the baton. The improved area-to-volume reduces your radiation shielding mass (and as a bonus, your impact cross-section) considerably.

[JohnFornaro]

If you don't care about radiation ...

Moi?  Shirley you jest. 

I propose 15 yards of shielding.

[Twark_Main]

Ya gotta start building a ring station ...

If you don't care about radiation ... a ring station is fine.

Moi?  Shirley you jest. 

I propose 15 yards of shielding.

So then, you definitely want a geometry that maximizes the useful volume per unit area of (thick and therefore expensive) shielding.

A ring station is not that geometry.

[high road]

Ya gotta start building a ring station ...

If you don't care about radiation ... a ring station is fine.

Moi?  Shirley you jest. 

I propose 15 yards of shielding.

So then, you definitely want a geometry that maximizes the useful volume per unit area of (thick and therefore expensive) shielding.

A ring station is not that geometry.

Not worse than a cylinder spinning end over end as it's currently designed. Adding modular spokes and then a modular ring around those will be a smaller leap forward than figuring out how to build a station that maximizes floor space along the horizontal and vertical axes without the experience of having a large scale rotating space station.

[Twark_Main]

Ya gotta start building a ring station ...

If you don't care about radiation ... a ring station is fine.

Moi?  Shirley you jest. 

I propose 15 yards of shielding.

So then, you definitely want a geometry that maximizes the useful volume per unit area of (thick and therefore expensive) shielding.

A ring station is not that geometry.

Not worse than a cylinder spinning end over end as it's currently designed. Adding modular spokes and then a modular ring around those will be a smaller leap forward than figuring out how to build a station that maximizes floor space along the horizontal and vertical axes without the experience of having a large scale rotating space station.

If you want a modular design, you can do that without a "ring."  You just use a cluster of cans.

This still lets you optimize the radiation shielding geometry, since you can concentrate resupply mass around the periphery.

[JayWee]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1628037760719233025

Space habitat company Vast announces the acquisition of Launcher, for an undisclosed amount:
https://vastspace.com/press-releases/vast-acquires-launcher-to-accelerate-growth
Vast: All of Launcher's employees are joining, with the company to continue development of the Orbiter space tug and hosted payload products, as well as the E-2 rocket engine, but will not continue to develop Launcher's Light rocket.
Launcher founder @maxhaot joins as President of Vast.

[Cheapchips]

hmm. Wonder if they'll take this as an opportunity to skip 'Light' and go straight to 'Medium'. There doesn't seem much point in keeping E-2 development going unless it they have a vehicle for it.

That would allow them to launch their own modules.  I'm not entirely sure a whole medium lift vehicle program is the cheapest way to get those modules to orbit though!

edit - never mind - in the full press release they say they're not doing a vehicle. 

[tankat0208]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1628037760719233025

Space habitat company Vast announces the acquisition of Launcher, for an undisclosed amount:
https://vastspace.com/press-releases/vast-acquires-launcher-to-accelerate-growth
Vast: All of Launcher's employees are joining, with the company to continue development of the Orbiter space tug and hosted payload products, as well as the E-2 rocket engine, but will not continue to develop Launcher's Light rocket.
Launcher founder @maxhaot joins as President of Vast.

Just like how Axiom is doing the commercial astronaut program as the 'bridge' to their commercial space station, looks like Vast is aiming to go for the space tug program as the bridge.

 I would also assume that attitude control and propulsion are interchangeable between the station and the tug to some degree, and they are gaining 'paid experience' from hosting tug missions.

[Robotbeat]

Even if they want to develop a launcher in the future, it’s possible the smallsat launcher market is already oversaturated and you won’t find a decent revenue source in dedicated smallsat launch for a small expendable launcher. They could use tug experience as the sort of “training wheels” for an eventual medium-large launch vehicle, instead of a light launch vehicle.

(Well hopefully even that will be unnecessary, and they can focus on in-orbit stuff.)