A 600kg LV is to big for single smallsat dedicated launch and to small to compete against 1000kg class LVs of which there are 3 due to launch in 2022. I very much doubt Astra will be profitable enough at $5M a launch when 1000kg LVs are in $10-15m range. This changing directions without completely existing product especially one that is nearly operational is not good look. If Rocket 3.0 was profitable they should see it through to regular and reliable launch. The cashflow even if not enough to keep wolves from doors should buy them time. Lessons learnt will also be valuable when building larger LV.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/04/2022 11:49 pmA 600kg LV is to big for single smallsat dedicated launch and to small to compete against 1000kg class LVs of which there are 3 due to launch in 2022. I very much doubt Astra will be profitable enough at $5M a launch when 1000kg LVs are in $10-15m range. This changing directions without completely existing product especially one that is nearly operational is not good look. If Rocket 3.0 was profitable they should see it through to regular and reliable launch. The cashflow even if not enough to keep wolves from doors should buy them time. Lessons learnt will also be valuable when building larger LV. At $5M, they'd still be the cheapest orbital rocket per launch, so unless somebody else wants to dive into the shallow end, the precious few dedicated smallsat customers will still have no more cost-effective options than Astra. They'd be a bit less expensive than Electron with a bit less than twice the payload capacity. On a cost basis, that's a slam dunk. Any doubts would be about reliability and schedule.
i read that announcement i my humble opinion: it's suicidal move for the Company why ? They drop almost working rocket for development of new bigger not tested rocket !Mean they start all over again and need a lot money and testing that rocket.if shareholders walk away here, its game over for Astra For my part, i would replace the pressure fed second stage of 3.3 rocket by one that use a turbo pump fed engine.it's cheaper and faster way to return launching...
Quote from: butters on 08/05/2022 12:01 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 08/04/2022 11:49 pmA 600kg LV is to big for single smallsat dedicated launch and to small to compete against 1000kg class LVs of which there are 3 due to launch in 2022. I very much doubt Astra will be profitable enough at $5M a launch when 1000kg LVs are in $10-15m range. This changing directions without completely existing product especially one that is nearly operational is not good look. If Rocket 3.0 was profitable they should see it through to regular and reliable launch. The cashflow even if not enough to keep wolves from doors should buy them time. Lessons learnt will also be valuable when building larger LV. At $5M, they'd still be the cheapest orbital rocket per launch, so unless somebody else wants to dive into the shallow end, the precious few dedicated smallsat customers will still have no more cost-effective options than Astra. They'd be a bit less expensive than Electron with a bit less than twice the payload capacity. On a cost basis, that's a slam dunk. Any doubts would be about reliability and schedule.Without direct competition RL haven't needed to lower Electrons price. If Astra can build 600kg LV for $5M using engines which they pay royalities on then RL should be able to match or better it.
RL isn’t making money from Electron. That’s why they’re moving on to Neutron. Astra is chasing a non-viable market.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 08/05/2022 09:05 amRL isn’t making money from Electron. That’s why they’re moving on to Neutron. Astra is chasing a non-viable market.Next to that RL goes into Satellite construction and offers Photon upper stage as a Satellite with success, two Photons will used as ESCAPADE Mars orbiter, launch by Falcon 9 rocket but there is another issue ASTRA has to face: Ready to launch competition.Firefly Aerospace is testing there Alpha rocket with 745 kg into SSO Relativ Space has it Terran 1 prototype on launch pad with 900 kg into SSO and there is Virgin Orbit with LauncherOne with 300 kg into SSO (if increase there number of launches) Once ASTRA new Rocket 4.0 is ready to test flight with 600 kg into ? ? ?Alpha and Terran 1 proven them self by series of launches like wise Virgin Orbit with LauncherOne who gain part of launch market until then.(do there market model we launch from everywhere, if you let us)means uphill battle for ASTRA to get customer Let face it, if you want to launch your Satellite you want it get into orbit, safe...and take the most reliable launch provider, for moment sadly ASTRA is that not!what let for customers those options: SpaceX, RocketLab (and Virgin Orbit )
Let face it, if you want to launch your Satellite you want it get into orbit, safe...and take the most reliable launch provider, for moment sadly ASTRA is that not!what let for customers those options: SpaceX, RocketLab (and Virgin Orbit )
Quote from: Michel Van on 08/05/2022 09:59 amLet face it, if you want to launch your Satellite you want it get into orbit, safe...and take the most reliable launch provider, for moment sadly ASTRA is that not!what let for customers those options: SpaceX, RocketLab (and Virgin Orbit )And that's where the low price falls down. If your overall costs are just $10 million, then the insurance difference alone would easily be a million. When Proton got a bit wobbly it was at 12% compared to the more usual 4% and Astra is nowhere near Proton even at its worst.And let's face it, if someone is booking a dedicated 500+kg class launch, they are not launching a $500k uninsured cubesat. TROPICS costs about $11 million a launch and that is with just $2.5 million for the rocket and a nudge from NASA to support dedicated launch.
Quote from: Michel Van on 08/05/2022 07:39 ami read that announcement i my humble opinion: it's suicidal move for the Company why ? They drop almost working rocket for development of new bigger not tested rocket !Mean they start all over again and need a lot money and testing that rocket.if shareholders walk away here, its game over for Astra For my part, i would replace the pressure fed second stage of 3.3 rocket by one that use a turbo pump fed engine.it's cheaper and faster way to return launching...A high performance electric turbopump engine would be ideal for upper stage and it's technology they know.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/05/2022 07:53 amQuote from: Michel Van on 08/05/2022 07:39 ami read that announcement i my humble opinion: it's suicidal move for the Company why ? They drop almost working rocket for development of new bigger not tested rocket !Mean they start all over again and need a lot money and testing that rocket.if shareholders walk away here, its game over for Astra For my part, i would replace the pressure fed second stage of 3.3 rocket by one that use a turbo pump fed engine.it's cheaper and faster way to return launching...A high performance electric turbopump engine would be ideal for upper stage and it's technology they know.There's a problem here. Rocket 3 parameters are optimized for direct insert into a solar-synchronous orbit. The consequence of this is the long-term operation of the second stage engine. The use of electric pumps will lead to a significant increase in the mass of batteries (if the concept of continuous direct insert is transferred to 4.0).The duration of continuous operation can become critical in the case of using turbo pumps.The solution to the problem can be the transition to the concept of re-inclusion of the second stage. But this path has its own barriers.
I really though Astra might have a cost model (try not doing crazy QA) and market with DoD responsive launch, despite the general non-viability of the small launch market. This … does not look good for them. They’re abandoning what made them different. Doesn’t mean it’s not a better choice than pressing on, but perhaps the best choice of all would be to fold. They had some ideas and they didn’t work out. Can they really pivot to a whole new thing and be better than others already doing it?Even aside from serious questions about the new idea also.
I really though Astra might have a cost model ... They’re abandoning what made them different... They had some ideas and they didn’t work out. Can they really pivot to a whole new thing and be better than others already doing it?
Quote from: Redclaws on 08/05/2022 06:39 pmI really though Astra might have a cost model ... They’re abandoning what made them different... They had some ideas and they didn’t work out. Can they really pivot to a whole new thing and be better than others already doing it?They aren't abandoning their low cost philosophy or pivoting to anything. Rocket 3 was always planned as a stepping stone to Rocket 4. Since they no longer have any confidence in the small one, they are simply moving ahead with the big one in order to conserve resources and put all of their effort into what might actually pay off. Looks bad that they couldn't deliver with Rocket 3, but even if they had, it would be flying at a loss. With continued investment much harder to come by now, they are smart to cut the dead wood. Other companies might persist and go bankrupt; at least Astra sees the problem and is being proactive. If they don't make it, it won't be because they stopped throwing good money after bad.
ASTRA ANNOUNCES SPACECRAFT ENGINE CONTRACT WITH AIRBUS ONEWEB SATELLITESAUGUST 29, 2022ALAMEDA, CA — August 29, 2022. Astra Space, Inc. (“Astra”) (Nasdaq: ASTR), a provider of space products and launch services to the global space industry, today announced that it has been selected by Airbus OneWeb Satellites, LLC (“AOS”) to supply the Astra Spacecraft Engine™ for integration into the portfolio of Arrow commercial small satellites manufactured by AOS.Airbus OneWeb Satellites LLC is a joint venture between Airbus and OneWeb. AOS manufactures satellites for the OneWeb commercial constellation and Airbus customers in Merritt Island, Florida. AOS is producing satellites for Airbus U.S. Space & Defense, Inc., in support of U.S. government programs.