Scout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#new
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:09 amScout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#newI don’t think anyone would argue that designing rockets was difficult in the 1950s. If your brand new Corolla breaks down no one says it’s fine my ‘57 Chevy broke down all the time too, cars are hard. Expectations can and should change with time and industry maturity.
Quote from: imprezive on 06/15/2022 01:20 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:09 amScout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#newI don’t think anyone would argue that designing rockets was difficult in the 1950s. If your brand new Corolla breaks down no one says it’s fine my ‘57 Chevy broke down all the time too, cars are hard. Expectations can and should change with time and industry maturity.A lot things would've broken on Corolla prototypes before they went to production. Even then still get odd recall. Luckily for automotive engineers they didn't need to figure out point of failure from remains of wreck at bottom of 5000ft cliff everytime something went wrong. Because LVs are so unforgiving need to spend lot effort trying guess every point of failure. Even when design is sound still have to manufacturer to very high standard, no Friday afternoon lemons allowed or could be end of company. While design and manufacturing tools have improved dramatically since 50s the unforgiving nature of launch hasn't.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/15/2022 05:01 pmQuote from: imprezive on 06/15/2022 01:20 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:09 amScout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#newI don’t think anyone would argue that designing rockets was difficult in the 1950s. If your brand new Corolla breaks down no one says it’s fine my ‘57 Chevy broke down all the time too, cars are hard. Expectations can and should change with time and industry maturity.A lot things would've broken on Corolla prototypes before they went to production. Even then still get odd recall. Luckily for automotive engineers they didn't need to figure out point of failure from remains of wreck at bottom of 5000ft cliff everytime something went wrong. Because LVs are so unforgiving need to spend lot effort trying guess every point of failure. Even when design is sound still have to manufacturer to very high standard, no Friday afternoon lemons allowed or could be end of company. While design and manufacturing tools have improved dramatically since 50s the unforgiving nature of launch hasn't.Sure but this want a development launch for Astra this was a production customer launch.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/15/2022 10:56 amQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:09 amScout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#newWas it government funded?. I doubt private investors would keep funding at this failure rate.Sent from my SM-A528B using TapatalkAs Astra received funding via a SPAC merger, they have a half billion dollar cash reserve which investors provided sight-unseen. That's a lot of on-ramp for Astra to pursue a riskier development strategy (rather than more ground testing before flying) without needing to court investors again until they have a system demonstrating reliable operation. If you mean Scout, it was a NACA programme with LTV as the prime contractor, at least to start with. It became a grab-bag of variants and derivates developed and used by different agencies.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:09 amScout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#newWas it government funded?. I doubt private investors would keep funding at this failure rate.Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Quote from: edzieba on 06/15/2022 12:11 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 06/15/2022 10:56 amQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:09 amScout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#newWas it government funded?. I doubt private investors would keep funding at this failure rate.Sent from my SM-A528B using TapatalkAs Astra received funding via a SPAC merger, they have a half billion dollar cash reserve which investors provided sight-unseen. That's a lot of on-ramp for Astra to pursue a riskier development strategy (rather than more ground testing before flying) without needing to court investors again until they have a system demonstrating reliable operation. If you mean Scout, it was a NACA programme with LTV as the prime contractor, at least to start with. It became a grab-bag of variants and derivates developed and used by different agencies.From their most recent financial report.https://investor.astra.com/news-releases/news-release-details/astra-announces-first-quarter-2022-financial-resultsThey have 161M cash on hand on 2022 Mar 31st. (Sure, they have other asset can convert to cash, but at which rate is less clear) Their total current asset is 275M and total asset is 439MAnd in Q1 2022 they have operation cash flow is -48M and -21M in capital expenditure. (This is from cash flow table, from statement of operation, they loss 85M in Q1)And their income is almost negligible at 3M per launch. So if they can not raise more cash either by issue stock or debt by end of 2022 or first half of 2023. They are bankrupt.And there is no chance they can have a working test launch for Rocket 4 by that time.
Cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities totaled $255.2. Cash and cash equivalents were $161.5 million and marketable securities totaled $93.7 million as of March 31, 2022.
For the second quarter ending June 30, 2022, we currently expect:Adjusted EBITDA Loss* between $(58) million and $(64) million. Depreciation and Amortization between $2.9 million and $3.2 million.Stock-based compensation between $15 million and $18 million.Cash taxes of approximately zero.Basic shares outstanding between 267 million and 270 million.Capital expenditures between $18 million and $23 million.
Marketable securities are liquid financial instruments that can be quickly converted into cash at a reasonable price. The liquidity of marketable securities comes from the fact that the maturities tend to be less than one year, and that the rates at which they can be bought or sold have little effect on prices.
Quote from: imprezive on 06/16/2022 04:59 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 06/15/2022 05:01 pmQuote from: imprezive on 06/15/2022 01:20 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:09 amScout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#newI don’t think anyone would argue that designing rockets was difficult in the 1950s. If your brand new Corolla breaks down no one says it’s fine my ‘57 Chevy broke down all the time too, cars are hard. Expectations can and should change with time and industry maturity.A lot things would've broken on Corolla prototypes before they went to production. Even then still get odd recall. Luckily for automotive engineers they didn't need to figure out point of failure from remains of wreck at bottom of 5000ft cliff everytime something went wrong. Because LVs are so unforgiving need to spend lot effort trying guess every point of failure. Even when design is sound still have to manufacturer to very high standard, no Friday afternoon lemons allowed or could be end of company. While design and manufacturing tools have improved dramatically since 50s the unforgiving nature of launch hasn't.Sure but this want a development launch for Astra this was a production customer launch.True, but it's worth noting that while this was a launch for a paying customer, that paying customer was NASA and they did so as a part of a low-cost high-risk program intended to support emerging launch providers with the full understanding that there was a substantially higher risk of failure.
Quote from: Toast on 06/16/2022 05:36 amQuote from: imprezive on 06/16/2022 04:59 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 06/15/2022 05:01 pmQuote from: imprezive on 06/15/2022 01:20 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:09 amScout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#newI don’t think anyone would argue that designing rockets was difficult in the 1950s. If your brand new Corolla breaks down no one says it’s fine my ‘57 Chevy broke down all the time too, cars are hard. Expectations can and should change with time and industry maturity.A lot things would've broken on Corolla prototypes before they went to production. Even then still get odd recall. Luckily for automotive engineers they didn't need to figure out point of failure from remains of wreck at bottom of 5000ft cliff everytime something went wrong. Because LVs are so unforgiving need to spend lot effort trying guess every point of failure. Even when design is sound still have to manufacturer to very high standard, no Friday afternoon lemons allowed or could be end of company. While design and manufacturing tools have improved dramatically since 50s the unforgiving nature of launch hasn't.Sure but this want a development launch for Astra this was a production customer launch.True, but it's worth noting that while this was a launch for a paying customer, that paying customer was NASA and they did so as a part of a low-cost high-risk program intended to support emerging launch providers with the full understanding that there was a substantially higher risk of failure.No it was not. VCLS is the program for supporting emerging launch providers. Astra blew that one up too. TROPICS is supposed to be a functional science constellation.
Quote from: imprezive on 06/20/2022 05:43 amQuote from: Toast on 06/16/2022 05:36 amQuote from: imprezive on 06/16/2022 04:59 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 06/15/2022 05:01 pmQuote from: imprezive on 06/15/2022 01:20 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:09 amScout also had a poor early launch record. The first 30 launches had 13 failures and 1 partial failure!https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.msg2377201#newI don’t think anyone would argue that designing rockets was difficult in the 1950s. If your brand new Corolla breaks down no one says it’s fine my ‘57 Chevy broke down all the time too, cars are hard. Expectations can and should change with time and industry maturity.A lot things would've broken on Corolla prototypes before they went to production. Even then still get odd recall. Luckily for automotive engineers they didn't need to figure out point of failure from remains of wreck at bottom of 5000ft cliff everytime something went wrong. Because LVs are so unforgiving need to spend lot effort trying guess every point of failure. Even when design is sound still have to manufacturer to very high standard, no Friday afternoon lemons allowed or could be end of company. While design and manufacturing tools have improved dramatically since 50s the unforgiving nature of launch hasn't.Sure but this want a development launch for Astra this was a production customer launch.True, but it's worth noting that while this was a launch for a paying customer, that paying customer was NASA and they did so as a part of a low-cost high-risk program intended to support emerging launch providers with the full understanding that there was a substantially higher risk of failure.No it was not. VCLS is the program for supporting emerging launch providers. Astra blew that one up too. TROPICS is supposed to be a functional science constellation.The launch contract for TROPICS was assigned before Astra received it's first VADR award. To add to the confusion, TROPICS is itself a Venture Class mission, but that's the mission not the launch contract.
Anyone notice the Mike Keene left Astra in May?
Quote from: Davidthefat on 06/23/2022 06:42 pmAnyone notice the Mike Keene left Astra in May?I think you mean Mike Krene. Interesting resume. Rocketdyne, SpaceX, Blue Origin. Astra for one year only. The Firefly deal was made about four months after he joined.
@Peter_J_Beck What are your opinions on @Astra’s plans for the future?
Aspirations are easy to sell, execution is always the absolute measure and there is often a little too much of one and not enough of the other in the industry.
twitter.com/jacktwhitlock/status/1549612034471378944Quote@Peter_J_Beck What are your opinions on @Astra’s plans for the future?https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1549665672073867264QuoteAspirations are easy to sell, execution is always the absolute measure and there is often a little too much of one and not enough of the other in the industry.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/21/2022 12:40 amtwitter.com/jacktwhitlock/status/1549612034471378944Quote@Peter_J_Beck What are your opinions on @Astra’s plans for the future?https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1549665672073867264QuoteAspirations are easy to sell, execution is always the absolute measure and there is often a little too much of one and not enough of the other in the industry.Nothing wrong in what he said but it's not a good look criticizing competition, best leave that to Elon.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/21/2022 01:14 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/21/2022 12:40 amtwitter.com/jacktwhitlock/status/1549612034471378944Quote@Peter_J_Beck What are your opinions on @Astra’s plans for the future?https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1549665672073867264QuoteAspirations are easy to sell, execution is always the absolute measure and there is often a little too much of one and not enough of the other in the industry.Nothing wrong in what he said but it's not a good look criticizing competition, best leave that to Elon.Also a good measure of pot calling the kettle black in that tweet.
Astra Space ($ASTR) held an offering after hours, basically doubling their amount of outstanding shares. Closing price according the filing was $1.49.Also their financial report date was filed for August 4th.Choppy seas ahead, I hope they'll pull through.
