Author Topic: Isar Aerospace  (Read 50441 times)

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #20 on: 12/16/2019 12:34 am »
They maybe able do demo LV for lot less than $100-150m. The factory etc to build 10-20 a year will need rest of $100-150m. To be successful need to build production line at same time as demo LV. Customers won't wait a year or two after demo mission while production facilities are built.

I have not yet been able to spot any good reasons to believe they would be able to attract enough payloads to need to build that many per year.  Do you see where enough customers would come from to exceed the number of vehicles they could hand build per year without significant factory infrastructure? 

Even if you posit strong growth in the number of payloads needing launch by 2022 or 2023, every sign is that lhe growth in launcher options will outpace it.  In a highly competitive environment, why would this particular company win lots of contracts?

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #21 on: 12/16/2019 11:48 am »
The fact that they seem to have secured enough funding to get them through most or all of their development

No. $17m is not enough for "most or all of their development" of a 1,000kg launcher, not even close.

More like $100m-$150m. This is seed stage money.

Quote
...Isar Aerospace’s $17 million Series A will fund the 30-person company through to a full-duration engine hot-fire, Metzler said...

I'm curious to know how their government and organizations like ESA will view them.  I think that could have a substantial impact on the likeliihood of resources being available.

The European Vega rocket cost 710 million Euros, plus another 400 million for development flights - so more than 1.1 billion Euros, for a launcher capable of 1400kg.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_(rocket)#Costs

A direct compariable is Relativity, with a 1250kg launcher. They have raised $185m so far, and are probably 1-2 years ahead of this company. I am sure they will raise another $200m-$250m before long, so circa $400m in total.

Even Rocket Lab needed about $60m for the first small 150kg launcher, and then another $70m to scale the factory, and then another $140m for more scale. $270m.

This one may be able to do it cheaper, but 98% cheaper than Vega, or 90% cheaper than Relativity? No. A full duration engine burn for $17m? I direct you to Peter Beck's excellent quote "if they are showing engine tests you know they are miles away".

So for sure they will need a lot more money. Some of it may come from ESA or German govt, but that is exactly the real game here - this is Airbus spoiling the German landscape for OHB's ambitions, diluting their potential resources. I honestly don't think Airbus cares if this company is successful or not as long as it slows down OHB...


Online TrevorMonty

Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #22 on: 12/16/2019 01:42 pm »
The fact that they seem to have secured enough funding to get them through most or all of their development

No. $17m is not enough for "most or all of their development" of a 1,000kg launcher, not even close.

More like $100m-$150m. This is seed stage money.

Quote
...Isar Aerospace’s $17 million Series A will fund the 30-person company through to a full-duration engine hot-fire, Metzler said...

I'm curious to know how their government and organizations like ESA will view them.  I think that could have a substantial impact on the likeliihood of resources being available.

The European Vega rocket cost 710 million Euros, plus another 400 million for development flights - so more than 1.1 billion Euros, for a launcher capable of 1400kg.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_(rocket)#Costs

A direct compariable is Relativity, with a 1250kg launcher. They have raised $185m so far, and are probably 1-2 years ahead of this company. I am sure they will raise another $200m-$250m before long, so circa $400m in total.

Even Rocket Lab needed about $60m for the first small 150kg launcher, and then another $70m to scale the factory, and then another $140m for more scale. $270m.

This one may be able to do it cheaper, but 98% cheaper than Vega, or 90% cheaper than Relativity? No. A full duration engine burn for $17m? I direct you to Peter Beck's excellent quote "if they are showing engine tests you know they are miles away".

So for sure they will need a lot more money. Some of it may come from ESA or German govt, but that is exactly the real game here - this is Airbus spoiling the German landscape for OHB's ambitions, diluting their potential resources. I honestly don't think Airbus cares if this company is successful or not as long as it slows down OHB...
Vega is 1400kg to SSO while 1000kg small LVs are 600kg (firefly Alpha). 

The 1000kg class LV busoness is going to be hotty contested, expect list prices to drop. My guess is around $10m.

RL will need to bring Electron back under $5m to compete, currently $7.5m which includes free gold medal. Reusing booster should help. I suspect RL are milking market while they can , with no direct competition and excellent record to boot.

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #23 on: 12/16/2019 01:46 pm »
So for sure they will need a lot more money. Some of it may come from ESA or German govt, but that is exactly the real game here - this is Airbus spoiling the German landscape for OHB's ambitions, diluting their potential resources. I honestly don't think Airbus cares if this company is successful or not as long as it slows down OHB...

For those who, like me, hadn't heard of OHB, their thread is here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48925.0

From what I am gleaning they are a large established satellite firm who is trying to setup a verticle (one stop shopping for the payload and the launch) very similar to RocketLabs, including a similarly sized vehicle.

What's interesting about a company like this doing it is that funding the development shouldn't be a problem and their motivations for doing it would seem to be somewhat different from many of the small launcher efforts:

Quote
OHB is committed to self funding the rocket.

“You lose control” of creating the rocket when government funds get involved, he said.

source https://spacenews.com/ohb-defends-self-funded-launcher-effort/

What I don't understand is your reasoning for why Airbus might consider Isar to be a spoiler that is helpful to them.   How does that work?

What makes you think that this is Airbus' primary reason for involvement rather than some other motivation?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2445
  • Likes Given: 13639
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #24 on: 12/16/2019 04:51 pm »
The 1000kg class LV busoness is going to be hotty contested, expect list prices to drop. My guess is around $10m.

RL will need to bring Electron back under $5m to compete, currently $7.5m which includes free gold medal. Reusing booster should help. I suspect RL are milking market while they can , with no direct competition and excellent record to boot.
Just like every other LV mfg/operator in fact.

No one should be at all surprised at this.

Actual direct competition (same payload to same orbit, not limited what foreign country the supplier is based in) lowers prices.

Nothing else really works.  :(

It's the 2nd decade of the 21st century and the level of "innovation" I keep seeing in this stuff is massively underwhelming.  :(

One imagines fine minds with expensive engineering educations yet all they come up with is so much more of the same.

It's like the last time the Germans actually did something truly innovative was OTRAG in the 70's.  :(


« Last Edit: 12/16/2019 05:05 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline gmbnz

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #25 on: 12/16/2019 08:40 pm »
It's the 2nd decade of the 21st century and the level of "innovation" I keep seeing in this stuff is massively underwhelming.  :(

One imagines fine minds with expensive engineering educations yet all they come up with is so much more of the same.

It's like the last time the Germans actually did something truly innovative was OTRAG in the 70's.  :(

I guess that's the downside of the commercialisation trend.
Blame Reagan and his presidential decree in '82 for the government to focus on "encouraging the private sector development of commercial launch operations" ;) On the other hand thank him for starting the ball rolling on the (new) space race!

The commercialisation certainly worked, but no company is going to do the blue sky research needed to break out of the 'optimum' TSTO or similar design. There certainly could be the return in the long run but it would cost far more than any venture capitalist is ever going to put up at the moment.

So for sure they will need a lot more money. Some of it may come from ESA or German govt, but that is exactly the real game here - this is Airbus spoiling the German landscape for OHB's ambitions, diluting their potential resources. I honestly don't think Airbus cares if this company is successful or not as long as it slows down OHB...

Which is an odd strategy since as far as I know OHB haven't ever said anything about finding other funding sources - I got the impression they've just shifted some engineering over to designing a small LV. I guess in terms of attracting talent and things perhaps?

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1549
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 639
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #26 on: 12/31/2019 12:21 am »
Let's make the European micro launcher developments even more complicated.
I'm confused. The plot thickens.

'AQUILA' I've seen that name before.
VLM    VLX/Aquila


I think we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #27 on: 02/02/2020 10:31 pm »
Looks like something changed - OHB-owned Rocket Factory Augsburg are raising external money by selling 50% of their firm:-

https://latamsatelital.com/rocket-factory-augsburg-busca-financiacion/

The timing, a few weeks after the news from a few miles down the road at Isar Aerospace (also in Germany), is quite interesting. Also the % amount is a lot - almost like somebody decided to step away from vehicle...
« Last Edit: 02/02/2020 10:32 pm by ringsider »

Offline bavariablue

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #28 on: 06/09/2020 10:15 pm »
Looks like Isar Aerospace is getting into trouble regarding their gas generator test site.
There is an online petition against gas generator tests done by Isar Aerospace because they do tests next to an resort and tourists / neighbors get annoyed:

https://www.petitionen.com/nein_zu_raketentriebwerkstest_in_reischach?u=5530478&fbclid=IwAR2hf19iRHEqBS0s06LnVNPN-lxqRTquT4dl8yjLYvuj76sKPI6U3IvzRIY

https://www.pnp.de/lokales/landkreis-altoetting/neuoetting-toeging/Zu-laut-Streit-um-Gasgeneratoren-Tests-fuer-Raketen-3699759.html

Looks like they are testing at a farm :

https://www.google.com/maps/place/48.282901,+12.702001/@48.2829959,12.7019979,20z/data=!3m1!1e3


Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1549
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 639
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #29 on: 06/10/2020 03:31 pm »
And then we are surprised developing rocket technology in Europe is difficult.  :-[ ...  :-X

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #30 on: 06/10/2020 04:06 pm »
And then we are surprised developing rocket technology in Europe is difficult.  :-[ ...  :-X
America really has the sweet spot of entrepreneurship, a large pot of risk money, strong legacy and history - and therefore skills and infrastructure - and lots of wide open spaces where you can do whatever you want. Isar Aerospace were at one point saying they may move to America as it is so constrained / underfunded in Europe - it's in a parliamentary proceeding in Germany if you Google them a bit. Europe needs a Spaceport America thing but they are too fragmented over there to get that together.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2020 04:08 pm by ringsider »

Offline bavariablue

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #31 on: 06/10/2020 10:25 pm »
some insights from their test-site:


Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1549
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 639
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #32 on: 06/10/2020 11:11 pm »
NSF has missed it, but funding is most likely not something they are worrying about.
Has someone more details about the ISAR Aerospace Aquila engines. Their specs are nearly the same as the specs for the Myra engine specs (Vega-E). Does someone know what the differences and commonalities are.


Still there is the problem of about ten (European) companies trying to fish in the same pond. ...

Lets also share this...


Offline TorenAltair

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Germany
  • Liked: 589
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #33 on: 06/11/2020 12:02 am »
About the funding: Bavarias Prime Minister Söder initiated a program called Bavaria One in 2018 to push space-related tech forward but included expenses for Munich Technical University as well. The budget was 700 million Euros for 4 years. It included a contract with Isar Aerospace to launch a Bavarian sat within 7 years.

Offline ParabolicSnark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • CA
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #34 on: 08/06/2020 03:27 pm »
Looks like they're starting to put that Series A funding round to work and building up some new in-house manufacturing capability. Looks pretty large, particularly to use a crane like that for unloading options.

Quote from: Isar Aerospace on LinkedIn
More machines!
Our team is ramping up in-house production at an incredible pace, giving our engineers freedom to iterate and optimize quickly while ramping up towards serial production capabilities.
#newspace #rocketproduction

Offline ParabolicSnark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • CA
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #35 on: 09/01/2020 02:38 am »
Isar shared a video of a turbine test earlier today on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/isaraerospace_aquila-turbine-test-activity-6706114974957215744-4Pw8

Quote from: Isar Aerospace
We like to push the limits on our systems, especially our rocket engine. Check out the turbine tests of our turbopack we did earlier this year to ensure high perfomance and safety while validating our software design tools, moving closer to integrated tests and first launch.
#rocketengine #testing #highperformance

Given they're calling it a "turbine test of our turbopack" I'm assuming the pumps aren't ready yet and they're trying to generate power/efficiency curves on just the turbine. It looks like they could be using the gas generator mentioned in previous testing because of the faint grey exhaust.

Looks like a positive incremental step towards an integrated engine test.

Offline TorenAltair

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Germany
  • Liked: 589
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #36 on: 09/08/2020 03:53 am »
In German news today:
- 1200 kg to LEO
- half a dozen launch locations under investigation, including launches from the North Sea
- 100 employees
- last round financing in Dec 2019 was €15 million
- another round financing planned this year
- first launch planned for 2021
- company sees their advantage to the competitors in low costs and flexibility. Customers should get launches weeks to months after ordering

Offline ParabolicSnark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • CA
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #37 on: 09/08/2020 02:54 pm »
That's a lot of employees for their stage in development and establishes a high burn rate. 100 people is probably in the neighborhood of $25-30M/year. Assuming a linear ramp during that year, you can cut that in half for Dec-2019 through Dec-2020 which matches well with their goal for another funding round this year.

I think they're going to be in and out of funding rounds and hope they can produce enough results to keep those investors interested.

A 2021 launch is also a lot to ask for a company that's only done a gas generator and a turbine test. They need to complete their turbopump, hotfire a chamber, integrate those two, and then run the complete engine with the stage. On top of that, there's permitting issues they need to resolve. Perhaps someone more familiar with European launch regulations can chime in on how they compare to NASA/AF/FAA/range qualification.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #38 on: 09/08/2020 03:35 pm »
That's a lot of employees for their stage in development and establishes a high burn rate. 100 people is probably in the neighborhood of $25-30M/year. Assuming a linear ramp during that year, you can cut that in half for Dec-2019 through Dec-2020 which matches well with their goal for another funding round this year.

I think they're going to be in and out of funding rounds and hope they can produce enough results to keep those investors interested.

A 2021 launch is also a lot to ask for a company that's only done a gas generator and a turbine test. They need to complete their turbopump, hotfire a chamber, integrate those two, and then run the complete engine with the stage. On top of that, there's permitting issues they need to resolve. Perhaps someone more familiar with European launch regulations can chime in on how they compare to NASA/AF/FAA/range qualification.
Not a European expert but just looking at what others have done, like Rocket Lab, Firefly and Virgin, that date is laughable from this early status.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2020 05:00 pm by ringsider »

Offline TorenAltair

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Germany
  • Liked: 589
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Isar Aerospace
« Reply #39 on: 09/08/2020 04:02 pm »
About the regulations: basically impossible in Germany to get a flight permission with existing laws, but that‘s one of the reasons they might more easily get one - just a special exemption solution. Why should they get such a special permission?
All of the following since about 2018:
First, Bavaria strongly supports new high tech industry. Second, German politics shifted to a more „self-confident“ posture, for example German minister of economy - Altmaier - stated that space and spaceflight is the coming and important business. Third, the BDI (association of German industry) massively calls for broad investions into space and spaceflight, for example calling for a German launch center or requesting from the German government that a German woman flies to the Moon with Americans in 2024.

My gut feeling: I was quite confused about the very direct statements since 2018 and would still rate it as only double-talk. I still don‘t see any significant funding increase in the related areas. But in my life I was - on rare occasions but still - surprised from time to time.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0