#LauncherOne

[biglisbonnews]

Virgin Orbit's share price hit a new record low in the wake of mass layoffs Richard Branson’s rocket company is running out of fuel.Read more... https://qz.com/virgin-orbit-layoffs-share-price-record-low-1850286832

[sudden-stops-kill]

virgin orbit

[jenakuns]

Starship launch woot woot 3am discussion

Yeah so uh holy shit. That was definitely a launch that happened. It's such a weird program; extreme by most metrics that it's kinda hard to think about. The main thing that appears to be catching people up here is RUD vs explosion. I mean, RUD been used for a while now and is sort of a tongue in cheek joke, but I could understand why this being the first exposure could catch people.

There's also this post which is cosmically funny. All the complaining about Blue Origin no orbit has come back to bite the SpaceX stans because jokes on them; people are now confusing the two and saying SpaceX no orbit lol. Cheers @greetings-inferiors you gave us a good laugh.

But that's tumblrs reaction, what's mine? Idk, I laughed a fair bit. Schedules were always shot to hell, so I'm not too fussed in that regard. The rocket itself doesn't matter at this stage; it's the OLM damage, which I suppose separates this other launch failures. I still think H3 failure really reduced my expectations of first launches outcomes. If a country that's been doing launches for 30 years can't successfully launch a fairly conservative evolution of an existing rocket; then all bets are off for everyone else.

It's always nice to have a reset of expectations for the entire program so that means when things happen they can be appreciated rather than trodden over. (cough cough Falcon 9)

Launch wise, it was incredibly scuffed. 3 engines out from the get go which resulted in an extended burn at OLM to gain sufficient TTW resulting in that fat crater. The engines out also resulted in a slide that is scuffed and scary for a vehicle of Starship size. But the flight continued. Then more engines out, an hydraulic power unit explosion, some more engines, and oh yeah the tiles. (I don't care about the tiles). And yet the vehicle still flew. It's showed robustness in the scuffed of situations of it's own creation. When you roll around with B9 and the reliability enhancements, it actually is fairly interesting. They took engine explosions or at least flame outs in their stride, but you know; don't have them in the first place am I right.

The question is now when next flight and that really determines the value of this one. Because it's always the next product™. But presumably the Raptor ops and propellant management will be good outcomes. Also not to use HPU, but that was already a learned lesson. This failure just feels unusual because of the scale I suppose.* (I mean it's automatically notable because Musk rocket failure, but that's beside the point). Like we've had RS-1, ZQ-2, Terran 1, LauncherOne, H3 and Vega failures recently; what's different. Well, entirely different classes. But still, nowhere near media circuses. *+the damage to the ground infrastructure.

To summarize, the vehicles job was to gain experience on the performance of the many subsystems that make up this vehicle. Like autogenous pressurization on a vehicle of this scale as it handles many Raptors (failures) is no small feat. The next 2 Starships have given up heat shields and payloads, because they're also now exclusively marked as flight test vehicles as well. There was a lot of things that went wrong, but it still gave a fair bit of insight into the vehicle for SpaceX. And if that was just it; it would be fine because the next vehicle would be rolling to pad in a couple months. But this happened.

And that means a fair bit of work in repairing, upgrading and potential legal issues to grind out, which will cause delays in its own right. This is what pushes the needle in the direction of not worth it. But shit has happened and will continue to happen; the program will just move on.

Ooo forgot; no new HLS renders; fuckin bullshit world we live in.

[seraqueetudoissoemvao]

Vista aérea do CLA

País

Brasil

Estado

Maranhão

Corporação

Força Aérea Brasileira

Subordinação

Comando-Geral de Tecnologia Aeroespacial

Missão

Base de lançamentos de foguetes

Sigla

CLA

Criação

1983

Aniversários

27 de março

Lema

Janela Brasileira

Comando

Diretor

Coronel Luciano Rechiuti

Sede

Sede

Alcântara - Maranhão

Página oficial

www.cla.aer.mil.br

É operado pelo Comando da Aeronáutica da Força Aérea Brasileira. O CLA é a base de lançamento mais próxima da linha do equador.[3] Isso confere ao local de lançamento uma vantagem significativa no lançamento de satélites geossíncronos.

A construção da base começou em 1982. O primeiro lançamento ocorreu em 21 de fevereiro de 1990, quando o foguete de sondagem Sonda 2 XV-53 foi lançado.[4] Em 22 de agosto de 2003, a explosão do terceiro VLS-1 (XV-03) matou 21 pessoas.[5]

Há também planos para o lançamento de vários foguetes internacionais de Alcântara. Em 2003, foram assinados contratos para o lançamento dos foguetes ucranianos Tsyklon-4[6] e israelenses Shavit;[7] além disso, existem outros planos para lançar o foguete russo Proton.[8] No início de 2018, o governo brasileiro ofereceu a possibilidade de uso do espaçoporto para várias empresas estadunidenses.[9] A empresa Virgin Orbit, foi selecionada para voar seu foguete LauncherOne de Alcântara.

[phonemantra-blog]

The new center will be used for the production of Rutherford engines and the development of larger Archimedes engines for the Neutron rocket On October 4, the opening ceremony of the Rocket Lab engine development center took place. The 13,400 square meter building will produce the Rutherford engines used on the Electron rocket, as well as the larger Archimedes engines for the Neutron rocket. The building was previously the headquarters of Virgin Orbit, where the company built its LauncherOne rocket. Virgin Orbit filed for bankruptcy in April, and Rocket Lab leased the building through a bankruptcy auction in May and purchased the equipment and machinery inside for $16,100,000. [caption id="attachment_64070" align="aligncenter" width="780"] Rocket Lab[/caption] Rocket Lab converts former Virgin Orbit headquarters into engine development center Rocket Lab previously estimated the cost of the building and its contents at approximately $100,000,000. However, according to the company's chief financial officer, Adam Spies, the main value of the purchase lies in reducing the risk associated with expanding engine production. Rocket Lab began moving into a new building immediately after the bankruptcy process was closed. Employees began installing engine production equipment and taking inventory of tools left behind by Virgin Orbit, including industrial equipment and furniture. The company already produces parts for the Archimedes engine and last weekend began moving the Rutherford engine production line to the new building. The full-engine production cycle will be ramped up over the next few months. At the same time, Rocket Lab continues to investigate the failed launch of the Electron rocket on September 19. The investigation is still in the early stages, with no specific time frame for completing the investigation or plans for Electron to resume flights.

[kennak]

4月に経営破綻した空中発射ロケットLauncherOneを手掛けていた宇宙ベンチャーのVirgin Oribit社について、インターステラテクノロジズ代表の稲川氏による「空中発射ロケット企業Virgin Orbitはなぜ破綻したのか？」というnoteが興味深かったので共有したい。 稲川氏による分析を並べると「開発費に10億ドル以上と他の小型ロケットの5~10倍かかっている」「ロケット自体も低コスト化が不十分で原価割れ状態」「無理な上場による厳しい損益分岐点」「海外空港との提携など必要もないのに手を広げすぎ」「空中発射ロケットの技術的問題」「大型化が困難なことによる防衛市場進出の失敗」「株価低迷による資金調達の困難」「幹部がボーイング出身ばかりでベンチャー気質ではなく大企業文化だった」…と多くの原因が挙げられている。 上記の問題点には一般的なものもある一方、機体コストや大型化など空中発射ロケットであったことに起因するものも多々散見されるようにみえる。今回は残念な結果に終わってしまったが、空中発射ロケットが再び日の目を見る日はやってくるだろうか？

空中発射ロケットのVirgin Oribitはなぜ破綻したのか？ | スラド サイエンス

[cavenewstimes]

Virgin Orbit completes LauncherOne investigation as Chapter 11 bankruptcy continues

Virgin Orbit completes LauncherOne investigation as Chapter 11 bankruptcy continues, Virgin Orbit says it is moving ahead with plans to return its LauncherOne rocket to flight later this year even though there is no certainty the company will emerge from…, 2023-04-24 01:34:00, An illustration of Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne system. Credit: Virgin Orbit Credit: Virgin Orbit WASHINGTON — Virgin…

[nawapon17]

SpaceNews: Virgin Orbit completes LauncherOne investigation as Chapter 11 bankruptcy continues

[worldspotlightnews]

Virgin Orbit COO calls out company leadership for failures in goodbye memo. Read the full email

The modified 747 aircraft “Cosmic Girl” lifts off from Mojave Air and Space Port in California carrying a LauncherOne rocket on June 30, 2021. Virgin Orbit With Virgin Orbit now under bankruptcy protection, departing Chief Operating Officer Tony Gingiss had some choice words for the company’s leadership, as well as a lengthy and detailed apology to its employees. “You deserved better than this!”…

[topskynews]

விர்ஜின் ஆர்பிட் அதன் பெரும்பாலான ஊழியர்களை பணிநீக்கம் செய்ய உள்ளது

03 ஏப்ரல் 2023 மார்க் செலிங்கரால் விர்ஜின் ஆர்பிட் அதன் LauncherOne ராக்கெட்டை மாற்றியமைக்கப்பட்ட போயிங் 747-400 விமானத்திலிருந்து செலுத்துகிறது. (கன்னி சுற்றுப்பாதை) சிறிய-செயற்கைக்கோள் வெளியீட்டு வழங்குநரான விர்ஜின் ஆர்பிட், பணப் பற்றாக்குறையின் மத்தியில் செலவுகளைக் குறைக்க சுமார் 675 ஊழியர்களை அல்லது அதன் பணியாளர்களில் 85% பேரை பணிநீக்கம் செய்ய திட்டமிட்டுள்ளது, அமெரிக்காவை தளமாகக் கொண்ட…

[wafact]

Virgin Orbit scrambles to avoid bankruptcy as deal talks continue

Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne rocket on display in Times Square, New York. CNBC | Michael Sheetz Virgin Orbit is scrambling to secure a funding lifeline and avoid bankruptcy, which could come as early as this week without a deal, CNBC has learned. The rocket builder paused operations last week and furloughed most of the company, as CNBC first reported, while it sought new investment or a potential…

[jenakuns]

Launch vehicle reliability

I feel like there's a mistake people make in that they believe they can have a big impact on reliability with architecture decisions. In recent memory I think of this slide released by Virgin Orbit (RIP) in one of their investor decks.

Like I can simply tell you a launch vehicle's reliability via first stage engine count. This is superficial. LauncherOne didn't really have a large history to call on, but it's reliability is below theoretical with 4 out of 6 and was detached from whether they had 1 engine or 9. RocketLab has actually now crossed to 91%, beating theoretical. And both of the recent failures of Electron involved the single engine upper stage, not the 9 engine first stage. Astra was at 50%, which I suppose is technically correct as it's <88%. But myopic view as none of the failures are directly caused by the 5 engines. And there was more failures of the dirt simple single engine pressure fed upper stage than of the first stage.

These failures aren't baked around engineering margins which you can calculate; they are design, management and QC issues. And there isn't a formula that can output reliability from inputted cultural and management approaches at a company.

My favorite one is where SpaceX paid Futron Corporation back in 2004 for some analysis that showed that their single engine Falcon 1 was actually optimal from a reliability perspective and Falcon V was even better cause it could sustain engine out.

Engine Reliability It was with this in mind that we designed Falcon I to have the minimum number of engines. As a result, there is only one engine per stage and only one stage separation event – the minimum pragmatically possible number.

In the case of Falcon V, there are five first stage engines, but the vehicle is capable of sustaining an engine failure at any point in flight and still successfully completing its mission. This actually results in an even higher level of reliability than a single engine stage. The SpaceX five engine architecture is an improved version of that employed by the Saturn V Moon rocket, which had a flawless flight record despite losing an engine on two of its missions.

Which is funny because they then arrived at a 9 engine setup (and later a 27 engine aha (AND NOW A 33 WOOO BABY)) and have to like it for reliability.

Falcon 9 has nine Merlin engines clustered together. This vehicle will be capable of sustaining an engine failure at any point in flight and still successfully completing its mission. This actually results in an even higher level of reliability than a single engine stage. The SpaceX nine engine architecture is an improved version of the architecture employed by the Saturn V and Saturn I rockets of the Apollo Program, which had flawless flight records despite losing engines on a number of mission.

Now in this regard eh. Falcon 1 flight 1 was lost because who knew metal valves would corrode under salt water spray. Flight 2 was lost because Elon thought they wouldn't need slosh baffles on the second stage as that would be wasted mass and overruled his engineers. Flight 3 was lost because of performance enhancements with Merlin 1C causing collision after staging due to residual thrust.

Falcon 9 then went on to have an engine failure on flight 5 and while it did still manage to achieve the launch, demonstrating the engine margin aspect, they did loose the secondary payloads. The two proper launch failures had to do with struts and COPV, which are entirely independent of engine count. We have had a more recent mission in early 2021 which had an engine fail and it still succeeded, although booster failed to land.

Another failure group that stick with me is The operationalization of Air Force space programs. 'We need to operationalize our launch vehicles such that a history major can run them instead of an engineer.' And so the upper ranks of the Air Force went ahead and dismantled the engineering culture that made these programs at least reliable and got rid of those "guys in white lab coats." And so they lost $5.6 billion worth of satellites and launch vehicles due to 3 failures that can all be attributed to poor quality control.

And that linked article makes a good point: "It is tempting to say that management is the cause of all launch failures, and in one sense that is true." Because if you just gave your engineers more time and money, they probably would have fixed the issues right? Well A. there's any number of things to spend your money on; you need to avoid bankruptcy and B. there are genuine engineering screw ups with time and money anyways. So better to just get off the pad and flying?

A final note on the R7 or Soyuz now. As a design, it has perhaps one of the worst conceptual reliabilities. It has 5 engines on the first stage with hydrogen peroxide turbopumps and not a single one of them can fail as they are each a booster. And because there is 4 boosters that means 4 separation events that also have to work. There is also a liquid third stage which of course has to separate and ignite successfully + the occasional 4 stage. 5 critical separation events and 6 engine burns that all have to go well. And yet it's reliability is kinda just fine with modern variant having 95.5%, with some older variants having better records. There was a stretch in the 1982 with 182 successful R7 family launches in a row.

You can't determine reliability from design parameters; because there is so much nuance in executions of programs

[best2daynews]

Virgin Orbit suspects a $100 part was responsible for LauncherOne failure: report

Virgin Orbit suspects that a $100 part was responsible for the Jan. 9 failure of the LauncherOne rocket.  “Everything points to, right now, a filter that was clearly there when we assembled the rocket but was not there as the second stage engine started, meaning it was dislodged and caused mischief downstream,” CEO Dan Hart reportedly told the SmallSat Symposium on Tuesday, according to…