ASTRA ANNOUNCES CLOSING OF TAKE-PRIVATE TRANSACTIONJULY 18, 2024Alameda, California — July 18, 2024 — Astra Space, Inc. (“Astra” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: ASTR) announced today the successful closing of its take-private transaction.Under the terms of the definitive agreement for the transaction (the “Merger Agreement”) that was previously announced on March 7, 2024, Apogee Parent, Inc., (“Parent”), an entity formed by Chris Kemp, Astra’s co-founder, chief executive officer and chairman, and Dr. Adam London, Astra’s co-founder, chief technology officer and director, will acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company’s Class A common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the “Class A Shares”) not already owned by it for the right to receive $0.50 per share in cash, as more fully described in the Merger Agreement.With the completion of the take-private acquisition, the Class A Shares ceased trading prior to the opening of trading on July 18, 2024 and will no longer be listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market (“Nasdaq”). The Company also intends to make the applicable filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to suspend its periodic reporting obligations and to terminate the registration of the Class A Shares underlying the Company’s active registration statements.As previously disclosed, (i) on April 17, 2024, the Company received a deficiency notice from Nasdaq that the Company is not in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1) because the per share closing bid price of the Class A Shares had been below $1.00 for thirty consecutive business days prior to such deficiency notice; and (ii) on April 23, 2024, the Company received a deficiency notice from Nasdaq that the Company is not in compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity listing requirement set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1) because the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2023, reported stockholders’ equity below $2.5 million.
Last week we confirmed that the 2 Astra Spacecraft Engines that launched on the Transporter-11 mission have successfully fired on orbit. Meanwhile, here on Earth, a thruster fires with krypton in one of our vacuum chambers.
Looks like some kind of stage one test tank out at their test site located next to Castle Airport. https://twitter.com/cosmictylxr/status/1820225550499316182
A Rocket 4 first stage tank returns to the factory after passing qualification testing. This qualification confirms that the primary structure of Rocket 4 can withstand stress and loads far beyond those seen in flight and is a major milestone in the overall launch system design.
FYI that's a dewar they brought in to support the testing of the tank, not the test tank it self. The main test site is angled in such a way that it is not possible to look at it from the outside without being on private land. My thinking is that they're probably testing to support the USSF contract and launch once per the contract, get the money, and leave. They don't have an in house engine production capability and the subcontractor they use for engine production (Velo3d) isn't really around anymore.
Since Rocket 4's first-stage engine is basically a Reaver engine built in-house, they could just buy more directly from Firefly, which does seem to still be making them. Of course, that would only be relevant if Rocket 4 could fly two times, which is two more times than I expect.
They could also switch to Ursa Major's indev engine Ripley which is similar to Chiron but with more thrust and higher isp IIRC, but they probably don't have the financials to do that
Quote from: trimeta on 10/18/2024 02:06 pmSince Rocket 4's first-stage engine is basically a Reaver engine built in-house, they could just buy more directly from Firefly, which does seem to still be making them. Of course, that would only be relevant if Rocket 4 could fly two times, which is two more times than I expect.No, they do not currently have the capability to build Reavers in house. The Chiron config was a modified Reaver config Firefly was selling under the Firefly engine program that was run by Tom Markusic. He is no longer with the company so the program shut down and any more Chirons would have to be made by Firefly who already purged all records of their engine selling program so I doubt they are very inclined to do so. R3 production was subcontracted out to a lot of local machine shops in Alameda and I doubt that has changed for the little test hardware they have for R4, and very few local machine shops can produce Chirons. USSF wants R4 to fly once (and technically it doesn't even have to be a success), but unlike the SALVO - R3 line that was more or less designed by the government for the government, R4 doesn't have a program or market niche, so I doubt it's going to fly more than once (using fly very liberally here).
I was more or less assuming that if Astra ever had the capability to build Reavers themselves, they'd lost it over the course of various layoffs.
But I guess I also didn't think there were substantive differences between the Chiron config of Reaver and the standard Reaver being built at scale by Firefly already, so swapping over to the "standard" Reaver for subsequent Rocket 4 launches would work. Of course, if Firefly is no longer interested in selling even the standard Reavers to outside companies, that's off the table too.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AWARDS ASTRA CONTRACT VALUED UP TO $44 MILLIONOCTOBER 23, 2024Contract supports development of Astra’s tactical launch systemAlameda, California — Astra, a leading provider of launch services and spacecraft engines, announced today that it has been awarded a contract by Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) with a ceiling of up to $44 Million. The contract supports advancing and scaling the production capabilities of Astra’s unique tactically responsive launch system, to achieve the prototype objective of launching Rocket 4 to orbit or suborbit and from the US, Australia, or other locations.“This award is a testament not only to our team’s perseverance this past year, but also a validation of our vision for tactically responsive space,” said Chris Kemp, Founder and CEO of Astra. “We’re proud to have so many partners who understand and support the importance of point-to-point space delivery for national security and defense applications.”This contract facilitates the continued development of Astra’s Launch System 2 including the demonstration of automated laser welding capabilities in the production of Rocket 4, advanced concepts of Launch System 2’s ground infrastructure, and the industrialization of Astra’s production facilities.“This is a major vote of confidence in Astra and the continued development of Rocket 4 and our next gen launch system,” said Dr. Adam London, Founder and CTO of Astra. “We are honored to partner with the DIU as we bring Rocket 4 to market with a renewed focus on reliability and scale.”Astra intends to design and manufacture all of its rockets at its campus in Alameda, California, in its 250,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and testing facilities. These co-located, state-of-the art production and testing facilities have allowed Astra to rapidly iterate, reduce dependencies on third-party suppliers, and deliver for customers.Astra delivered its first commercial launch to low Earth orbit in 2021, and subsequently 22 satellites to orbit in March of 2022. Launch System 2 is one of the lowest cost-per-launch dedicated orbital launch systems and is highly optimized for small constellation deployment, tactically responsive space (TacRS), point-to-point delivery, and national security and defense applications.
What are you talking about? What "government manager", "government side", and "government handholding"? This is ridiculous. Can people just show up here and make stuff up with no bearing in reality?
Sounds like you used to work there and hold a grudge for some reason. Did you get fired?
Quote from: brussell on 10/24/2024 03:01 amWhat are you talking about? What "government manager", "government side", and "government handholding"? This is ridiculous. Can people just show up here and make stuff up with no bearing in reality? This very thread listed the NASA contract R3 was developed under on the first page. People often make the mistake of analyzing R3 as something that was born out of the tech NewSpace ZIRP startup boom and makes no market sense because it is not reliable. I disagree with this framing. The requirements were made to meet some government goals. Rapid response, being cheap as possible, fits in a container, and only launching 25kg to orbit is terrible for the market but great for the government. Their mistake was assuming that there is a commercial market for what was really only of interest to the government. Rumor has it that, after SALVO ran out of funding, Chris Kemp camp out of the Ventions garage and would not leave until Adam London agreed to continue the program with him as the CEO and lots of private funding. Vance's book hinted at this but I don't know for sure if it happened. Personally I think R3 was a great comeback story, because space development programs cancelled by the government usually stays dead and not go to orbit. Time will tell if Astra gets another comeback story. Quote from: brussell on 10/24/2024 03:01 amSounds like you used to work there and hold a grudge for some reason. Did you get fired?I do not hold a grudge, actually. I like them. I hope they survive as a company. The 44 million contract is not a launch order but for development of the system itself. Hopefully they use it well!
https://astra.com/news/dod-awards-astra-contract-44-mill/QuoteDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AWARDS ASTRA CONTRACT VALUED UP TO $44 MILLIONOCTOBER 23, 2024Contract supports development of Astra’s tactical launch system
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AWARDS ASTRA CONTRACT VALUED UP TO $44 MILLIONOCTOBER 23, 2024Contract supports development of Astra’s tactical launch system
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/23/2024 01:33 pmhttps://astra.com/news/dod-awards-astra-contract-44-mill/QuoteDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AWARDS ASTRA CONTRACT VALUED UP TO $44 MILLIONOCTOBER 23, 2024Contract supports development of Astra’s tactical launch systemThis is another incomprehensible award from DoD’s “responsive launch” cadre.Given the low odds of Astra ever having a ready fleet of rockets to provide on demand, tactically responsive launches, one would think that it’s worth billions of dollars to DoD to have another alternative to SpaceX and Rocketlab.This is more baffling than USSF buying the last orphaned Pegasus (which was substantially underbid by Falcon for the IXPE launch) for a “responsive launch” exercise knowing that unique vehicle was at a dead end. At least that could be explained by classic cronyism, making a long term customer whole and grateful while having a fun romp. What “innovation” does DIU buy from Astra?Given how long Astra has been floundering how can their rocket be called “tactical”.To paraphrase Feynman, their system should not be called “tactical”, rather it’s “financial”.
This is another incomprehensible award from DoD’s “responsive launch” cadre.Given the low odds of Astra ever having a ready fleet of rockets to provide on demand, tactically responsive launches, one would think that it’s worth billions of dollars to DoD to have another alternative to SpaceX and Rocketlab.
This is more baffling than USSF buying the last, orphaned Pegasus (which was substantially underbid by Falcon for the IXPE launch) for a “responsive launch” exercise knowing that unique vehicle was at a dead end. At least that could be explained by classic cronyism, making a long term customer whole and grateful while having a fun romp.
What “innovation” does DIU buy from Astra?Given how long Astra has been floundering how can their rocket be called “tactical”?To paraphrase Feynman, their system should not be called “tactical”, rather it’s “financial”.
Responsive launchThe money is important, but more important is the signal sent to potential investors that Astra may actually become a viable entity once again. In particular, defense officials are interested in Astra's ongoing efforts to develop a mobile launch capability by which the rocket can be delivered to a concrete launch pad in two cargo containers and the ground support equipment and consumables in five additional containers by barge, train, or truck."What we're doing with this thing is really important for our country," Kemp said. "No one else is doing a tactical mobile launch system. So if that's going to exist in America in the next 10 years, we're the only team that is going to do that. And I think investors understand that, which is why they invest in us. And I know our customers understand that, which is why they keep giving us contracts."
At present, Astra is building a qualification tank for Rocket 4's upper stage and has recently completed qualification testing of its first-stage tank. The company is also preparing what the investor document refers to as an "Astra Version of Engine" for qualification testing. There has long been some intrigue about the main engine that Rocket 4 will use, and it is most commonly believed that Astra would buy engines from Firefly. But that no longer appears to be the case.
There is neither a commercial market nor a scientific market for responsive launch.
Quote from: pilottim on 10/24/2024 08:08 pmThere is neither a commercial market nor a scientific market for responsive launch.Things that cost time almost always cost money too so commercial pressures to cut costs will probably get commercial launch 98% of the way to responsive launch. Once Starship and Nova are launching every day with full reuse they can probably tweak their processes to provide responsive launch too. The bottleneck to responsive launch is likely to be the FAA and the ranges, not things under launch company control.
