NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Commercial Space Flight General => Topic started by: bregallad on 08/22/2016 01:41 pm

Title: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: bregallad on 08/22/2016 01:41 pm
Saw this article today and was wondering what you guys think of this new startup.
What the likelihood of the zero human labor?
Other than 3D printing, what other tech would allow this?

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/relativity-space-blue-origin-spacex-stealth/

[FST edit: Terran R has its own dedicated thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54061.0]
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 08/22/2016 07:02 pm
The interesting thing is that one of the founders was an intern of mine at Masten, right before I left to start Altius. Really talented engineer, but I have no particular insights into their business model or how they were able to raise the kind of money they've raised so far. It'll be interesting to see more details.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/22/2016 07:20 pm
If the logo is any clue, their plan is to produce rockets via mitosis.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: bregallad on 08/23/2016 12:34 pm
Link to their website:
http://relativityspace.com/

Not much on there unfortunately...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 08/29/2016 07:40 am
To be credible, don't you have to demonstrate the capability of building orbital rockets with *some* human labor first?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: NaN on 08/30/2016 12:49 am
This must entail a new definition of the word "zero". Even industries which actually mass-produce their products have some human labor in the loop.
I suspect we just heard their vision - what they are driving for while knowing they can't actually reach it - without hearing anything relevant about actual execution plans. This leaves us little basis for judging much of anything. $10 million isn't chump change, so they clearly convinced some angels they were worth some risk.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: meekGee on 08/30/2016 04:24 am
Maybe they are talking about operations, not fabrication.

So once you have a rocket, it can launch, land, get hauled back to the pad, refueled, repeat - with zero labor.

Not trivial, but certainly easier than zero-labor fabrication.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: bregallad on 08/30/2016 12:13 pm
Designing a booster from scratch is no trivial thing. I am doubtful that they will succeed in that given the current and projected future competitiveness in the industry. However, that doesn't mean that they will necessarily fail. If they succeed in developing reliable new manufacturing techniques for rocket component manufacturing, that product has a lot of value. Something like an extremely large 3d printer with high accuracy.
What else can be improved when we look at how certain parts of a rocket are manufactured?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 01/10/2017 06:45 pm
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/relativity-space-blue-origin-spacex-stealth/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 01/11/2017 09:19 am
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/relativity-space-blue-origin-spacex-stealth/

This article was from back in July. Is there any more recent information? Tim Ellis was one of the two interns at Masten the summer I left to start Altius. Really smart and talented kid, but when I saw the $10M fundraise and what they're publicly saying they're doing, it had me scratching my head. But I'd love to hear any updates if there are any.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 01/11/2017 09:44 am
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/relativity-space-blue-origin-spacex-stealth/

This article was from back in July. Is there any more recent information? Tim Ellis was one of the two interns at Masten the summer I left to start Altius. Really smart and talented kid, but when I saw the $10M fundraise and what they're publicly saying they're doing, it had me scratching my head. But I'd love to hear any updates if there are any.

~Jon
Sorry I have no direct insight into what they do, only guesses (see below).

Their hiring pattern and statements seem to indicate using robots and 3D printing to build the vehicles. I did wonder if they target the smallest possible orbital vehicle, just big enough to orbit a 5kg 3U or something like that. That would make the manufacturing scale and quantites / volume suitable for a CAD/CAM, industrial robot and 3D printing line, and would match their practical experience at USC RPL, which was all small-scale rocketry. With a couple of printers and 4-5 robots you could have a decent assembly line for $3-4m.

Scaling -down- would have a lot of cost advantages if you could automate the production processes. Smaller size is also less costly to develop, launch, transport etc. You could easily see how they get a very very small rocket onto a one-a-week schedule (or more) because the entire problem is much more manageable.

If you charge say $300k-$350k per launch, each being fully dedicated to one single payload (which by the way makes payload integration much easier) that is a sustainable $15-20m pa business model with low staff overheads and a fairly strong margin.

If that is the model - and frankly that would make a lot of sense given how quiet they are being, because it is relatively easy to copy - then Masten should probably look at it too, as those guys could get there first.

Here's a video of Tim Ellis talking about his philosophy:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npSVWfQzNdQ

Vanilla stuff but it might give some insight to what he has in mind.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/11/2017 09:36 pm
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/relativity-space-blue-origin-spacex-stealth/

This article was from back in July. Is there any more recent information? Tim Ellis was one of the two interns at Masten the summer I left to start Altius. Really smart and talented kid, but when I saw the $10M fundraise and what they're publicly saying they're doing, it had me scratching my head. But I'd love to hear any updates if there are any.

~Jon
Sorry I have no direct insight into what they do, only guesses (see below).

Their hiring pattern and statements seem to indicate using robots and 3D printing to build the vehicles. I did wonder if they target the smallest possible orbital vehicle, just big enough to orbit a 5kg 3U or something like that. That would make the manufacturing scale and quantites / volume suitable for a CAD/CAM, industrial robot and 3D printing line, and would match their practical experience at USC RPL, which was all small-scale rocketry. With a couple of printers and 4-5 robots you could have a decent assembly line for $3-4m.

Scaling -down- would have a lot of cost advantages if you could automate the production processes. Smaller size is also less costly to develop, launch, transport etc. You could easily see how they get a very very small rocket onto a one-a-week schedule (or more) because the entire problem is much more manageable.

If you charge say $300k-$350k per launch, each being fully dedicated to one single payload (which by the way makes payload integration much easier) that is a sustainable $15-20m pa business model with low staff overheads and a fairly strong margin.

If that is the model - and frankly that would make a lot of sense given how quiet they are being, because it is relatively easy to copy - then Masten should probably look at it too, as those guys could get there first.

Here's a video of Tim Ellis talking about his philosophy:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npSVWfQzNdQ

Vanilla stuff but it might give some insight to what he has in mind.


I didn't have time to view the video, but I wonder if he addressed the problem of range fees (which alone of other costs can be easily 2x-4x $300-350K)?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Lar on 01/11/2017 09:48 pm
Is it possible to find a place to launch from that would not be in conflict with existing ranges, so their own range could be built? (This is the approach SpaceX seems to be taking with Boca Chica)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 01/11/2017 10:59 pm
Is it possible to find a place to launch from that would not be in conflict with existing ranges, so their own range could be built? (This is the approach SpaceX seems to be taking with Boca Chica)

Are they not taking the Ursa Major Technologies route by putting technologies on the market that other companies can buy to be used on their launch vehicle? Or are they going for the full on launch service?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Lar on 01/12/2017 03:49 am
Is it possible to find a place to launch from that would not be in conflict with existing ranges, so their own range could be built? (This is the approach SpaceX seems to be taking with Boca Chica)

Are they not taking the Ursa Major Technologies route by putting technologies on the market that other companies can buy to be used on their launch vehicle? Or are they going for the full on launch service?

Can't tell but I'm keying off what Jongoff speculated.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 04/30/2017 02:45 pm
Found out some more about Relativity Space - the size and type of rocket:-

----

[00:20:21] Scott Aughenbaugh: What early success story does not get enough attention?

[00:20:24] Jay Harrison: The one that I don’t think gets enough—even internal recognition—and so therefor I will use this as an opportunity to talk about it is the one that we did with Relativity Space. So MD5 has been engaged with a really early stage project we call Fulcrum, which is working with Y Combinator portfolio companies, Y Combinator being one of the largest and most well-known and most successful accelerators on the West Coast. Working with Y Combinator portfolio companies who are developing products relevant to national security missions and then providing those companies with unique access to DoD laboratory infrastructure that support the development objectives for their products. So, part of the reason that we do this obviously is to increase DoD’s visibility and insight into a product that we can potentially be leveraging for our missions. The other thing that's equally important, that by inviting these innovative early stage startups into DoD laboratories, we're enriching the exposure of DoD scientists and engineers to some emerging technologies that they need to be aware of and they need to be working with. So, it provides not only a technology type of advantage for DoD, it also provides this human capital workforce development advantage for our laboratory personnel.

So in the case of Relativity Space, working through MD5, we were able to open up some pretty unique infrastructure to them that they otherwise would not have had access to. And I should say this company is building a 12 thousand pound, liquid-fueled, 3d printed, rocket engine, so 3D printed makes it really cost-effective and flexible from a manufacturing standpoint. Ahh but, you can’t test a 12 thousand pound, liquid-fueled rocket in your backyard. You have all these considerations related to instrumentation, related to infrastructure, related to fire suppression, related to noise-abatement, related to zoning restrictions. It's a not an easy lift for a startup to address all these considerations. And I think at the end of the day we projected by making the DoD rocket testing infrastructure available to this startup we saved them over 2 million dollars of costs that they would have otherwise had to ask their investors to cover.

And we did that, in effect, without having to invest any of DoD’s money. It was making infrastructure that was available, accessible to this startup. DoD secured all the data from the testing in a proprietary way—we're not making that data available to other people. We're now familiar with the technology and can make decisions as to whether this is a technology that we want to work with this company to leverage in the future. So, I think too much of the argument up to this point around how DoD attracts startups to do business with us has focused on how do we make our contracts easier for startups to use. I think that may in fact be the least interesting opportunity that we can represent to a startup. I think a more interesting opportunity is how do we make all this technology—how do we make all this infrastructure—available to these early stage startups or entrepreneurs, so they come in our network in a semi-permanent kind of way and we can work with them throughout their careers. It’s not transactional, again, it’s more of a longer-term type relationship that we hope to build through programs like this.

Source: http://inss.ndu.edu/commentary/Article/1130953/what-is-military-district-5-md5-podcast/

----

Not sure if he means the rocket overall is 12000 lb or if the engine is 12000 lbf.... I am guessing the former, about 5.5 metric tons, because 12000 lbf is almost 55kn. Sounds like they have already tested it as well, in secret.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 04/30/2017 05:59 pm
I'm not so sure about this and feel it shouldn't be taken seriously.
I looked at a the site and all I saw is the usual kind of video and musical score you on kick starter pages.
No video of an engine under test not diagrams of the LV etc.

The claim of zero human labor seems a little outrageous too significantly reduced would be much more realistic.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 05/01/2017 11:04 pm
I'm not so sure about this and feel it shouldn't be taken seriously.
I looked at a the site and all I saw is the usual kind of video and musical score you on kick starter pages.
No video of an engine under test not diagrams of the LV etc.

The claim of zero human labor seems a little outrageous too significantly reduced would be much more realistic.

I'd certainly take this team a lot more seriously than certain other companies that publish renderings and mock ups... Given Relativity's personnel's previous experiences.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Ragmar on 05/02/2017 03:24 pm
While MD5 is younger, the involvement of Y Combinator should be noticed as they're essentially the most powerful VC and hard to get backing from. 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: meberbs on 07/13/2017 03:30 pm
Tim Ellis is speaking to a Senate subcommittee today. There are a couple tidbits about relativity that he included in his statement. (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/eb2961af-f796-4ea0-b7e9-0ec9947da397/DA01B117888D1D7B15FA20708FE1C19B.mr.-tim-ellis-testimony-1-.pdf)

The parts that were new to me were:
-methalox engine
-over 6 dozen hotfires with testing ongoing
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 07/15/2017 09:06 pm
Tim Ellis is speaking to a Senate subcommittee today. There are a couple tidbits about relativity that he included in his statement. (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/eb2961af-f796-4ea0-b7e9-0ec9947da397/DA01B117888D1D7B15FA20708FE1C19B.mr.-tim-ellis-testimony-1-.pdf)

The parts that were new to me were:
-methalox engine
-over 6 dozen hotfires with testing ongoing

Some big claims in that document.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/15/2017 10:08 pm
Good find Meberbs.
Some other takes from it

Looking at launching from drone ships/barges to get around lack of launch sites.
Want Venture class polar orbit launch site at Vandenberg.
Long term lease of stennis engine test stands.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/15/2017 10:32 pm
Zero labor for operations is nonsense.  Airliners still need touch labor.  Even automated systems still need human oversight
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 07/16/2017 08:26 am
(https://media.licdn.com/media-proxy/ext?w=800&h=800&hash=crsvObzhMYoiM9kQACQVhou0wrQ%3D&ora=1%2CaFBCTXdkRmpGL2lvQUFBPQ%2CxAVta9Er0Vinkhwfjw8177yE41y87UNCVordEGXyD3u0qYrdf3fuL8-JLOOmuVVCfiwclFJmKfKgEjCzD8fufdm8K4hz2pfncY27dA4BYBI3iSdF_NQ8)

Pic turned up in a Google search, apparently from the LinkedIn profile of one of their engineers.

That looks like a 3D printed structure.

Interestingly they are listed in California business registration under:

"Aerospace Castings, Aluminum."
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: imprezive on 07/16/2017 05:11 pm
Zero labor for operations is nonsense.  Airliners still need touch labor.  Even automated systems still need human oversight

I would assume they mean zero touch labor. I think it's definitely possible with today's technology. However it would be enormously expensive and studies I've seen show the humans and robots working together are the most effective manufacturing method. It seems like a questionable business and engineering case if that's really their goal. However more power to them if they can do it.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 07/17/2017 07:02 pm
So:

List of Active Space Act Agreements (as of December 31, 2016) with Domestic Commercial, State Local Government, and Non-profit Partners

SSAA-1053-0118
1124
23377
Relativity Space, Incorporated
Annex One Relativity Space Aeon 1 Engine Start Test Project
8/23/2016
8/23/2017
Reimbursable
SSC

=====

SSAA-1053-0117
1125
23376
Relativity Space, Incorporated
Reimbursable Space Act Umbrella Agreement
Relativity Space Incorporated Aeon 1 Launch Systems Development
8/23/2016
8/23/2020
Reimbursable
SSC
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 08/11/2017 12:04 pm
I heard a rumor that they are developing an aerospike at Stennis.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 08/20/2017 09:46 pm
Short interview with one of the engineers:-

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/articles/building-rockets-with-zero-human-labor/


Relativity Space has its sights set on an interplanetary future.

Rocket engineer John Rising has no doubt that humans will colonize other planets. And, with a little help from MIT Sloan, he is working to make that happen.

Rising is the lead for vehicle systems at the rocket startup Relativity Space, a company so steeped in secrecy that even its own website offers few details about what the business does.

Rising cannot share a lot of details about what the company is doing, but he does say that it is developing a lean, automated manufacturing system designed to greatly speed up rocket production. “One of the big challenges in the rocket launch industry is that it can take years to build a rocket, whereas we are building a vehicle in a completely reimagined way that will allow us to produce it … significantly faster, on the order of weeks … and this gives us a competitive advantage,” Rising said.

Interplanetary existence
Relativity Space has its sights firmly set on an interplanetary future. “In the long term, as a company, we believe off-planet manufacturing will require many of the methods and tools we’re developing,” Rising said.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/21/2017 09:22 am
Hmmm

So they seem to have a 12 000lb Methalox engine for the first stage and it may (or may not) be clustered for a payload of about 5Kg to LEO.

But their big USP is zero touch labor during assembly?

As HMX observed there are a lot of hidden costs to a real launch (like the range fees, which IIRC are still 1 size fits all, regardless of the LV size, one of things that drove the Orbital Pegasus design).

This is obviously another attempt to address the question "Why is the cost of launch so high?"

I can (kind of ) see the logic (it's much better than lowering the cost of the propellant, which in cost terms is irrelevant) although the question is how do you implement this?

I've always quite liked centrifugal casting (embed the stiffener pattern, and any standard features in the mold, dross and air bubbles migrate to the inner surface and are machined off), available in the US for up to 8m diameters. Not quite enough for ITS or SLS,  but adequate for most peoples launch vehicle needs.  :)
   
The other interesting option would be implementing it as forged rings. Not so big a diameter but metal quality is the best available, and in principle internal and external feature patterns possible. 

Metal tanks side step any issues with composites and cryogenic propellants.

Time will tell if making an item that's disposed of after one use in a truly "disposable" way will lower the cost.  :(
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/18/2017 05:08 pm
[Bloomberg] These Giant Printers Are Meant to Make Rockets (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-18/these-giant-printers-are-meant-to-make-rockets)

Ashlee Vance visits the Relativity facility, includes a video interview with the founders and some footage of their equipment.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 10/18/2017 09:54 pm
I was hoping for a lot more from these guys. This is quite disappointing.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/18/2017 10:22 pm
Would not be so quick to judge. Their facilities look rather impressive and they've clearly already gone through a ton of hardware iterations. Website has a ton of photos now.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: GWH on 10/18/2017 10:22 pm
I was hoping for a lot more from these guys. This is quite disappointing.
They seem more like a tech development group funded by private investment than a legitimate contender in small launch. The mention of building rockets on Mars  seems more like the real end goal than being a true competitor in the next 3 years.

Hopefully they can make a run at this, 10 years from now when remote manufacturing off world could be a possibility these guys may already have all the solutions.

EDIT: OK after reading their website I take back my skepticism on them being a contender right now. $10M per flight didn't seem very good until I saw the payload at 4 times what Launcher One or Electron can offer.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/19/2017 05:20 am
Wow, I'm extremely impressed. It is absolutely a paper rocket for the most part, but they have nevertheless done an impressive amount of hardware testing and are clearly not attempting to hide or wildly oversell (coughcougharcacough), given the photos attached below.

General
-"Our technology builds toward our long-term vision of scaling and sustaining an interplanetary society."
-"We are the second company committed to making humanity multi-planetary - and we hope to inspire hundreds more."
-"In the early days of settlement, there will be few people living on Mars. Intelligent automation and lightweight, compact 3D printing are fundamental technologies needed to quickly build a new society with scarce resources - and the most scalable means to get back home."
-a general focus on improving metallurgy to enable better 3D-printing, optimizing design with iterative simulations
-aiming for first launch by 2021

Stargate (proprietary 3D printer)
-"From raw material to flight in less than 60 days"
-"Stargate is the backbone to our vertically integrated factory."
-In-situ machining, multiple coordinated print heads for faster prints
-Already 3D-printed a prototype Terran (S2?) fuselage, 7ft x 14ft

Aeon 1 (propulsion system)
-methalox
-open expander cycle
-ISP: >360s (presumably Aeon Vac)
-Thrust: 15,500 lbf (SL), 19,500 lbf (Vac)
-Aeon Vac can be restarted in orbit
-more than 70 test fires
-fewer than 100 components
-claimed production lead time of ~15 days

Terran 1 (launch vehicle)
-$10 million per dedicated mission[/b] :'(
-S1: 9 x Aeon SL (139,500 lbf)
-S2: 1 x Aeon Vac (19,500 lbf)
-Autogenous pressurization
-Structures are a "proprietary printable metal [sic] alloy"
-"Sized for the constellation market"
-1250kg to 185km LEO
-900kg to 500km SSO
-700kg to 1200km SSO
-"capacity is uniquely flexible"

I'm very intrigued and will be following closely. Lack of even a hint of reusability is disappointing, given the multiple hat tips to SpaceX. The price of $10m is odd and rather noncompetitive, although it's several times larger than, say, Electron. It does make some amount of sense for constellation missions of multiple sats per launch, in which case it would likely be considerably more affordable than Electron/LauncherOne.

Somewhat ambiguous as to how far their hardware efforts have progressed and if they've had success. Unclear if the Aeon tested 70 times is scaled, although my money is on it and the prototype tank being full scale.

Attached the best images, the rest are in an imgur album right here --> https://imgur.com/a/Lautl
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 10/19/2017 05:47 am
Wow, I'm extremely impressed. It is absolutely a paper rocket for the most part, but they have nevertheless done an impressive amount of hardware testing and are clearly not attempting to hide or wildly oversell (coughcougharcacough), given the photos attached below.

General
-"Our technology builds toward our long-term vision of scaling and sustaining an interplanetary society."
-"We are the second company committed to making humanity multi-planetary - and we hope to inspire hundreds more."
-"In the early days of settlement, there will be few people living on Mars. Intelligent automation and lightweight, compact 3D printing are fundamental technologies needed to quickly build a new society with scarce resources - and the most scalable means to get back home."
-a general focus on improving metallurgy to enable better 3D-printing, optimizing design with iterative simulations

Stargate (proprietary 3D printer)
-"From raw material to flight in less than 60 days"
-"Stargate is the backbone to our vertically integrated factory."
-In-situ machining, multiple coordinated print heads for faster prints
-Already 3D-printed a prototype Terran (S2?) fuselage

Aeon 1 (propulsion system)
-methalox
-open expander cycle
-ISP: >360s (presumably Aeon Vac)
-Thrust: 15,500 lbf (SL), 19,500 lbf (Vac)
-Aeon Vac can be restarted in orbit
-more than 70 test fires
-fewer than 100 components
-claimed production lead time of ~15 days

Terran 1 (launch vehicle)
-$10 million per dedicated mission[/b] :'(
-S1: 9 x Aeon SL (139,500 lbf)
-S2: 1 x Aeon Vac (19,500 lbf)
-Autogenous pressurization
-Structures are a "proprietary printable metal [sic] alloy"
-"Sized for the constellation market"
-1250kg to 185km LEO
-900kg to 500km SSO
-700kg to 1200km SSO
-"capacity is uniquely flexible"

I'm very intrigued and will be following closely. Lack of even a hint of reusability is disappointing, given the multiple hat tips to SpaceX. The price of $10m is odd and rather noncompetitive, although it's several times larger than, say, Electron. It does make some amount of sense for constellation missions of multiple sats per launch, in which case it would likely be considerably more affordable than Electron/LauncherOne.

Somewhat ambiguous as to how far their hardware efforts have progressed and if they've had success. Unclear if the Aeon tested 70 times is scaled, although my money is on it and the prototype tank being full scale.

Attached the best images, the rest are in an imgur album right here --> https://imgur.com/a/Lautl
Hmm. I am skeptical about that price per kilo.

$10m revenue @ say 70% margin for overheads leaves $3m for making and launching each rocket. At that scale they are launching off a proper pad, so that is about  $1-1.5m right there. So they are saying that the entire rocket vehicle costs $1.5-2m out the factory door. With ten engines onboard and all the subsystems - even when printed - those numbers don't hunt. Plus all the tech risks.

The engine is nice work, but I will make a bet that this burns a lot of investor money and then flames out. Not because they are evil or wildly over-promoting nothing worth discuasing (coughcoughvectorcough), but because it's not as easy as the web page makes it look.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/19/2017 06:06 am
Hmm. I am skeptical about that price per kilo.

$10m revenue @ say 70% margin for overheads leaves $3m for making and launching each rocket. At that scale they are launching off a proper pad, so that is about  $1-1.5m right there. So they are saying that the entire rocket vehicle costs $1.5-2m out the factory door. With ten engines onboard and all the subsystems - even when printed - those numbers don't hunt. Plus all the tech risks.

The engine is nice work, but I will make a bet that this burns a lot of investor money and then flames out. Not because they are evil or wildly over-promoting nothing worth discuasing (coughcoughvectorcough), but because it's not as easy as the web page makes it look.

I am far too tired to think financially ;D It's definitely intriguingly expensive. Must make some amount of sense, though.

And I agree. The last 20 years have chewed up and spit out more than a fair share of "newspace" companies with functioning propulsion and LV prototypes/testbeds. However, Relativity has Y Combinator's support and Tim Ellis seems like an awesome engineer.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 10/19/2017 06:29 am
Hmm. I am skeptical about that price per kilo.

$10m revenue @ say 70% margin for overheads leaves $3m for making and launching each rocket. At that scale they are launching off a proper pad, so that is about  $1-1.5m right there. So they are saying that the entire rocket vehicle costs $1.5-2m out the factory door. With ten engines onboard and all the subsystems - even when printed - those numbers don't hunt. Plus all the tech risks.

The engine is nice work, but I will make a bet that this burns a lot of investor money and then flames out. Not because they are evil or wildly over-promoting nothing worth discuasing (coughcoughvectorcough), but because it's not as easy as the web page makes it look.

I am far too tired to think financially ;D It's definitely intriguingly expensive. Must make some amount of sense, though.

And I agree. The last 20 years have chewed up and spit out more than a fair share of "newspace" companies with functioning propulsion and LV prototypes/testbeds. However, Relativity has Y Combinator's support and Tim Ellis seems like an awesome engineer.


I think Noone is the engineering lead.

The economics of cutting people overhead is interesting but I'm not sure I buy it entirely. For a start, Rocket Lab has tank winding and 3D printed engines, which are broadly equivalent automation techniques. It still needs to be finished, machined, bolted, wired up and tested manually. Still plenty of labor in basic moving of stuff from a->b, hauling, lifting, connecting etc. If that could be done with less than 100 people I would be amazed. So there is a $10m overhead right there, plus all the facilities.

So how do the basic economics shift so radically? The dirty little secret of it is that they have gone for a larger vehicle, which automatically cuts the cost per kilo compared to e.g. Rocket Lab - materials and fuel are marginal.  If Rocket Lab scaled to this size I think they would have roughly the same price per kilo. Say Relativity built the same size as Rocket Lab - 150kg payload - the price per kilo would also go up by about a factor of 4-5 because the material costs are minor in the overall scheme of expenses.

But this size also increases other costs - because everything is bigger now - and it puts them in direct competition against established players who like to deliver 0.5-1 ton payloads - Avio's Vega for example.

Anyway. It's interesting but honestly I am disappointed, I really thought these guys had something novel but this isn't that big a step. Big 3D welding machines have been around for years.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Nomic on 10/19/2017 08:07 am
No sign of turbo pumps or turbine exhaust in any of the engine photos, maybe they've just been testing the thrust chamber, rather than a full engine?

On the positive side seems a sensible design and 2021 looks like a vaguely realistic launch date, but $10 million in funding really isn't that much.

The manufacturing process and design looks very scalable, wonder if this is intended as a Falcon 1 type learner rocket and they plan to move on to something bigger?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 10/20/2017 12:59 pm
Saw this image in their website:

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59a8fb50d2b8575fad311abb/t/59cc3033f43b551e79fbf463/1507179727377/relativity-autonomous-approach.png?format=1000w)

They were founded in December 2015... That's almost 24 months. So why aren't they flying anything yet? And why are they quoting a 2021 flight date?

Because the truth is this is not their actual process.

Their actual process is very similar to everybody else for the first iteration, as they trial the engine and work out the kinks in the system. Do you think Rocket Lab and others didn't print various engines and test them?

The only advantage really comes at the operation stage (maybe). So that diagram looks more like this:-

(https://i.imgur.com/B1FmctM.png)

And of course they are clearly still in the design-prototype-test-revise (blue) phase.

Why can't these companies just tell a straight story?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/20/2017 01:20 pm
Run four 6 month 'prototype; test; change design' iterations and 2 years have past.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Katana on 10/20/2017 02:48 pm
Saw this image in their website:

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59a8fb50d2b8575fad311abb/t/59cc3033f43b551e79fbf463/1507179727377/relativity-autonomous-approach.png?format=1000w)

They were founded in December 2015... That's almost 24 months. So why aren't they flying anything yet? And why are they quoting a 2021 flight date?

Because the truth is this is not their actual process.

Their actual process is very similar to everybody else for the first iteration, as they trial the engine and work out the kinks in the system. Do you think Rocket Lab and others didn't print various engines and test them?

The only advantage really comes at the operation stage (maybe). So that diagram looks more like this:-

(https://i.imgur.com/B1FmctM.png)

And of course they are clearly still in the design-prototype-test-revise (blue) phase.

Why can't these companies just tell a straight story?
Basically they employ the same toolsets of other new space companies: 3d printing, CFD, etc, for automation.

To surpass other players on automation, they need to develop one's own 3d printing or CFD tools, more than SpaceX did. But that means way to a CAD/CAM company, since these tools have more domestic value.

If you can make rockets with “0 labor”, you can make cars or phones with “0 labor” too.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/08/2017 10:06 pm
Quote
Relativity's printed rocket engine: ignition to full thrust test of Aeon SN005. Designed and built by our team and tested @NASAStennis @NASA

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/939220138116636672
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 03/07/2018 01:59 am
Hmmmmm! Ideas?

Quote
Elegance of Aeon’s staged ignition system: multiple upper stage restarts possible. No TEA/TEB required.

It’s a nearly passive system [not spark], and methalox ignition especially is not super straightforward. So that’s the win there.
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/971078902054502401
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/07/2018 05:24 am
Hmmmmm! Ideas?

Quote
Elegance of Aeon’s staged ignition system: multiple upper stage restarts possible. No TEA/TEB required.

It’s a nearly passive system [not spark], and methalox ignition especially is not super straightforward. So that’s the win there.
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/971078902054502401

Perhaps resonance ignition, though that requires a high pressure source, generally.  Maybe laser.  Could be catalytic.  Lots of options.  But ignition isn't the pacing issue for low-cost launch – labor is.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 03/07/2018 07:40 am
Hmmmmm! Ideas?

Quote
Elegance of Aeon’s staged ignition system: multiple upper stage restarts possible. No TEA/TEB required.

It’s a nearly passive system [not spark], and methalox ignition especially is not super straightforward. So that’s the win there.
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/971078902054502401

Perhaps resonance ignition, though that requires a high pressure source, generally.  Maybe laser.  Could be catalytic.  Lots of options.  But ignition isn't the pacing issue for low-cost launch – labor is.

Dead simple multi-restart capabilities would be a huge selling point for any smallsat launcher larger than, say, Electron's 150 kg to 500km SSO. With the ability to restart many, many times as a default feature, smallsat ridesharing on a smaller scale might actually be a reasonable proposition. Dumb expendables simply have no selling point once reusable heavy-lift launchers are operational, but an expendable vehicle with a uniquely capable upper stage could actually offer some value beyond $/kg.

As for labor, it appears that Relativity has found a way to make resonance ignition work reliably on an almost entirely 3D printed methalox engine with respectable thrust. Damn impressive technological achievement, and a prime demonstration of in-house expertise and innovative approaches to R&D.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/07/2018 10:06 am
Perhaps resonance ignition, though that requires a high pressure source, generally. 
Not that high. A couple of bar will get you supersonic flow, achievable (in the late 60's) with a  foot pump.

Quote from: HMXHMX
Maybe laser.  Could be catalytic.  Lots of options.  But ignition isn't the pacing issue for low-cost launch – labor is.
Doug Jones at XCOR said building a reliable ignition system was the first thing they did when they formed the company, because in R&D you want to run a lot of tests, and TEA (and similar compounds) are such a PITA to handle.

Still sounds a smart move for any startup rocket company. On orbit a system that doesn't use consumables permits "unlimited" start attempts, until the power to run control systems runs out. 

But yes,  mfg without people would be a game changer in terms of vehicle costs.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 03/07/2018 02:39 pm
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670030753.pdf

Seems like a relatively easy geometry to incorporate into an additively manufactured engine.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/07/2018 07:40 pm
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670030753.pdf

Seems like a relatively easy geometry to incorporate into an additively manufactured engine.
Nice find.

The only things I'd found were a more recent Brazilian paper using LOX/RP1and an old paper on sounding rocket ignition using a disposable element made up of (IIRC) compressed Ammonium Nitrate to ignite solid fuel.

The opening business with a compressed supply effect on a wood block with a blind hole drilled in it would make a hell of a science demonstration on "air power," or the "power of sound." :)

Sadly, it would also probably violate a number of H&S rules without very effective PPE.  :(
Maybe on YouTube?

You're right, if you're looking at 3d printing you need to look at nonelectrical approaches for ignition, sensing and actuation if you want to avoid additional assembly (which, unless fully automated, violates the "no human labor" claim). Not impossible, but tricky.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/21/2018 03:28 pm
Tweet from Eric Berger (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/976493331940368384):
Quote
Probably my favorite thing about @relativityspace is that it was founded by two guys who felt SpaceX and Blue Origin weren't disrupting the launch industry enough.

[Ars Technica] Relativity Space reveals its ambitions with big NASA deal (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/relativity-space-reveals-its-ambitions-with-big-nasa-deal/)

[Space News] Relativity reaches deal to use Stennis test stand (http://spacenews.com/relativity-reaches-deal-to-use-stennis-test-stand/)
Quote
Relativity, the startup company developing small launch vehicles using additive manufacturing technologies, announced March 21 an agreement with NASA’s Stennis Space Center to take over one of its test stands.

The company said it reached a Commercial Space Launch Act agreement with Stennis that gives the company exclusive use of the E-4 Test Complex at the Mississippi center for the next 20 years. That complex includes four cells for engine tests as well as 15,000 square feet of office space over 25 acres, with an option to expand to 250 acres.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/21/2018 08:37 pm
Tweet from Eric Berger (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/976493331940368384):
Quote
Probably my favorite thing about @relativityspace is that it was founded by two guys who felt SpaceX and Blue Origin weren't disrupting the launch industry enough.

[Ars Technica] Relativity Space reveals its ambitions with big NASA deal (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/relativity-space-reveals-its-ambitions-with-big-nasa-deal/)

[Space News] Relativity reaches deal to use Stennis test stand (http://spacenews.com/relativity-reaches-deal-to-use-stennis-test-stand/)
Quote
Relativity, the startup company developing small launch vehicles using additive manufacturing technologies, announced March 21 an agreement with NASA’s Stennis Space Center to take over one of its test stands.

The company said it reached a Commercial Space Launch Act agreement with Stennis that gives the company exclusive use of the E-4 Test Complex at the Mississippi center for the next 20 years. That complex includes four cells for engine tests as well as 15,000 square feet of office space over 25 acres, with an option to expand to 250 acres.
Interesting read. Especially having Super Draco experience. SX have been pretty quiet about its detailed working.
Printing a whole engine in 20 days sounds impressive but there are certainly other techniques that can deliver similar turnaround times. A key question would be what is their complex part and how often will they / have they had to iterate it to get it to work.

I agree that cutting the army of direct touch labour on a rocket is a critical part of lowering costs, expendable or reusable.

I'm less convinced 3d printing will deliver the whole result needed, although $8k/Kg (or $3636.4/lb) is not a bad price in the smallsat (1250Kg) launch market.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Norm38 on 03/25/2018 02:20 am
I don’t really understand their main argument. If reusability is the future then the labor to manufacture is amoritized across all launches. It becomes less and less important the more the rocket flies.
That’s not an argument against 3D printing or automation. But it is an argument against constructing incredibly complex robotic assembly techniques when a dude with a wrench will do.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/25/2018 08:17 am
I don’t really understand their main argument. If reusability is the future then the labor to manufacture is amoritized across all launches. It becomes less and less important the more the rocket flies.
True. To a point.
Quote from: Norm38
That’s not an argument against 3D printing or automation. But it is an argument against constructing incredibly complex robotic assembly techniques when a dude with a wrench will do.
Shuttle servicing was a case where they went almost entirely with the "Dude with a wrench."
About 4000 of them to be accurate. Which was why Shuttle support costs were about $1Bn/year.

For example the after bulkhead (giving access to the SSME's at the back) had 127 bolts on it. That's an entire shift to open up. How long would some (fairly simple) automation have taken?

What's different is the asymptotes of each end of this spectrum. At one end a countries entire  population is all working on LV support. Much like the projected growth of American telephone usage and telephone operator demand in the late 19th century.
At the other end of the spectrum, no one is.

So in principal a "Zero employee" build can scale up to as much as you like.
But making that truly zero employee (full on unattended "lights out" 24/7/365) mfg is
a) Very tough
b) Unclear how flexible the system would be. You can build an unlimited number of TSTO ELV's with a 100Kg (1250Kg in Relativity's case) payload. Bravo. Can you scale them up? Can you re-purpose the system to make other stuff?
c) Still dealing with the single mfg/single operator model. So the mfg carries all operating costs of both builder and launcher, now including a very complex automation setup.

[EDIT various small tweaks]
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: RyanC on 03/25/2018 01:02 pm
Has anyone taken their performance figures for launch given and interpolated it to launch from mars surface to low mars orbit?

They may be able to sell contract services to Sp(X) for Musk's Mars Colony. There won't be a lot of BFS for a while, and you won't always have one available for use for Mars to MLEO hops.

EDIT II: I know that Elon wants to try and keep as much possible for his MARS dreams "in-house" but there's just too much that Sp(X) won't be able to handle, they've got a lot of things on their plate. Someone being ready with a flight qualified small launcher to orbit that can be 3D printed with almost zero touch labor would be nice to start production of rockets on Mars so that SpX can focus on other things, such as ECLSS.

EDIT: I also think their plan B is to sell a 3d assembly line qualified to produce flight rated rocket propulsion elements. Not everything needs to be a Merlin 1D, for one -- you have a lot of smaller rocket engines that would need to be produced if we actually get a space based economy going -- you'll need lander engines, RCS engines, etc etc.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: AbuSimbel on 03/25/2018 01:36 pm
I don’t really understand their main argument. If reusability is the future then the labor to manufacture is amoritized across all launches. It becomes less and less important the more the rocket flies.
That’s not an argument against 3D printing or automation. But it is an argument against constructing incredibly complex robotic assembly techniques when a dude with a wrench will do.

This is their main goal according to their site:
Quote
Relativity's technology builds toward our long-term goal of 3D printing the first rocket made on Mars.

I think they're among the first space companies trying to complement SpaceX's settlement plans and thinking about a not so distant future with human presence on Mars and the Moon. It's becoming more and more wise to plan with that future in mind and more companies will follow as SX's plan (and the ones from other RLV companies) concretize. They're gearing up for that future. Also I don't think they're ruling out future RLVs built with their innovative methods.

They're planning with a future in mind where the capabilities of low cost RLVs will be offering new markets and frontiers, not against that future.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/25/2018 04:01 pm

I think they're among the first space companies trying to complement SpaceX's settlement plans and thinking about a not so distant future with human presence on Mars and the Moon. It's becoming more and more wise to plan with that future in mind and more companies will follow as SX's plan (and the ones from other RLV companies) concretize. They're gearing up for that future. Also I don't think they're ruling out future RLVs built with their innovative methods.

They're planning with a future in mind where the capabilities of low cost RLVs will be offering new markets and frontiers, not against that future.
Then they'd better have very patient investors since that future isn't going to start until 2022 at the earliest.

That's a time frame that seems kind of long for the usual VC investor.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/25/2018 04:01 pm
Performance margins are less on on small LV, about 2% payload for Electron as example..The larger LVs are upto 5%. RLVs trade a big chunk of that performance for recovery, typically 30-40% for booster recovery back to pad.

Just as payload performance margins don't scale linearly with size so to with recovery, a small RLV may trade more than 50% payload for booster recovery.

With small LV you can spend R&D money on a larger considerably more expensive RLV with lot failures for recovery process before its reliable. Until recovery process is reliable its not profitable so maybe flight 10. Alternatively spend same money reducing build cost on small ELV which will be profitable on first flight. The smaller ELV could be 1/5 of price of RLV to build, as production is highly automated and has advantage high volume manufacturing. Reliability tends to be better with high volume.

Larger RLV requires more expensive pad, transport system plus extra ground recovery equipment.



Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: AbuSimbel on 03/25/2018 05:40 pm

I think they're among the first space companies trying to complement SpaceX's settlement plans and thinking about a not so distant future with human presence on Mars and the Moon. It's becoming more and more wise to plan with that future in mind and more companies will follow as SX's plan (and the ones from other RLV companies) concretize. They're gearing up for that future. Also I don't think they're ruling out future RLVs built with their innovative methods.

They're planning with a future in mind where the capabilities of low cost RLVs will be offering new markets and frontiers, not against that future.
Then they'd better have very patient investors since that future isn't going to start until 2022 at the earliest.

That's a time frame that seems kind of long for the usual VC investor.

I'm not saying they plan to wait for that future to make money. Just that their real product isn't the Terran rocket, but the manufacturing infrastructure. So judging the company's plans or competitiveness based on Terran alone is a mistake IMO.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/25/2018 08:43 pm
Performance margins are less on on small LV, about 2% payload for Electron as example..The larger LVs are upto 5%. RLVs trade a big chunk of that performance for recovery, typically 30-40% for booster recovery back to pad.
Which complete launch vehicle did you have in mind that's got such a payload fraction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_fraction
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/25/2018 10:40 pm
I'm not saying they plan to wait for that future to make money. Just that their real product isn't the Terran rocket, but the manufacturing infrastructure. So judging the company's plans or competitiveness based on Terran alone is a mistake IMO.
So you're saying their real goal is the construction of an automatic factory?

What you might call an "Autofac" for want of a better word.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: rory on 03/27/2018 11:03 pm
Relativity announced today that it closed on a $35 million Series B. This brings their total raised to over $45 million.

http://spacenews.com/relativity-closes-35-million-series-b-round/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Norm38 on 04/16/2018 07:54 pm
I saw this Twitter exchange today and thought it was relevant for this topic.

Quote
.@elonmusk agrees that Tesla is relying on too many robots to make the Model 3 & needs more workers
https://twitter.com/timkhiggins/status/984833456029843457

Quote
Yes, excessive automation at Tesla was a mistake. To be precise, my mistake. Humans are underrated.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/984882630947753984
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/16/2018 08:15 pm
People see whatever they want to see in short statements like these.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 04/30/2018 04:02 am
Entrepreneur seeks to boldly go where no one has gone before: 3-D printing nearly an entire rocket

Los Angeles Times article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocket-tim-ellis-relativity-20180427-story.html

Quote
The 20-person company has raised more than $45 million of venture funding, and recently signed a lease agreement with NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi to use a large testing facility.

Relativity plans to test-fly its Terran 1 rocket in 2020.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 04/30/2018 05:31 am
Hmmmmm! Ideas?

Quote
Elegance of Aeon’s staged ignition system: multiple upper stage restarts possible. No TEA/TEB required.

It’s a nearly passive system [not spark], and methalox ignition especially is not super straightforward. So that’s the win there.
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/971078902054502401

Perhaps resonance ignition, though that requires a high pressure source, generally.  Maybe laser.  Could be catalytic.  Lots of options.  But ignition isn't the pacing issue for low-cost launch – labor is.

I'm thinking something much simpler like a glow plug since their approach is variation of BDB/MCB using a low cost disposable booster.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090015380.pdf
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 04/30/2018 04:50 pm
Entrepreneur seeks to boldly go where no one has gone before: 3-D printing nearly an entire rocket

Los Angeles Times article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocket-tim-ellis-relativity-20180427-story.html

Quote
The 20-person company has raised more than $45 million of venture funding, and recently signed a lease agreement with NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi to use a large testing facility.

Relativity plans to test-fly its Terran 1 rocket in 2020.

Now updated with a video of Tim Ellis
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocket-tim-ellis-relativity-20180427-story.html
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 05/14/2018 03:45 pm
https://youtu.be/NxyUygCO_Zs

Interview starts at 24:30 on TMRO.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 05/14/2018 04:29 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxyUygCO_Zs

Interview starts at 24:30 on TMRO.

So they are printing with Haynes R41/Rene 41 for their engine components?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 05/14/2018 04:31 pm
Not sure but he does say “not Inconel” and that it’s stronger at higher temperatures. And not a standard alloy.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 08/20/2018 03:38 pm
They just hired Tim Buzza to help out. That’s a big hire, he is very well regarded both technically and in organization leadership from what I’ve heard.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/an-early-spacex-employee-will-now-help-relativity-reach-the-launch-pad/

Edit: also some pretty core SpaceX/Blue Origin engineers too.

https://qz.com/1363591/relativity-space-just-hired-a-legendary-spacex-executive/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/21/2018 08:07 am
I applaud a company trying to come up with a business plan to fit into Musk's Mars colonization plans.

However, I think this idea of building a rocket on Mars is the wrong way to do it.

SpaceX is only taking care of transportation with BFR/BFS.  There are lots of holes on Mars that need to be filled by other companies, such as habitats, life support, farming, vehicles, entertainment, manufacturing, etc.

What isn't needed, in any way, is a rocket built on Mars.

The only way Mars colonization is successful is if BFR/BFS or something like it is successful -- i.e. fully-reusable transport between the Earth's surface and Mars.  But if you have that, building additional rockets on Mars is pointless.  BFS will already be regularly going to and from the surface.  If you really need more than what is already there from colonization trips, just build another BFS and leave it on Mars to go between the surface and Mars orbit.  It would be far cheaper to do that than to try to build a rocket factory on Mars.

So the long-term plan doesn't make sense.

And in the short term, there are lots of competitors, both small expendable rockets and large reusable rockets.  There's nothing new relativity brings to the table for that.  I think all the expendables, small and big, are doomed pretty soon anyway because a small expendable is still more expensive per flight than a large reusable rocket, and even with expendable large rocket, ride sharing makes the large rockets less expensive per payload when the volume is high enough.  And if the volume isn't high enough for rideshares on the large rockets, it's not enough to keep the small launchers in business.

So, unless they pivot hard, I'm not seeing a future for Relativity Space, even if they are able to execute and build a nice expendable small rocket that is mostly printed with little touch labor.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/21/2018 08:14 am
Have you ever heard about the drunk guy looking for his lost keys under a street light?  A passerby notices that he keeps looking and looking and can't find them.  Finally, he asks the drunk guy if he dropped his keys under the street light.  The drunk guy answers, no, he dropped them over in the bushes, but there's no light there, so he's looking where there's light.

I think the drunk guy is everyone starting a rocket company, the area under the street light is small, expendable launch vehicles, and the bushes are large, fully-reusable launch vehicles.  The light is what it's possible for a start-up company to do.

It sucks that what you're looking for is where you won't be able to get it, but that doesn't make it any better to look in the wrong place.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cinder on 08/21/2018 12:06 pm
Possibly stupid layman Q:

Why couldn't Relativity print a reusable rocket?

Mostly unrelated, I keep picturing an RS printer setup inside a large enough hab like the bigger Bigelow habs, in a bolo for standard gravity, somewhere in Earth neighbourhood to prove out NEO ISRU.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 08/21/2018 12:23 pm
Possibly stupid layman Q:

Why couldn't Relativity print a reusable rocket?
In theory: no reason why they couldn't.
In practice: practical re-usable rockets are physically larger than expendable rockets. Current 3D printing hardware (be it FDM, SLS, SLM, EMD, etc) is volume limited, and price tends to scale with working volume (as does print time). Smaller expendable rockets can thus be built with less startup capital for building the printer (plus design of your rocket is somewhat cheaper).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/21/2018 04:11 pm
Possibly stupid layman Q:

Why couldn't Relativity print a reusable rocket?
In theory: no reason why they couldn't.
In practice: practical re-usable rockets are physically larger than expendable rockets. Current 3D printing hardware (be it FDM, SLS, SLM, EMD, etc) is volume limited, and price tends to scale with working volume (as does print time). Smaller expendable rockets can thus be built with less startup capital for building the printer (plus design of your rocket is somewhat cheaper).

Yeah, and also reusable rockets (at least if you do them similarly to how SpaceX has proven they can be done) require thermal protection, legs, and grid fins, all of which might be difficult or impossible to simply print along with the rest of your rocket.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 08/22/2018 06:21 pm
More updates, this time showing ability to exceed the most stringent fracture and mission-critical specification.

https://qz.com/1366576/how-relativity-space-ensures-3d-printed-parts-are-strong-enough-for-space/

I feel like this is notable for the ability to perhaps one day print a reusable rocket, as the fatigue life of such low-flaw parts should be pretty good. Also, with no fixed tooling they should be able to iterate much more quickly toward an optimal reusable design. They may not need it at first due to lower part counts and reduced labor of an expendable rocket. Their arguments for the 3D printing approach seem quite smart to me because no one else will be able to catch them if they can develop this method quickly enough. It will be very disruptive, even in a world where BFR and New Glenn are flying with moderate reuse there’s a lot of synergy possible using both methods farther in the future.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Tulse on 08/22/2018 06:56 pm
Their arguments for the 3D printing approach seem quite smart to me because no one else will be able to catch them if they can develop this method quickly enough.
I don't think that's true.  Surely mastering 3D printing would be easier than mastering all the processes involved in standard manufacturing, would involve far less capital risk, and there are a lot of commercial 3D printing companies out there that would be eager to partner with some other rocket maker.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/22/2018 07:41 pm
Most small LV competitors are using 3D printed engines and additive manufacturing for tanks. Build cost of LV is only one part launch costs, still have to build and maintain launch infrastructure, repay investors money plus direct launch costs like payload intergration and fuel.



Their arguments for the 3D printing approach seem quite smart to me because no one else will be able to catch them if they can develop this method quickly enough.
I don't think that's true.  Surely mastering 3D printing would be easier than mastering all the processes involved in standard manufacturing, would involve far less capital risk, and there are a lot of commercial 3D printing companies out there that would be eager to partner with some other rocket maker.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: imprezive on 08/23/2018 01:11 pm
Have you ever heard about the drunk guy looking for his lost keys under a street light?  A passerby notices that he keeps looking and looking and can't find them.  Finally, he asks the drunk guy if he dropped his keys under the street light.  The drunk guy answers, no, he dropped them over in the bushes, but there's no light there, so he's looking where there's light.

I think the drunk guy is everyone starting a rocket company, the area under the street light is small, expendable launch vehicles, and the bushes are large, fully-reusable launch vehicles.  The light is what it's possible for a start-up company to do.

It sucks that what you're looking for is where you won't be able to get it, but that doesn't make it any better to look in the wrong place.

There is more than one place to go in space. Almost all of those big rockets go to a handful of orbits. If you want a different orbit you either need to add a bunch of fuel to your spacecraft or buy a 3rd stage and wait the transfer time. On top of that there are design restrictions you are imposed with as a rideshare. Those costs can be more than the savings on the launch price. You’re argument is basically saying since trains are so cheap we should stop building cars but the world isn’t that simple.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/29/2018 01:44 am


Bryce Salmi (@KB1LQC) tweeted at 10:45 AM on Thu, Nov 29, 2018:
Yeah, @relativityspace is printing HUGE metal structures. I've stood next to our prints and it's crazy to think that chunk of rocket didn't exist not to long before... all tooling necessary to print domes/tanks/structure it is literally in this picture... maybe like ~400sqft! https://t.co/MIIN75L4jE
(https://twitter.com/KB1LQC/status/1067897377862742017?s=03)

Now if they can make it work in space,  large habitats should be possible. Not only could it print shell but all the interior.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/29/2018 08:59 am
Here's the image to go with that tweet.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/29/2018 02:50 pm
Here's the image to go with that tweet.

Is it just me or is Relativity Space solving a problem that isn't a problem? 

Manufacturing tanks – conventionally – is probably one of the cheapest parts of space launch.  In fact, the hardware cost of a launch vehicle pales to insignificance against other costs (especially if it is reusable).  Labor (not manufacturing touch labor but testing, program management, regulatory & safety, etc.) is not easily automated, at least in the development stage.  For small vehicle, range costs (using gov't ranges) could approach the hardware costs.  Mission assurance costs add at least 25% to the cost of F9 launches. 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 11/30/2018 05:24 am
Here's the image to go with that tweet.

Is it just me or is Relativity Space solving a problem that isn't a problem? 

Manufacturing tanks – conventionally – is probably one of the cheapest parts of space launch.  In fact, the hardware cost of a launch vehicle pales to insignificance against other costs (especially if it is reusable). 
I like this comment so much. This is like noticing the emperor isn't wearing clothes.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: mlindner on 12/16/2018 09:05 am
People seem not to be posting recent updates.

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072546950233382914

Interesting to note how they censored the tool print heads in that image.

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072866091578286080

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072866629720010755

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072867062416953344

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072882261278617600
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: mlindner on 12/16/2018 09:11 am
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1073806607660703744

In response to Robotbeat's question if sanding was used:

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1073818455499956229
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 12/16/2018 04:56 pm
Following on my earlier post, here's an image of the AirLaunch QuickReach Stage Two tank (LOX-Propane) which appears to be very similar to the Relativity tank show in the updates above.

Relativity suggested in their tweet it takes 12-18 month to fabricate a similar tank.  In fact, the clock time to build this tank was a few weeks (spinning at Spincraft, trimming, and E-beam welding of four parts).  The cost was a few hundred thousand dollars for the prototype and would have been less in quantity.

An amusing historical note: our former test site in the second image is now the Virgin Orbit LauncherOne engine test facility.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Prettz on 12/16/2018 05:17 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072866629720010755
This is an interesting aspect.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 12/16/2018 06:44 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072546950233382914

Maybe I am wrong, but 3 weeks printing seems like a long time to make a small tank? Rocket Lab were saying they can do a tank in 2-3 days if I recall. And what about the Stage 1 tank - if that tank took three weeks they are looking at 2-3x that for a bigger tank - 6-9 weeks per Stage 1 plus 3 weeks per stage 2 - so between 9-12 weeks per vehicle? One vehicle every quarter?

I buy the story about reduced part count but not sure of the big time benefit. Am I wrong?

Quote
Interesting to note how they censored the tool print heads in that image.

Indeed, could be because it is very special or because it is very agricultural.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Nomic on 12/16/2018 07:09 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1073806607660703744

In response to Robotbeat's question if sanding was used:

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1073818455499956229

Odd response as the surface finish is different on the finished item to the in process pictures, so they've clearly done something.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 12/16/2018 07:18 pm
Since it's most likely black aluminium oxide on the tank, washing with some light acid or using some special etchant(?) might have done the trick...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: LtWigglesworth on 12/16/2018 08:41 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1073806607660703744

In response to Robotbeat's question if sanding was used:

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1073818455499956229

Odd response as the surface finish is different on the finished item to the in process pictures, so they've clearly done something.

They've also done some post-machining to the top flange.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/16/2018 10:12 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072546950233382914

Maybe I am wrong, but 3 weeks printing seems like a long time to make a small tank? Rocket Lab were saying they can do a tank in 2-3 days if I recall. And what about the Stage 1 tank - if that tank took three weeks they are looking at 2-3x that for a bigger tank - 6-9 weeks per Stage 1 plus 3 weeks per stage 2 - so between 9-12 weeks per vehicle? One vehicle every quarter?

I buy the story about reduced part count but not sure of the big time benefit. Am I wrong?

Quote
Interesting to note how they censored the tool print heads in that image.

Indeed, could be because it is very special or because it is very agricultural.
To scale up just add more 3D printing machines, which is what Rocket Labs do to with their engines.
Print time is still same length but they are printing mutliple engines at same time.


Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 12/16/2018 10:32 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072546950233382914

Maybe I am wrong, but 3 weeks printing seems like a long time to make a small tank? Rocket Lab were saying they can do a tank in 2-3 days if I recall. And what about the Stage 1 tank - if that tank took three weeks they are looking at 2-3x that for a bigger tank - 6-9 weeks per Stage 1 plus 3 weeks per stage 2 - so between 9-12 weeks per vehicle? One vehicle every quarter?

I buy the story about reduced part count but not sure of the big time benefit. Am I wrong?

Quote
Interesting to note how they censored the tool print heads in that image.

Indeed, could be because it is very special or because it is very agricultural.
To scale up just add more 3D printing machines, which is what Rocket Labs do to with their engines.
Print time is still same length but they are printing mutliple engines at same time.
Yes, but that is still one complete tank set per quarter per machine. How is that more  efficient than Rocket Lab's carbon tube system? Plus it is basically aluminum from what they say, so I really struggle to see the gain. What is missing?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/17/2018 12:03 am
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1072546950233382914

Maybe I am wrong, but 3 weeks printing seems like a long time to make a small tank? Rocket Lab were saying they can do a tank in 2-3 days if I recall. And what about the Stage 1 tank - if that tank took three weeks they are looking at 2-3x that for a bigger tank - 6-9 weeks per Stage 1 plus 3 weeks per stage 2 - so between 9-12 weeks per vehicle? One vehicle every quarter?

I buy the story about reduced part count but not sure of the big time benefit. Am I wrong?

Quote
Interesting to note how they censored the tool print heads in that image.

Indeed, could be because it is very special or because it is very agricultural.
To scale up just add more 3D printing machines, which is what Rocket Labs do to with their engines.
Print time is still same length but they are printing mutliple engines at same time.
Yes, but that is still one complete tank set per quarter per machine. How is that more  efficient than Rocket Lab's carbon tube system? Plus it is basically aluminum from what they say, so I really struggle to see the gain. What is missing?
You missed point, they can build multiple tanks at same time, just need more 3d printers. 1st and 2nd stage tanks would be printed at same time.

No tooling modifications required if they want to change tank design, just a different  print file. As they said can easily add braffles and other internal features.

Not sure how RL make their tanks but it is possible to print large carbon fibre pressure vessels. US Navy demo this with mini sub.


Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 12/17/2018 03:13 pm
Having come from Blue Origin previously, and a lot of team from SpaceX, seems like they are playing the long game. Printers will get faster over time, and no fixed tooling let’s them change designs faster than possible otherwise while simultaneously lowering part count and automating away a good deal of labor costs. If they add reusability in the future then printing could both come up with better and more iterative designs, and also help replace spare parts/upper stages quickly. The bet then is SpaceX and Blue Origin or others making smaller reusable rockets (if Rocket Lab goes that way) won’t be able to figure out rapid low cost reuse quickly or effectively enough precisely because their manufacturing methods have slower iteration cycles. I could easily see something with wings or a slightly non-circular tank cross section for lifting body being possible with Relativity tech in 5 years.

Relativity’s approach also drives toward their long term vision of printing on Mars and other planets, since those benefits are all needed to take advantage of ISRU one day.

As to whether that approach will work or not, we shall see, but I’m glad to see at least one company in the small launch space have a big vision that extends BEO!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 12/17/2018 04:23 pm
There's also the possibility that through process monitoring and perhaps a pressure test, they can forego Non-Destructive Testing in the future. That's something that's often forgotten about additive manufacturing, once you have your process worked out and are able to monitor all relevant parameters, there's no need to check for hidden defects as you  check every layer of material laid down.

Less assembly also means less chances for human error.

They might be able to upgrade their printers performance simply by adding more robots with printheads.
And they don't have to train their workforce as they scale up, or maybe also scale down. Because if demand for their rocket is low, they even might be able to survive on a handful of rocket launches per year if necessary.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/17/2018 05:41 pm
Having come from Blue Origin previously, and a lot of team from SpaceX, seems like they are playing the long game. Printers will get faster over time, and no fixed tooling let’s them change designs faster than possible otherwise while simultaneously lowering part count and automating away a good deal of labor costs. If they add reusability in the future then printing could both come up with better and more iterative designs, and also help replace spare parts/upper stages quickly. The bet then is SpaceX and Blue Origin or others making smaller reusable rockets (if Rocket Lab goes that way) won’t be able to figure out rapid low cost reuse quickly or effectively enough precisely because their manufacturing methods have slower iteration cycles. I could easily see something with wings or a slightly non-circular tank cross section for lifting body being possible with Relativity tech in 5 years.

Relativity’s approach also drives toward their long term vision of printing on Mars and other planets, since those benefits are all needed to take advantage of ISRU one day.

As to whether that approach will work or not, we shall see, but I’m glad to see at least one company in the small launch space have a big vision that extends BEO!
Even if their LV falls by wayside their 3D printing  technology should find another market, which makes them a better investment that most small LV startups. There are few examples of companies developing a new technology for inhouse problem to eventually switch directions and make new technology their main business focus.

NB Blue have developed automated drilling machine for building NG tanks, which they spin off as separate business line.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/29/2018 02:26 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1078719280437436416
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 01/08/2019 05:16 am
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1078719280437436416

So people don't get confused, as a followup tweet points out, these are conventional test stand tanks acquired elsewhere. These storage tanks were not 3D printed.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: gongora on 01/17/2019 03:05 pm
[CNBC] Air Force grants 3D rocket printer Relativity Space a ‘premier’ launch pad in Florida (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/17/air-force-grants-3d-rocket-printer-relativity-space-a-launchpad.html?)
Quote
Relativity Space signs five-year agreement to use Launch Complex 16 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1085929959028387841
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: gongora on 01/17/2019 03:14 pm
[Ars Technica] Relativity Space to launch from historic Florida site (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/relativity-space-to-launch-from-historic-florida-site/)
Quote
Under terms of the competitively awarded agreement, the site will officially be a “multiuser” facility for five years. However, if Relativity meets certain milestones and begins regularly launching rockets, it will be able to convert the agreement into a 20-year, exclusive right to use the launch site.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: gongora on 02/14/2019 02:46 pm
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190214005025/en/Relativity-Granted-Industry-First-Machine-Learning-3D-Metal

Relativity Granted Industry-First Machine Learning 3D Metal Printing Patent and Adds Senior Leaders from SpaceX and Virgin Orbit to Executive Team
Patent issued for real-time adaptive control of additive manufacturing processes using machine learning

February 14, 2019 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Relativity, the world’s first autonomous rocket factory and launch services leader, today announced the appointment of three aerospace veterans to its executive team and an industry-leading new patent grant for its autonomous 3D printing technology. The fast-growing company has now hired twelve former senior leaders from SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Orbit, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Waymo, Zoox, and Tesla, and has secured a key patent for 3D printing metal using machine learning.

Tim Buzza, recognized as one of the world’s foremost experts in rocket development, as well as among the first leaders and a twelve-year executive at SpaceX, and former Co-President and Vice President of Launch at Virgin Orbit, officially joins Relativity as Distinguished Engineer after serving as an Advisor to the company. Josh Brost, a nine year veteran at SpaceX responsible for securing $3 billion in contracts with the U.S. Government and commercial entities, joins as Vice President, Government Business Development. David Giger, a thirteen-year SpaceX veteran who directed engineering, program, and leadership responsibilities for over 200 engineers in the design, testing and build of the multi-billion dollar Cargo Dragon and Crew Dragon spacecraft programs, joins as Vice President, Launch Vehicle Development for Relativity’s Terran 1 rocket.

“Our progress towards launching the first 3D printed rocket is fueled by a deeply experienced team that has built and scaled other space companies, and Tim, Josh, and David are renowned leaders in their fields,” said Tim Ellis, CEO of Relativity. “These executive appointments, combined with our recent patent grant, are great indicators of Relativity’s market momentum.”

Relativity was recently granted US. Patent Number US20180341248A1, Real-time adaptive control of additive manufacturing processes using machine learning, for its groundbreaking 3D metal printing technology using advanced sensors and control software. Disrupting 50 years of aerospace technology, Relativity is the first and only aerospace factory to use a proprietary and patented autonomous 3D printing technology, machine learning, and software to optimize every aspect of the rocket manufacturing process.

“The grant of this patent is a recognition of how our autonomous 3D metal printing technology can quickly and iteratively optimize rocket production on Earth and other planets, and is a pivotal step towards our technology differentiation and leadership in the market,” said Jordan Noone, CTO of Relativity.

Relativity can print its next-generation Terran 1 rocket in less than 60 days, while traditional rockets take 18 months or more. Terran 1 is the world’s first completely 3D printed rocket, with 100x fewer parts than traditional rockets, vastly better manufacturing reliability, rapid build time, and faster time to launch.

Relativity is on track to conduct its first full orbital launch by the end of 2020, and continues to grow a global customer manifest of both commercial and government payloads. The company recently became the first venture-backed company to secure a launch site Right of Entry at Cape Canaveral from the U.S. Air Force, adding to its portfolio of major government partnerships including a 20-year exclusive-use CSLA agreement at the NASA Stennis Space Center E4 test complex, and a NASA ACO test award. The company is expanding its infrastructure this year with a fourfold expansion to over 240,000 square feet of operations, production, testing, and launch facilities. Relativity’s team has grown almost 5x since March, from 14 to 64 full time employees in under a year.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 02/14/2019 05:08 pm
https://qz.com/1550356/3d-printed-rockets-are-winning-over-spacex-veterans/

Certainly seem to be hiring well
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 02/14/2019 05:50 pm
https://qz.com/1550356/3d-printed-rockets-are-winning-over-spacex-veterans/

Certainly seem to be hiring well

https://www.relativityspace.com/careers
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Tywin on 02/14/2019 07:42 pm
Somebody know how much money have put already Mark Cuban in Relativity?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 02/17/2019 04:37 pm
This article also says they have a total of 4 Stargate printers now, they are being stealthy about it but I’d bet we start to see more stage structures from them soon.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/17/relativity-space-rocket-development-more-3d-printers-spacex-leaders.html
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 02/17/2019 07:46 pm
"At this point our team is just ridiculously legendary," Relativity CEO Tim Ellis told CNBC. "These are literally the best people in the industry, period."

Pride, falls, hubris etc.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 04/05/2019 02:25 pm
Telesat has contracted some launches or launch options with Relativity for their new constellation, NET 2021. No information about how many and under what conditions, but still - good news. First customer for Terran 1.

Original report by Fortune: Rocket Startup Relativity Space Announces First Major Launch Client (http://fortune.com/2019/04/05/rocket-startup-relativity-space-telesat/)

Quote
Terran 1 remains on schedule for a first orbital launch “at the very end of 2020"

[Edit] Eric Berger has extracted some additional information from Tim Ellis:

Relativity Space announces first launch contract, and it’s a big one (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/relativity-space-announces-first-launch-contract-and-its-a-big-one/)

Ellis claims there are more "binding contracts", not yet announced.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 04/06/2019 01:06 am
This is pretty amazing that an established operator with as much credibility as Telesat is taking a bet on a fully 3D printed rocket startup. The article states this is the only time a major global operator (key: not a startup. Telesat is a public company) has signed with an all-venture funded company, and it sounds like a real deal not just LOI.

Certainly a large vote of confidence in where the Relativity team is heading, I’m sure the new hires and launch site announcements have helped. Now to just actually make the entire thing work... :)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/06/2019 03:00 am
This is pretty amazing that an established operator with as much credibility as Telesat is taking a bet on a fully 3D printed rocket startup. The article states this is the only time a major global operator (key: not a startup. Telesat is a public company) has signed with an all-venture funded company, and it sounds like a real deal not just LOI.

Certainly a large vote of confidence in where the Relativity team is heading, I’m sure the new hires and launch site announcements have helped. Now to just actually make the entire thing work... :)
Not a big risk for Telesat, they will have other options in same LV class once Firefly's Alpha and Boeing Phantom Express (XS-1) start flying in a next year or two.



Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 04/23/2019 07:33 pm
Things get rolling. Relativity announces their second contract. This time no renowned customer, but a Thai start-up (which also has a launch contract for a New Glenn).

Relativity’s 3D Printed Terran 1 Rocket to Launch mu Space’s Low Earth Orbit Satellite (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2019/04/23/relativitys-3d-printed-terran-1-rocket-launch-mu-spaces-earth-orbit-satellite/)

Expect more to come. A year ago, Ellis said (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/relativity-space-series-b-round-3-d-printing-rockets-gets-35-million.html) said that they are competing on commercial and government launch contracts worth $1 billion.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/24/2019 12:12 am
Things get rolling. Relativity announces their second contract. This time no renowned customer, but a Thai start-up (which also has a launch contract for a New Glenn).

Relativity’s 3D Printed Terran 1 Rocket to Launch mu Space’s Low Earth Orbit Satellite (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2019/04/23/relativitys-3d-printed-terran-1-rocket-launch-mu-spaces-earth-orbit-satellite/)

Expect more to come. A year ago, Ellis said (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/relativity-space-series-b-round-3-d-printing-rockets-gets-35-million.html) said that they are competing on commercial and government launch contracts worth $1 billion.
Relativity keep pushing how big cost saving their 3D printed LVs will be compared to competition. The competition are all using 3D printed engines and some form of automated manufacturing of tanks. Final assembly of LV is still going be labour intensive for each company. All small LV providerd are talking about lead times from booking to launching of months if not weeks, once up and running fully. Even SpaceX and ULA can offer lead times in months now.

Usual overheads of launch facilities, ground stations, payload integration and general business overheads are same.  Some have traded fix launch pads for mobile ones or airlaunch, with pros and cons. Time will see which is best system.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: novak on 04/24/2019 03:03 am

Relativity keep pushing how big cost saving their 3D printed LVs will be compared to competition.

I think there's more to gain from minimizing development cost and time.  Relativity thinks they are doing this because they 3D print everything, I'd favor companies with the simplest engineering problems to solve.  Rocket Lab made a good (though perhaps risky- somewhat novel) move with the electric pumps to simplify their engine cycle but many of the in development small launcher newspace companies have either rather more complex cycles (how many companies even use GGs?), air launch, pressure fed vehicles, hybrids, etc.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/24/2019 07:10 am

Relativity keep pushing how big cost saving their 3D printed LVs will be compared to competition.

I think there's more to gain from minimizing development cost and time. 
Indeed.  RL focused their improvements in areas that gave them an edge.

The trouble it a lot of these companies seem to be saying "We'll be the next SpaceX," but only doing the F1.

Does the world need yet another TSTO ELV?

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 04/24/2019 07:39 pm
Does the world need yet another TSTO ELV?

I can answer that question, just give me 5-10 years to get back to you.

Seriously though, I think that there is probably plenty of value to minimizing production expenses. After all, PSLV and Soyuz have managed to stay competitive largely by having cheaper labor costs. I think there's a lot of potential in this approach... probably.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 04/24/2019 07:51 pm
My hunch is it’s likely they scale up after Terran 1... the iteration speed and lack of tooling with a fully 3D printed approach would greatly enable it. They have said before in talks at conferences that they believe in reusability too, and in the future with a larger rocket it just makes sense to pursue that route. Whether having SpaceX, Blue Origin, and all the legacy players allows a new competitor starting this far behind remains to be seen, 3D printing speed does help when starting from scratch tho and is a disruptive technology.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/24/2019 09:05 pm

Relativity keep pushing how big cost saving their 3D printed LVs will be compared to competition.

I think there's more to gain from minimizing development cost and time. 
Indeed.  RL focused their improvements in areas that gave them an edge.

The trouble it a lot of these companies seem to be saying "We'll be the next SpaceX," but only doing the F1.

Does the world need yet another TSTO ELV?
Their 1,250kg Terran1 is actually very good size for smallsat market. Big enough for deploying 2-4 smallsats for replacements in large constellations, enabling BLEO missions for smallsats in conjunction with a earth departure stage eg Momentus Aerospace Vigoride Extended. Ideal for small ride share missions , as Spaceflight Industries have discovered with SSO mission trying organise 60 different payloads for F9 was a headache.

When comes to RLVs and ELVs, 1-2000kg is probably the boundary where RLVs become viable.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 05/06/2019 04:46 pm
Now announced an LSA with Spaceflight Industries. That is 3 major customers announced just this month.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/tech/rocket-startup-launch-contract-relativity-space/index.html
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 05/21/2019 10:09 am
These Engineers Want to 3D Print an Entire Rocket in 60 Days

Seeker
Published on May 19, 2019

This team of engineers is using one of the world's largest 3D metal printers to build rockets, and it could shake up the space industry as we know it.

Relativity Space reveals its ambitions with big NASA deal

“Relativity announced Wednesday that it has signed a 20-year partnership with NASA's Stennis Space Center for an exclusive lease of the 25-acre E4 Test Complex in Southern Mississippi. The four test stands on the site will allow Relativity to develop and test enough engines to build 36 rockets a year, and the agreement includes an option for the company to eventually expand its footprint at the site to 250 acres.”

https://youtu.be/R5mhUm6NzqE?t=001

https://youtu.be/R5mhUm6NzqE
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/21/2019 03:32 pm
These Engineers Want to 3D Print an Entire Rocket in 60 Days

Seeker
Published on May 19, 2019

This team of engineers is using one of the world's largest 3D metal printers to build rockets, and it could shake up the space industry as we know it.

Relativity Space reveals its ambitions with big NASA deal

“Relativity announced Wednesday that it has signed a 20-year partnership with NASA's Stennis Space Center for an exclusive lease of the 25-acre E4 Test Complex in Southern Mississippi. The four test stands on the site will allow Relativity to develop and test enough engines to build 36 rockets a year, and the agreement includes an option for the company to eventually expand its footprint at the site to 250 acres.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mhUm6NzqE?t=001

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mhUm6NzqE

My only reaction to this thus far is- uh, wow.
36 rockets a year? Terran has 9 engines in the first stage, right? And then there's one on the second stage. That's 30 engine's tested per month, and of course by the same token, 3 rockets per month. Apparently, Relativity feels the need to prepare for being very popular.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/22/2019 09:29 am
Vehicle is 2.1 m diameter, 32.0 m tall and has a lift-off mass of 54.4 t.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Tulse on 05/31/2019 02:55 pm
There's an interesting podcast interview (https://www.satellitetoday.com/podcast/2019/05/28/on-orbit-episode-4-3d-printing-rockets-with-tim-ellis/) with the CEO of Relativity.  It sounds to me like Relativity is more invested in being a 3-D printing manufacturer than a launch service -- Tim Ellis talked about delivering Relativity's Stargate printers to Mars in order to promote manufacturing there (and it sounded like more than just making rockets).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 05/31/2019 04:41 pm
There's an interesting podcast interview (https://www.satellitetoday.com/podcast/2019/05/28/on-orbit-episode-4-3d-printing-rockets-with-tim-ellis/) with the CEO of Relativity.  It sounds to me like Relativity is more invested in being a 3-D printing manufacturer than a launch service -- Tim Ellis talked about delivering Relativity's Stargate printers to Mars in order to promote manufacturing there (and it sounded like more than just making rockets).


I think it's because it's a more realistic exit strategy to get bought out by a bigger company by having a unique and novel technology. The alternate is that if the launch provider thing works out for them, it's a double win.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/31/2019 08:14 pm
There's an interesting podcast interview (https://www.satellitetoday.com/podcast/2019/05/28/on-orbit-episode-4-3d-printing-rockets-with-tim-ellis/) with the CEO of Relativity.  It sounds to me like Relativity is more invested in being a 3-D printing manufacturer than a launch service -- Tim Ellis talked about delivering Relativity's Stargate printers to Mars in order to promote manufacturing there (and it sounded like more than just making rockets).


I think it's because it's a more realistic exit strategy to get bought out by a bigger company by having a unique and novel technology. The alternate is that if the launch provider thing works out for them, it's a double win.
The investors are probably looking at it this way to.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 06/11/2019 04:46 pm
https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/11/relativity-is-building-a-3d-printing-rocket-manufacturing-hub-in-mississippi/ (https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/11/relativity-is-building-a-3d-printing-rocket-manufacturing-hub-in-mississippi/)
Relativity is building up a production plant at Stennis. 220,000 sq ft puts it 50% larger than the Virgin Orbit facility in Long Beach - that's a lot of area. Methinks Relativity may not know exactly what to do with all that floor space, as indicated by the fact that their render (floor areas excluded) is the content in one quadrant that is then mirrored twice so they have 4x the same features.

A feature that is interesting to me is the floral ribbing pattern on the payload adapter. Seems like a feature they added because they're printing and that they can then point to and say "making this with conventional manufacturing would be expensive as hell" to justify printing; and no one is asking "Why are those ribs even needed in the first place?"

With every release by Relativity, all I can see is an incredibly rapid expansion which comes off more as over-extending themselves. Their capital investment and burn rate is insane. With very little physical hardware and testing to show for it, I wonder how long their investor base is going to be willing to foot the bill. We haven't seen any footage of an engine since they retired their Aeon-1 test article and chromed it out for display purposes. The only images of the tanks appear to be mediocre quality at best and with no major progress in over a year.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/11/2019 11:23 pm
https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/11/relativity-is-building-a-3d-printing-rocket-manufacturing-hub-in-mississippi/ (https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/11/relativity-is-building-a-3d-printing-rocket-manufacturing-hub-in-mississippi/)
Relativity is building up a production plant at Stennis. 220,000 sq ft puts it 50% larger than the Virgin Orbit facility in Long Beach - that's a lot of area. Methinks Relativity may not know exactly what to do with all that floor space, as indicated by the fact that their render (floor areas excluded) is the content in one quadrant that is then mirrored twice so they have 4x the same features.

A feature that is interesting to me is the floral ribbing pattern on the payload adapter. Seems like a feature they added because they're printing and that they can then point to and say "making this with conventional manufacturing would be expensive as hell" to justify printing; and no one is asking "Why are those ribs even needed in the first place?"

That is a big facility. Well, it's always seemed like they'd prefer to be a manufacturing company first and a launch provider second, so I guess having a big factory makes sense for them.

I think ribs are pretty cool! Lots of rockets have some structural reinforcement in that area, but very few are especially nice looking. They can make that structure look nice for no real additional cost with 3D printing, so why not?

With every release by Relativity, all I can see is an incredibly rapid expansion which comes off more as over-extending themselves. Their capital investment and burn rate is insane. With very little physical hardware and testing to show for it, I wonder how long their investor base is going to be willing to foot the bill. We haven't seen any footage of an engine since they retired their Aeon-1 test article and chromed it out for display purposes. The only images of the tanks appear to be mediocre quality at best and with no major progress in over a year.

I seriously doubt there's been no progress over the past year. Relativity has always been one of the stealthier space startups. The fact that we haven't seen progress doesn't mean it's not happening. And their investors probably get much more accurate and frequent updates than we do.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 06/11/2019 11:55 pm
I would also assume USAF, NASA, Telesat, and the ridiculous exec team they’ve put together over the past year don’t just give contracts, launch sites, test sites, factories, partnerships, etc like this away for no due diligence. They all have a front row seat to what is going on, and we the public don’t for now, but to some extent I’d take their word for it until we (hopefully) soon get to see!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 06/26/2019 11:19 pm
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613743/relativity-space-3d-printed-rocket/

Pretty thorough write up on Relativity from the MIT Technology Review. This is a rare article that doesn't read (exclusively) like a press release and includes criticism and fact-checking. e.g.:

“To go and print an avionics box or tank or something like that doesn’t make any sense, because there’s much more efficient processes for doing that. I don’t want to rain on Tim’s parade. I wish him the absolute best, but from an engineering perspective, it makes absolutely no sense to us.” - Peter Beck, Rocket Lab

How much of this is a PR stunt, though, is hard to sort out. Announcing you’ve made the first whatever is tempting, especially for small startups. Relativity, for example, claims to have built the largest metal 3D printer—as do Sciaky and Titomic, two industrial hardware companies that aren’t in the space business.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/26/2019 11:55 pm
While 3D printing is easy, making identical parts with same material strengths isn't. Obtaining consist bonding between layers is one of important area.  A lot work is going into validating printed items. The following extract from article shows AJR approach compared to Relativity. This is why AJR have been very careful modifying RL10 for 3D printed parts.

Extract:
But no one is going for it as hard and fast as Relativity. Aerojet builds engines for government contracts and human-rated rockets like NASA’s Space Launch System, which have to be extra consistent and reliable. The company says that more than 60% of its research and development for 3D printing has been nothing more than establishing a database of the chemical and structural properties of different materials. “Others may kind of skip over that, and that’s their right to do that as a risk-accepting posture,” says Jeff Haynes, Aerojet’s senior manager of advanced programs.

By contrast, at Relativity, “if we put a fully printed engine on the test stand, successfully fire it, and then fly it, that for us is success,” says Noone. “You could write hundreds of pages of specifications telling you how to get there, and how to manufacture it, but we have our ways that we do it. I wouldn’t want to be hung up on creating the specification rather than just trying something and demonstrating that it works.”

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 06/27/2019 05:33 pm
While 3D printing is easy, making identical parts with same material strengths isn't. Obtaining consist bonding between layers is one of important area.
[...]
By contrast, at Relativity, “if we put a fully printed engine on the test stand, successfully fire it, and then fly it, that for us is success,” says Noone. “You could write hundreds of pages of specifications telling you how to get there, and how to manufacture it, but we have our ways that we do it. I wouldn’t want to be hung up on creating the specification rather than just trying something and demonstrating that it works.”

I get that approach and it is attractive and probably sells to investors very well. However, just because you've made it once and it didn't blow-up, doesn't mean you can do it again.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 06/28/2019 01:55 pm
While 3D printing is easy, making identical parts with same material strengths isn't. Obtaining consist bonding between layers is one of important area.
[...]
By contrast, at Relativity, “if we put a fully printed engine on the test stand, successfully fire it, and then fly it, that for us is success,” says Noone. “You could write hundreds of pages of specifications telling you how to get there, and how to manufacture it, but we have our ways that we do it. I wouldn’t want to be hung up on creating the specification rather than just trying something and demonstrating that it works.”

I get that approach and it is attractive and probably sells to investors very well. However, just because you've made it once and it didn't blow-up, doesn't mean you can do it again.
Vice Versa also applies: you can stack your documents up to your desired apogee if you want, but that does not guarantee your assembly will survive contact with reality.
"Move fast and break things" has been demonstrated to be very effective if you have both the funding to do so and the freedom to spend that funding. "Document all the groundwork and then build it right from the start" has also been demonstrated to work. Both have also been demonstrated not to work and result in a big pile of burnt cash and little practical to show for it.

In the "Aero" side of the aerospace world. there is huge demand for additive manufacturing. Not necessarily for volume production, but for prototypes, one-offs, short notice repairs, replacements when your supply chain has wound down, etc. The is just as valuable for space applications, particularly as the rate of change in vehicle and satellite design accelerates. A 3D printed satellite bus may not be as cheap as one produced on a production line pumping out thousands of satellites, but it is cheaper than a one-off - or even a customised run of a small handful - produced by assembling subtractive-manufactured parts and a darn sight faster in most cases.

Or to put it another way: you may eventually want to turn your nozzles and cast/forge your combustion chambers and mill your injectors; but if you want to get to orbit this year with your initial funding round rather than in half a decade and several rounds later (if ever), you may figure a lower performing printed engine is acceptable to start with.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Tulse on 06/28/2019 02:40 pm
The issue a lot of folks have is not with printing engines, but printing things like tanks, where the 3D approach seems very inefficient compared to conventional means.  That said, if we take Relativity at their word, they intend to be able to print a rocket (and other things) on Mars, and in that situation using a single highly-flexible manufacturing technique may make sense.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/28/2019 04:21 pm
A lot of the labour is in assembly, payload integration and launch. I can't see how they   wil l automate these. Installing wiring and plumbing isn"t easy to automate especially at these low production rates.

RL are up to 500 staff and climbing, they've tried to automate where they can. Relativity currently have 80 staff, they will still need a few hundred to build and launch 10+ LVs are year.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 06/28/2019 05:06 pm
The issue a lot of folks have is not with printing engines, but printing things like tanks, where the 3D approach seems very inefficient compared to conventional means.  That said, if we take Relativity at their word, they intend to be able to print a rocket (and other things) on Mars, and in that situation using a single highly-flexible manufacturing technique may make sense.
For standard cylindrical tanks that is true. If you want to go to other geometries (e.g. the toroidal semiconformal tanks of the Briz-M or Fregat, or other usual packings like Transtage), then printing your tanks to fit your available envelope may be desirable. More so for satellites than for stages, but if you already have the equipment for making arbitrary shaped tanks, it probably would take a large number of tanks fabbed before the cost rises above the initial outlay of the fixed equipment to create cylindrical tanks in the 'traditional' way (and even then you jig may not allow the flexibility for varying tank diameters).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 06/28/2019 05:37 pm
The issue a lot of folks have is not with printing engines, but printing things like tanks, where the 3D approach seems very inefficient compared to conventional means.  That said, if we take Relativity at their word, they intend to be able to print a rocket (and other things) on Mars, and in that situation using a single highly-flexible manufacturing technique may make sense.
Additive manufacturing might seem inefficient if you only look at the manufacturing part. But from what I read, testing and documentation is the main reason why aerospace components are so expensive. Additive manufacturing paired with automated quality control might fix a big part of that. Why? Because additive manufacturing usually works by producing thin layers. With automated optical systems, you can basically get the equivalent of a CT scan of your whole printed part.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: GWH on 06/28/2019 06:00 pm
A lot of the labour is in assembly, payload integration and launch. I can't see how they   wil l automate these. Installing wiring and plumbing isn"t easy to automate especially at these low production rates.

RL are up to 500 staff and climbing, they've tried to automate where they can. Relativity currently have 80 staff, they will still need a few hundred to build and launch 10+ LVs are year.

Why install plumbing when you can print it in place? Same with cable raceways. 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/29/2019 11:35 am
A lot of the labour is in assembly, payload integration and launch. I can't see how they   wil l automate these. Installing wiring and plumbing isn"t easy to automate especially at these low production rates.

RL are up to 500 staff and climbing, they've tried to automate where they can. Relativity currently have 80 staff, they will still need a few hundred to build and launch 10+ LVs are year.

Why install plumbing when you can print it in place? Same with cable raceways.
Still need to install wires and plug them into sensors, motors etc.

Engines need to be bolted to tank and fuel lines connected.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/29/2019 01:03 pm
A lot of the labour is in assembly, payload integration and launch. I can't see how they   wil l automate these. Installing wiring and plumbing isn"t easy to automate especially at these low production rates.

RL are up to 500 staff and climbing, they've tried to automate where they can. Relativity currently have 80 staff, they will still need a few hundred to build and launch 10+ LVs are year.

Why install plumbing when you can print it in place? Same with cable raceways.
Support material removal and surface finishing. Additionally, you can’t really 3D print a valve. It requires extremely precise surfaces (and o-rings) to seal. And if you did have the resolution to print a valve (and again, you DON’T), then you’d have a specialized and extremely slow process not suited for the rest of the rocket.

Internal plumbing that’s 3D printed works well for regen engines, but not the whole rocket.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/02/2019 06:37 pm
...
RL are up to 500 staff and climbing, they've tried to automate where they can. Relativity currently have 80 staff, they will still need a few hundred to build and launch 10+ LVs are year.
I thought they were going to make rockets with no human labor?

(JK, I work in aerospace 3D printing, and 3D printed parts usually take MORE work than conventional to get to something that you might want to count on... I'd 3D print the nozzle and combustion chambers and CNC or weld everything else...)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 08/01/2019 02:29 am
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/relativity_sunset-in-mississippi-from-the-deck-of-the-activity-6562495213506482176-MKDu

Quote
Sunset in Mississippi from the deck of the E4 test stand at NASA Stennis. Thanks to all who have made it possible to get this far - it truly is our second home now.

Squinting through the cell phone artifacting, the test article that is mounted is a turbopump. Pump-pump-turbine configuration with no discharge duct mounted (temporarily sealed off with a plastic bag).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/07/2019 11:50 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1159134842694623236

Quote
Progress continues! We’ve successfully tested our #Aeon1 engine over 200 times @NASAStennis. These engines produce 19,500 lbs of thrust and nine of them power the first stage of our #Terran1 🚀. The thrust chamber and injector are made of just three #3Dprinted parts.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: GWH on 08/13/2019 04:07 pm
WeMartians podcast did an interview with Jordan Noone of Relativity and it's great:
https://www.wemartians.com/episode062/

He describes how 3D printing tanks means they aren't limited to a fixed diameter and tooling during early development and how they feel this let's them respond to challenges in development and changes to the marketplace much faster.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 08/15/2019 08:00 pm
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/relativity_turbopump-activity-6567821218576162816-Kx32

New image from Relativity on their LinkedIn. Shows the LOx turbopump being tested. There's only one pump in that turbopump, so they're doing a split shaft configuration similar to what Virgin Orbit does on the NewtonThree engine (two turbopump assemblies, each pump has their own turbine).

This actually makes sense here, as they're an expander cycle and both propellants are cryogenic. By having each pump have its own turbine, they don't have to worry about mixing propellants in between the pump and turbine.

One downside of a stubby turbopump like this is that there's a relativity short shaft and bearing span, so the rotordynamic stability dies off pretty quickly, so they'll be limited on shaft speed (and therefore power density).

Their caption is a bit interesting: "Relativity continues a turbopump test campaign....". Their turbine isn't plumbed up at all, so I'd speculate that they have the pump mounted, but haven't actually spun the pump up yet.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 08/16/2019 10:36 pm
Another update via LinkedIn, this time they have a subscale metallic propellant tank wired up with strain gauges. I suspect they're getting ready to do a hydrostatic proof test on it and see how the printed material is holding up under representative loads.

What's interesting is the super coarse surface finish, doesn't look like they tried to finish machine it at all....with the exception of the domes adjacent to the tank closeout plates where they are finish machined and there's also a discontinuity in the tank profile. I bet they had those sections conventionally machined, bolted the bottom one to the table, printed the tank onto it, and when they got to the top, manually welded the second on. If that's true, it means they may be running into issues with the domes not collapsing as the overhand angle increases.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 08/19/2019 10:29 am
Or the need to machine the mating surfaces for the closeout plates anyway meant you may as well machine the rest of the dome in that operation.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: GWH on 08/19/2019 04:44 pm
In the WeMartians podcast they did mention the ability to do in place machining on one of their printers (Stargate?).

Since the printer is just a few commercial robot arm, working tools can be attached and removed at will. Also since the printing process here is basically just continuous welding, they may be able to attach the dome, weld it in place, and then machine for squareness with just a few tool changes.

I hadn't really thought of that too much when I listened to the podcast, thinking more on it now they could do some really trick stuff. Like printing and machining locating pins into the tank structure prior to installing the dome assembly. Then use either a dedicated welding attachment or the "printing" welder and they can complete a prepared joint in place. Being able to do all this at a single machine center seems pretty appealing. When they already know exactly where each feature lives in space, and have multi-axis robot arms, the process could be pretty slick.

I know personally I'll use 3D printed parts to supplement workholding jigs even if the printed material isn't being used as my primary member.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 08/19/2019 11:43 pm
In the WeMartians podcast they did mention the ability to do in place machining on one of their printers (Stargate?).

Since the printer is just a few commercial robot arm, working tools can be attached and removed at will. Also since the printing process here is basically just continuous welding, they may be able to attach the dome, weld it in place, and then machine for squareness with just a few tool changes.

I hadn't really thought of that too much when I listened to the podcast, thinking more on it now they could do some really trick stuff. Like printing and machining locating pins into the tank structure prior to installing the dome assembly. Then use either a dedicated welding attachment or the "printing" welder and they can complete a prepared joint in place. Being able to do all this at a single machine center seems pretty appealing. When they already know exactly where each feature lives in space, and have multi-axis robot arms, the process could be pretty slick.

I know personally I'll use 3D printed parts to supplement workholding jigs even if the printed material isn't being used as my primary member.

Mori-DMG was offering a hybrid CNC/3D printer system that did arm tool changes to print and machine (helpful to clean up prints before a space is closed off due to printing). Though that machine wasn't huge, and I think it was doing blown metal powder laser sintering.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/20/2019 06:33 pm
WeMartians podcast did an interview with Jordan Noone of Relativity and it's great:
https://www.wemartians.com/episode062/



Listen to interview, a few takes from it.
Done 200 engine tests.
LV configuration is same as F9 and Electron with 9+1 common engines. Reuseability is on the todo list.

My guess on reuseability.
At 1250kg to LEO they could do reentry burn and still deliver useful payload to orbit. Should be light enough for mid air capture.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: GWH on 08/30/2019 04:20 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1167467540056092672

Note the change in orientation of the grain. It looks like the pair of circumferential welds about the z-axis was made over the xy-z orientation of the "printed" material.
No reason to think this wasn't performed by the same machine and indicative of how they can really get creative in the fabrication process.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/11/2019 09:22 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1171711260989296640

Quote
At #WSBW, Tim Ellis of Relativity announces a new launch agreement with Momentus, for the launch of up to 350 kg of smallsats to GEO in 2021; option for five additional launches.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 09/19/2019 09:39 pm
Looks like Relativity has started flowing their LOx pump.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/relativity_aeon1-activity-6580487811605020672-pW7B
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/01/2019 02:29 pm
Quote
Amid heavy competition, Relatively Space secures $140 million in funding
"Fundraising is always a process."

by Eric Berger - Oct 1, 2019 3:18pm BST

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/amidst-heavy-competition-relatively-space-secures-140-million-in-funding/

Key point:

Quote
Relativity Space announced Tuesday that it has closed a $140 million Series C funding round led by Bond and Tribe Capital. With this funding, Relativity chief executive Tim Ellis tells Ars the company is fully funded to complete development of its Terran 1 rocket, and reach orbit.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/01/2019 02:53 pm
Crazy, how did they do it? It seems nobody here see them as a good bet, yet investors clearly think otherwise...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 10/01/2019 03:15 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/rocket-builder-relativity-raises-140-million-from-mary-meeker-others.html

New details: upgrade to 3m payload fairing, new “twice as large” version of next-generation Stargate 3D printer and they have several operational already. With twice the payload volume they are now competing squarely in the Vega/PSLV launch class but at 1/4 the price. Pretty nuts.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/01/2019 04:26 pm
Talking of crazy:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1179067196686794752

Quote
Relativity's long-term goal of 3D printing rockets on Mars may lead the company to fly with Jeff Bezos' @blueorigin:

“We’d be one of the biggest New Glenn customers of the future,” Relativity CEO Tim Ellis said.
cnbc.com/2019/10/01/roc…
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/01/2019 05:52 pm
Crazy, how did they do it? It seems nobody here see them as a good bet, yet investors clearly think otherwise...
Heavy automation with near zero human labor sells  big because employees do not detract from the bigger foreseen return on investment. Using reliable technologies such as CAD and 3D printing are a big plus. AR and others have proven these technologies at increasing scales and this is the next logical step on the scale. Before long other companies will have to adapt to survive the new norm if the company becomes successful.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: meberbs on 10/01/2019 06:10 pm
Crazy, how did they do it? It seems nobody here see them as a good bet, yet investors clearly think otherwise...
They caught my eye early as one of the new launch companies that actually had a differentiator from the rest that was actually plausible. I heard Tim Ellis give a speech earlier this year, and their team is insane, they have a bit of top talent and recognizable names from basically every major player. A lot of the doubts about them has questioned their business plan and whether their methods actually would save money, but there is just too much internal information that outsiders don't have needed to know for sure. When a hyper-experienced team like they have believes they have a workable business plan, at the very least it is a bad idea to bet against them.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/01/2019 06:41 pm
ARTICLE: Relativity Space Using 3D Printing to Launch a Growing Manifest amid funding boost -

- By Thomas Burghardt (@TGMetsFan98)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/10/relativity-3d-printing-launch-manifest-funding/


https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1179103571956113408
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 10/15/2019 05:28 am
More discussion of how Stargate printer works

https://www.wired.com/story/massive-ai-powered-robots-are-3d-printing-entire-rockets/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/29/2019 10:13 pm
Whole lotta cool new renders from a recent website update :) I'm personally pretty damn impressed with their new octaweb design, looks extremely slick. Major "Falcon 9 but smaller and 3D-printed" vibes from this latest design variant.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 10/29/2019 11:17 pm
That launch mount screams triple stick upgrade like Falcon Heavy...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/30/2019 12:52 am
That launch mount screams triple stick upgrade like Falcon Heavy...

If Firefly's anything to go off of, that's probably gonna be a hard "nope" for most smallsat launch startups :-\ Probably for the best, it's clear that multicore rockets just aren't an optimal solution if you have an alternative.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 10/30/2019 01:27 am
Why do that when instead they could just use Stargate and print a much larger version with just software changes? Assuming it works for Terran 1 should work for larger versions.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 11/01/2019 07:15 pm
Tim Ellis interviewed by Peter Diamandis (https://youtu.be/c7q0qwfuGz0).

Excellent interview, highly recommended.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/02/2019 06:43 pm
I don't known if they will revolutionise launch industry but good chance their technology will change how large aerospace structures are built. The Stargate could build large structures like aircraft wings. They use standard industrial robotic arms with their printhead assembly so scaling up is easy.

In case of space colonies, they could build any habitat structure, just add power and wire feed stock. Metal refineries only need to output metal as wire and powder feed stock, no need for heavy rollers producing sheet metal. This is important consideration, should be able to start with small refinery and scale up. Ideally 3d print a large part of refinery on site,  same again for robotic arms. In both cases most of mass is large metal parts. As space colony grows the more parts can be reproduced locally lowering cost of refinery and robotic arms, in return lowering construction costs of habitats.


Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Prettz on 11/02/2019 11:27 pm
The idea of building tanks as one single piece, without separate domes, is definitely interesting, but I keep coming back to the question: does building expendable rockets cheaply matter? Does being able to build large numbers of small rockets efficiently matter when rockets need to be reusable?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/03/2019 12:12 am
I don't known if they will revolutionise launch industry but good chance their technology will change how large aerospace structures are built. The Stargate could build large structures like aircraft wings. They use standard industrial robotic arms with their printhead assembly so scaling up is easy.

In case of space colonies, they could build any habitat structure, just add power and wire feed stock. Metal refineries only need to output metal as wire and powder feed stock, no need for heavy rollers producing sheet metal. This is important consideration, should be able to start with small refinery and scale up. Ideally 3d print a large part of refinery on site,  same again for robotic arms. In both cases most of mass is large metal parts. As space colony grows the more parts can be reproduced locally lowering cost of refinery and robotic arms, in return lowering construction costs of habitats.
Some metals/alloys will still need conventional methods or friction stirring to increase strength but conventional production would be significantly less.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 11/03/2019 04:55 am
The idea of building tanks as one single piece, without separate domes, is definitely interesting, but I keep coming back to the question: does building expendable rockets cheaply matter? Does being able to build large numbers of small rockets efficiently matter when rockets need to be reusable?
Have you watched the interview?
Tim Ellis says they need to get to orbit first, but doesn’t exclude reusability. With their technology, changes for reusability can be easily incorporated into the design.

During the interview, Tim Ellis has a rocket engine on his desk which he says that very engine has done 50 test firings. So I think the engines themselves are already reusable.

SpaceX also made Falcon 9 „cheap“ to manufacture first, and added reusability later.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 11/05/2019 09:21 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1191770988423372800

First time I believe seeing print speed of Stargate published. 1 ft per day on what looks to be 7-8 ft diameter tank. So that’s about 24 sq ft per day of wall area per printer. They have 4 now, each one can print about 30 foot tall. So scaling to a Falcon 9 size vehicle, that would take about 8 printers to do it in pieces. Multiplying out, I get about 45 days to print an entire Falcon 9. That’s pretty quick and low cost I’d believe.

In the future they won’t be limited to just simple cylindrical shapes with skin-stringers like Falcon and Starship, they could do non-symmetric shapes and also use things like isogrid and topology to tune structure shapes. The question is if they can actually pull this technology off but if they do seems like a game changer.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 11/05/2019 09:36 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1191770988423372800?s=21

First time I believe seeing print speed of Stargate published. 1 ft per day on what looks to be 7-8 ft diameter tank. So that’s about 24 sq ft per day of wall area per printer. They have 4 now, each one can print about 30 foot tall. So scaling to a Falcon 9 size vehicle, that would take about 8 printers to do it in pieces. Multiplying out, I get about 45 days to print an entire Falcon 9. That’s pretty quick and low cost I’d believe.

In the future they won’t be limited to just simple cylindrical shapes with skin-stringers like Falcon and Starship, they could do non-symmetric shapes and also use things like isogrid and topology to tune structure shapes. The question is if they can actually pull this technology off but if they do seems like a game changer.

What's the time delta versus a welded tank? I understand there's tooling time, but once tooling is made, it's a matter of popping out tanks is it not?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 11/06/2019 01:29 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1191770988423372800?s=21

First time I believe seeing print speed of Stargate published. 1 ft per day on what looks to be 7-8 ft diameter tank. So that’s about 24 sq ft per day of wall area per printer. They have 4 now, each one can print about 30 foot tall. So scaling to a Falcon 9 size vehicle, that would take about 8 printers to do it in pieces. Multiplying out, I get about 45 days to print an entire Falcon 9. That’s pretty quick and low cost I’d believe.

In the future they won’t be limited to just simple cylindrical shapes with skin-stringers like Falcon and Starship, they could do non-symmetric shapes and also use things like isogrid and topology to tune structure shapes. The question is if they can actually pull this technology off but if they do seems like a game changer.

What's the time delta versus a welded tank? I understand there's tooling time, but once tooling is made, it's a matter of popping out tanks is it not?

if you watch the full video above there is a timelapse half-way through which shows the full printing of an upper stage (?) tank, which according to the clock at the top of the screen takes them about 23 days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7q0qwfuGz0?t=1752

In the same video CEO Tim Ellis says they hope to complete a new vehicle every 60 days, and that is probably driven by the print time of a main booster tank - if you scale that 23 days you are probably looking at a full main stage tank taking about 60 days to "print" the full length (although we are yet to see a full length one from Relativity I believe).

I think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.

Where it does have some advantages, but probably not as much as they claim, is in flexibility for complex shapes e.g. for producing the complex tank-end shape. But is that such a huge advantage versus a carbon layup? I doubt it, I would guess they are roughly equivalent in time, and carbon will be stiffer and stronger for the same mass.

The engines are not printed on their Stargate machine. If you follow a few clues in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whv-b1QFqe4

it is nothing more clever than commercial grade SLM system like an SLM 280, which is probably why they do it three pieces. Example clue is the shape of the unit:

(https://i.imgur.com/kHrE9E5.png)

Another clue are the internals of the machine:

(https://i.imgur.com/CwAqPot.png)

In the same interview you can see Tim Ellis is pivoting to talk about printing cars, airplanes etc., becoming the factory that can build anything. Hype factor 9 Mr Sulu, pass me the Koolaid.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 11/06/2019 02:07 pm
I think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fibre, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.
Producing CF tubes != producing a stage. After you've wrapped and cured your composite tube, you then need to produce the tank domes, produce and install the slosh baffles, mate the major tank components, install the endcaps, produce & install all the plumbing, cable trays, thrust structure, interstage adapter, etc. The advantage Relativity have is that the vast majority of that they can print as part of the tanks (e.g. downcomers, thrust structure, interstage, mount points, etc) and in an ideal world would perform final post-milling of mating surfaces, lay in the wiring harnesses, and bolt in the engines to have a stage ready.


As for SLM machines: no reason for them to re-invent the wheel when CoTS solutions exist. SpaceX did not invent their own SLM machines to print the SuperDracos after all (or ARJ invent their own for RL10C-X, or Rockelab for Rutherford, etc), it would just be flushing cash down the toilet for no reason.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 11/06/2019 03:34 pm
I think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.

Producing CF tubes != producing a stage. After you've wrapped and cured your composite tube, you then need to produce the tank domes, produce and install the slosh baffles, mate the major tank components, install the endcaps, produce & install all the plumbing, cable trays, thrust structure, interstage adapter, etc. The advantage Relativity have is that the vast majority of that they can print as part of the tanks (e.g. downcomers, thrust structure, interstage, mount points, etc) and in an ideal world would perform final post-milling of mating surfaces, lay in the wiring harnesses, and bolt in the engines to have a stage ready.

I don't think there is any advantage to those massive welding robots at all in the case of big tanks, it's a gimmick even compared to stir welding sheet aluminum. I am fairly certain those Rocket Lab carbon tanks take way less time than 60 days to produce, esp. if you add on that post-processing time for milling of the aluminum etc. Plus, as Tim Ellis states, each arm costs several hundred thousand dollars. That's an expensive way to build a tank if each tank takes 60 days you can only build 6 a year on one setup - and you need a second one to build the smaller tanks, and way more to scale up. No wonder they needed $185m....

Quote
As for SLM machines: no reason for them to re-invent the wheel when CoTS solutions exist. SpaceX did not invent their own SLM machines to print the SuperDracos after all (or ARJ invent their own for RL10C-X, or Rockelab for Rutherford, etc), it would just be flushing cash down the toilet for no reason.

Sure. I'm just pointing out there is nothing special or different about what they are doing there - everybody is using SLM or EOS or ARCAM or whatever to print engines today. Rocket Lab uses ARCAM machines by the way - I found that out in 2016:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1585101#msg1585101
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Tywin on 11/06/2019 04:02 pm
I think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.

Producing CF tubes != producing a stage. After you've wrapped and cured your composite tube, you then need to produce the tank domes, produce and install the slosh baffles, mate the major tank components, install the endcaps, produce & install all the plumbing, cable trays, thrust structure, interstage adapter, etc. The advantage Relativity have is that the vast majority of that they can print as part of the tanks (e.g. downcomers, thrust structure, interstage, mount points, etc) and in an ideal world would perform final post-milling of mating surfaces, lay in the wiring harnesses, and bolt in the engines to have a stage ready.

I don't think there is any advantage to those massive welding robots at all in the case of big tanks, it's a gimmick even compared to stir welding sheet aluminum. I am fairly certain those Rocket Lab carbon tanks take way less time than 60 days to produce, esp. if you add on that post-processing time for milling of the aluminum etc. Plus, as Tim Ellis states, each arm costs several hundred thousand dollars. That's an expensive way to build a tank if each tank takes 60 days you can only build 6 a year on one setup - and you need a second one to build the smaller tanks, and way more to scale up. No wonder they needed $185m....

Quote
As for SLM machines: no reason for them to re-invent the wheel when CoTS solutions exist. SpaceX did not invent their own SLM machines to print the SuperDracos after all (or ARJ invent their own for RL10C-X, or Rockelab for Rutherford, etc), it would just be flushing cash down the toilet for no reason.

Sure. I'm just pointing out there is nothing special or different about what they are doing there - everybody is using SLM or EOS or ARCAM or whatever to print engines today. Rocket Lab uses ARCAM machines by the way - I found that out in 2016:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1585101#msg1585101

If I don't remember bad, Spacex, used the machine of 3D Systems, for printing her Merlin Engine...

Do you know ringsider, which 3D printing companies are the best in the actuality for aerospace structures?

PD: Maybe is even good open a thread about this...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/06/2019 04:03 pm
Its not machine time to produce tanks but man hours to produce tanks. Carbon fibre is more labour intensive. With few print stations they could have multi tanks being printed at a time, may not need anybody supervising night shift if machines are reliable enough. With 10 stations they can produce vehicle every week.

I still think Relativity are under estimating the number staff they will need to build and launch rockets. As Peter Beck of RL said scaling up means finding and training skilled staff, not an easy thing, hence reuseability path.

The technology they are producing is more important and versatile than how they plan to use it. In end printers could be their main business with LV business as sideline.




Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/06/2019 04:06 pm
I think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.

Producing CF tubes != producing a stage. After you've wrapped and cured your composite tube, you then need to produce the tank domes, produce and install the slosh baffles, mate the major tank components, install the endcaps, produce & install all the plumbing, cable trays, thrust structure, interstage adapter, etc. The advantage Relativity have is that the vast majority of that they can print as part of the tanks (e.g. downcomers, thrust structure, interstage, mount points, etc) and in an ideal world would perform final post-milling of mating surfaces, lay in the wiring harnesses, and bolt in the engines to have a stage ready.

I don't think there is any advantage to those massive welding robots at all in the case of big tanks, it's a gimmick even compared to stir welding sheet aluminum. I am fairly certain those Rocket Lab carbon tanks take way less time than 60 days to produce, esp. if you add on that post-processing time for milling of the aluminum etc. Plus, as Tim Ellis states, each arm costs several hundred thousand dollars. That's an expensive way to build a tank if each tank takes 60 days you can only build 6 a year on one setup - and you need a second one to build the smaller tanks, and way more to scale up. No wonder they needed $185m....

Quote
As for SLM machines: no reason for them to re-invent the wheel when CoTS solutions exist. SpaceX did not invent their own SLM machines to print the SuperDracos after all (or ARJ invent their own for RL10C-X, or Rockelab for Rutherford, etc), it would just be flushing cash down the toilet for no reason.

Sure. I'm just pointing out there is nothing special or different about what they are doing there - everybody is using SLM or EOS or ARCAM or whatever to print engines today. Rocket Lab uses ARCAM machines by the way - I found that out in 2016:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1585101#msg1585101

If I don't remember bad, Spacex, used the machine of 3D Systems, for printing her Merlin Engine...

Do you know ringsider, which 3D printing companies are the best in the actuality for aerospace structures?

PD: Maybe is even good open a thread about this...
There are some 3d printing threads, been quiet of late. You could revive one of these instead of starting new one.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 11/06/2019 04:17 pm

Do you know ringsider, which 3D printing companies are the best in the actuality for aerospace structures?


I imagine all the big guys are about the same in terms of quality/ability.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 11/07/2019 03:33 pm
From the unique shape of the arm shroud and color, these may be ABB IRB 7600 robotic arms:

(https://i.imgur.com/Xa3LEfo.png)

Also I am not sure this has been seen on this forum before, but could be wrong:

(https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RR_OnPad.4k1_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/21/2020 10:56 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1230991324280606720

Quote
Good afternoon from Los Angeles - this is our Stage 2 Iron Bird, which will be the first additively manufactured tank to feed propellants to a rocket engine.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/22/2020 12:58 am
twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1230998736597217281

Quote
Is that a weld in the middle? Or what it looks like when Stargate repairs a print? Can't wait for the first WDR/static fire, regardless :D

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1231025739828350978

Quote
It’s the common dome feature... not a joint, still made as one piece
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 02/28/2020 02:54 pm
Looks like Relativity has announced an end to their search for a new building and are moving to... *drumroll* ...Long Beach! At the same industrial park as Virgin Orbit, SpinLaunch, and RocketLab.

If anyone wants the latest news, just grab a table at ST Noodle Bar at lunch, the Starbucks and Habit on Lakewood Blvd, Timeless Pints, or the Hanger restaurant collective thing.

Employees at these companies are going to be exchanging jobs like its a revolving door. They don't even have to change their commute or carpool.

Instagram Link (https://www.instagram.com/p/B9HW5n4p4xB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 03/03/2020 01:36 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/relativity-space-has-big-dreams-is-the-company-for-real/

Tons of new news. They have two new test facilities at NASA with the expansion to the E2 facility originally used for Raptor development. This is a pretty substantial footprint.

Larger fairing of 3m diameter was due to a new customer need back in fall, but now that means they need a slightly larger rocket too.

Aeon engine is now larger, 23k thrust vs 17k, and thus they switched to gas generator cycle and already been in testing. Launch still in 2021, but now fall.

Sounds like some big changes but also fast progress to react. I imagine this is one of the reasons 3D printing will be disruptive, next time it may be the market shifting out from everyone and being able to adapt is critical.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 03/03/2020 03:28 pm
Resizing the Aeon engine from 17k to 23k is a big effort. They've changed the cycle from dual expander to gas generator, presumably because the available heat in the regen channels isn't enough to support the turbines (engine power scales at the cube; available heat scales at the square). In the photos, you can see their DMLS-printed chamber has been swapped out with a slug of copper AKA a heat sink chamber. While the exhaust looks impressive, that's likely one of a few frames that they were able to get because these chambers can't run more than a few seconds before melting. Good enough to work on engine startup testing, but certainly a step back from a regen chamber.

Quote
The igniter turns on, initiating combustion of the methane fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer. After two seconds, the thrust chamber shuts down. The purposefully short test was a complete success.
It was purposefully short because it would melt if it were any longer.

Then there's the turbopumps, made by Barber Nichols (at least the original baselines). Unless they've substantially changed the combustion pressure, you can then assume that the propellant flow rate has also increased by 35%. In the pump, this means pushing your operating point way off-nominal (35% increased flow will crash your developed pressure). You can offset this by increasing chamber pressure and keeping the pump operating point near constant, but the required power has increased and you need to increase the shaft speed to make up for it. Turbopump speed can usually only be increased 5-10% before you start running into stress limits in the rotor.

So that means a new cycle, an added combustor (gas generator), new turbopumps, and a new chamber. This isn't a new "version": this is a new engine. While they can leverage lessons learned from Aeon-1, this "Aeon-2" will likely add at least a year to their design cycle (and making a 3Q2021 launch date laughable).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 03/03/2020 06:52 pm
It will be interesting to see what other customer announcements they have coming up. Since they said this redesign to a 3m fairing was for a customer, presumably there is enough demand and a large enough contract waiting that would justify the schedule impacts.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: novak on 03/05/2020 03:40 am
Good enough to work on engine startup testing, but certainly a step back from a regen chamber.

Quote
The igniter turns on, initiating combustion of the methane fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer. After two seconds, the thrust chamber shuts down. The purposefully short test was a complete success.
It was purposefully short because it would melt if it were any longer.
Usually, you see heatsink testing being done to refine an injector design.  Which probably means their previous thrust chambers looked impressive but weren't quite high enough performance.

So that means a new cycle, an added combustor (gas generator), new turbopumps, and a new chamber. This isn't a new "version": this is a new engine.

I haven't seen them start "an engine."  I've seen them start thrust chambers, pressure fed.  So I think they had to do all that anyway, and their schedule has never been that serious.  Going away from expander to GG is (in my opinion) still a good call because they've decoupled a lot of their system and made their engine much simpler to control.  At least they're thinking about development time.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Markstark on 03/06/2020 09:28 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1236025888589754368

zubenelgenubi: fixed link
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/07/2020 06:58 am
Very cool tank construction video

Quote
Did you know our Stargate printer has no fixed tooling? This is part of how we are reimagining 60 years of aerospace manufacturing #DYK

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1236025888589754368
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/09/2020 04:35 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1237067666227109896

Quote
Interesting detail from Relativity Space's #satshow keynote -- the company has completed more than 320 hot firings across 20 different engine iterations.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 03/10/2020 09:40 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1237067666227109896

Quote
Interesting detail from Relativity Space's #satshow keynote -- the company has completed more than 320 hot firings across 20 different engine iterations.

This sort of thing is what most excites me about Relativity; 3D printing allows them to be as or more interative than SpaceX, and without any of the... I'll call it "Elon Musk"-ness.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/10/2020 08:21 am
Quote
Relativity Space’s focus on 3D printing and cloud-based software helps it weather the COVID-19 storm
Darrell Etherington
@etherington / 7:49 pm BST • April 7, 2020

Just like in almost every other industry, there’s been a rash of layoffs among newer space startups and companies amid the novel coronavirus crisis. But Relativity Space has managed to avoid layoffs — and is even hiring, despite the global pandemic. Relativity CEO and founder Tim Ellis cites the company’s focus on large-scale 3D printing and its adoption of cloud-based tools and technologies as big reasons why his startup hasn’t felt the pinch.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/07/relativity-spaces-focus-on-3d-printing-and-cloud-based-software-helps-it-weather-the-covid-19-storm/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Blackjax on 04/22/2020 09:11 pm
A bit of an update on where they stand:

https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/154
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/23/2020 01:01 am
A bit of an update on where they stand:

https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/154
Not lot new for people following them. Did touch RLVs at end of podcast, Tim didn't quite give a definitive yes, but was positive about it. Seems like it is on their todo list after they are launching ELVs regularly.

Terrain 1 is small enough to do mid air recovery, whether it needs a reentry burn or not is another question. That burn may not need to be as long as F9R as its lighter LV . Unlike the Electron they do have little more payload margin to work with.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: GWH on 04/23/2020 07:49 pm
The really interesting thing in that podcast was where he discussed changing internal stiffeners of the rocket structure to suit the payload and its particular vibration frequency requirements.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: GWH on 05/08/2020 10:29 pm
A fairly short TechCrunch interview with Relativity. Some footage might be new, a really cool close up and slow motion video of the "printing" process which looks just like MIG welding.

https://twitter.com/TechCrunch/status/1258739291980730369
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/12/2020 01:28 pm
Quote
Space start-up Relativity verified its 3D printing process works to build a rocket
PUBLISHED TUE, MAY 12 2020 9:14 AM EDT
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Rocket builder Relativity Space, which is 3D-printing almost entire rockets, recently passed a key milestone as it moves closer to its first launch.

"It's a pretty big deal to show that the materials actually work and the manufacturing process actually works," Relativity CEO Tim Ellis told CNBC.

Additionally, the company's rocket development is still on track for its first launch in 2021, Ellis noted, despite the coronavirus pandemic that's begun causing delays within the space industry.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/12/relativity-space-verifies-3d-printing-works-to-build-its-rocket.html

Animated GIF attached
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/18/2020 11:18 pm
twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1262516614400020487

Quote
Some news: Relativity Space has hired Zach Dunn away from SpaceX. Dunn is an exceptionally hard worker who rose from an internship to lead production and launch at SpaceX. Story coming.

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1262524756831633409

Quote
Zach made a significant contribution to SpaceX & is a friend. I wish him well as he tries something new.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/19/2020 12:02 am
Here’s Eric’s article:

Quote
A senior engineer has left SpaceX to work for Relativity Space
Dunn played an important role in the history of SpaceX.

ERIC BERGER - 5/19/2020, 12:21 AM

Relativity Space, a California-based company pushing hard toward the inaugural flight of its Terran 1 rocket by the end of 2021, has hired a senior launch official from SpaceX. Zach Dunn, formerly Senior Vice President of Production and Launch at SpaceX, will become Vice President of Factory Development at Relativity.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/relativity-hires-spacexs-senior-vice-president-of-launch-zach-dunn/

Photo caption:

Quote
Zach Dunn with the Merlin engine that powered the successful fourth flight of the Falcon 1 rocket.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 05/21/2020 04:05 pm
Wow, this is a pretty insane hire, good for Relativity’s future prospects. Someone like Zach could have done just about anything he wanted to, and choosing to lead the 3D printing factory is a big sign of confidence the cost and engineering advantage could be real. It’s not just any leadership hire, from what I’ve heard he was the very top engineer and helped drive spacex through a ton of their hardest challenges from org to org.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 05/29/2020 07:14 pm
Came across plans for Relativity Launch Complex 16 which I thought might be of interest to followers of this thread.  Documents were submitted to the St Johns River Water Management District yesterday - they can be found here: https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674 (https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674)

I've attached a couple of plans showing the site location and layout.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 05/29/2020 07:30 pm
Came across plans for Relativity Launch Complex 16 which I thought might be of interest to followers of this thread.  Documents were submitted to the St Johns River Water Management District yesterday - they can be found here: https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674 (https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674)

I've attached a couple of plans showing the site location and layout.

So, are they building the launch complex with "zero human labor?"
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 06/01/2020 04:14 pm
I don’t think they’ve used that phrasing for a few years since this forum thread was started. Not the most politically correct phrasing for government to say you won’t hire people, their LinkedIn says over 150 people now.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ShawnGSE on 06/02/2020 08:55 pm
Came across plans for Relativity Launch Complex 16 which I thought might be of interest to followers of this thread.  Documents were submitted to the St Johns River Water Management District yesterday - they can be found here: https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674 (https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674)

I've attached a couple of plans showing the site location and layout.

So, are they building the launch complex with "zero human labor?"

While that's worth a giggle they are currently hiring for pad staff in FL.  They will operate much like SpaceX with a TE that lifts the rocket vertical at the pad.  Going to be a lot of work even at half the size.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 06/02/2020 09:22 pm
Came across plans for Relativity Launch Complex 16 which I thought might be of interest to followers of this thread.  Documents were submitted to the St Johns River Water Management District yesterday - they can be found here: https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674 (https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674)

I've attached a couple of plans showing the site location and layout.

So, are they building the launch complex with "zero human labor?"

While that's worth a giggle they are currently hiring for pad staff in FL.  They will operate much like SpaceX with a TE that lifts the rocket vertical at the pad.  Going to be a lot of work even at half the size.

One thing that most folks don't realize is this fairly simple truth: it takes the same number of people to launch  vehicle that places 100 kg in orbit, as one that places 100,000 kg into orbit.  And, to a first order, the same number of people to design either vehicle, as well.  Labor is 80% of the production and operational cost of a launch vehicle, so it is always better to go larger rather than smaller, when you can.  Up to the point where infrastructure gets in the way...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 06/02/2020 10:41 pm
Came across plans for Relativity Launch Complex 16 which I thought might be of interest to followers of this thread.  Documents were submitted to the St Johns River Water Management District yesterday - they can be found here: https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674 (https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=162674)

I've attached a couple of plans showing the site location and layout.

So, are they building the launch complex with "zero human labor?"

While that's worth a giggle they are currently hiring for pad staff in FL.  They will operate much like SpaceX with a TE that lifts the rocket vertical at the pad.  Going to be a lot of work even at half the size.

One thing that most folks don't realize is this fairly simple truth: it takes the same number of people to launch  vehicle that places 100 kg in orbit, as one that places 100,000 kg into orbit.  And, to a first order, the same number of people to design either vehicle, as well.  Labor is 80% of the production and operational cost of a launch vehicle, so it is always better to go larger rather than smaller, when you can.  Up to the point where infrastructure gets in the way...


The lower limit usually being about 2 people for solid rockets, at least for direct launch ops...

I remember an anecdote that the japanese Epsilon required 5 people for launch ops. For some ICBM TEL's it's 2-3 people. I suppose how much hand holding a payload needs probably starts to add to the number. What's a general lower bound for liquid fueled rockets?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 06/03/2020 07:09 pm
One thing that most folks don't realize is this fairly simple truth: it takes the same number of people to launch  vehicle that places 100 kg in orbit, as one that places 100,000 kg into orbit.  And, to a first order, the same number of people to design either vehicle, as well.  Labor is 80% of the production and operational cost of a launch vehicle, so it is always better to go larger rather than smaller, when you can.  Up to the point where infrastructure gets in the way...
Hold up, you changed subjects in the middle there. You started talking about fixed launch costs and design costs not changing much with rocket size. You then switched to talking about the overall cost of a rocket launch being 80% labor, now suddenly including production costs as well. For non reusable rockets the production cost is much more than the fixed launch costs (and design costs are divided by the total number of flights ever, so that has to do with price and ROI timescale, it is not a production or operational cost.) And at least for rockets with comparable build methodologies then the production cost will scale with rocket size.

Relativity is aiming for major reductions in the amount of labor required to build the rocket, since building the rocket is the driving cost for most rockets, and you just stated that most  of the build cost is labor, so that seems like a reasonable plan addressing the biggest cost driver

Fair enough.  Let's focus only on build costs, since they dominate the calculus (and also shows why reusables that don't require much refurbishment post-flight are game-changing).  I maintain that labor is by far and away the largest contributor to launch cost at "OldSpace" companies (as well as "NewSpace" firms that revel in high head counts).  But it is possible to reduce labor costs by properly managing a supply chain and exploiting a vendor's existing capability without vertically integrating one's development by fabricating your own structures.  I managed to build a prototype common bulkhead tank set almost exactly the same as Relativity's recent build in four months from design to delivery with one engineer on staff responsible for the work for around $300k.  Subsequent articles would have been half the price and half the time to delivery.  The vendor used custom tooling and two-four people to fab on a part-time basis.  It worked fine, was lightweight and functional and required no post-processing to be integrated into the stage assembly ready for testing. How is Relativity better than that?  They're solving a problem that doesn't exist and gullible investors haven't done their due diligence to realize that.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/03/2020 07:42 pm
I don't see how they are going dramatically reduce labour cost on build and compared to competitors. Everybody is 3d printing engines, still need same labour input to mount and plumb the engines, build and fix wiring harnesses, launch it.
Don't know if RL 3d print Electron tanks and fairings but they've automated machining.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/03/2020 08:14 pm
I don't see how they are going dramatically reduce labour cost on build and compared to competitors. Everybody is 3d printing engines, still need same labour input to mount and plumb the engines, build and fix wiring harnesses, launch it.
Don't know if RL 3d print Electron tanks and fairings but they've automated machining.

Rocket Lab's tanks and fairings are made of carbon fiber composite, they aren't metallic so they can't be 3D printed.

Various articles I've read give a number around 100x lower parts count for the Terran rocket than if it were made conventionally. Rockets normally have many tens of thousands of parts, Relativity says that Terran's parts count is less than one thousand. They achieve this by 3D printing a lot of sub-assemblies as one unit, IOW one of their components is often the equivalent of dozens of component parts in other rockets.

As you note, the entire industry is going in that direction with 3D printing of engine parts, but Relativity is going a step further and 3D printing a lot of the tank's structures as well. So all the tank's internal struts, mount points, etc. are already going to be part of the assembly, and will basically be ready to bolt together once completed. So consider how struts are installed, for example, at SpaceX. The Falcon 9 tank, once fabricated, needs the strut mount points welded in place. The struts then use bolts, nuts, and washers to be installed in the tank. That could be a dozen parts per strut, and there are something like a hundred struts in the Falcon 9, and all of those parts and all of that labor required to install them is eliminated for the Terran rocket.

So yeah they will have some plumbing and wiring work to do, along with assembling things that (as yet) can't be 3D printed as one unit, but it will be much less than if it were designed and built normally. They are targeting less than 60 days from raw material arriving into the factory to completed rocket shipped out.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/03/2020 08:43 pm
*snip*
I managed to build a prototype common bulkhead tank set almost exactly the same as Relativity's recent build in four months from design to delivery with one engineer on staff responsible for the work for around $300k.  Subsequent articles would have been half the price and half the time to delivery.  The vendor used custom tooling and two-four people to fab on a part-time basis.  It worked fine, was lightweight and functional and required no post-processing to be integrated into the stage assembly ready for testing. How is Relativity better than that?  They're solving a problem that doesn't exist and gullible investors haven't done their due diligence to realize that.

Relativity would eliminate the vendor, the custom tooling, and the 2-4 people needed to fabricate the assembly. Ideally, they would incorporate the bulkhead assembly into the tank itself during the 3d print.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 06/03/2020 10:01 pm
... design costs are divided by the total number of flights ever, so that has to do with price and ROI timescale...

This is not the correct way to think about this. Many do, but they are wrong.

Even if we accept that it is the right way it's still an awful method because nobody knows the denominator of the equation (R&D costs/lifetime # flights) until the final flight is flown, at which point you could be positively or negatively surprised.

Here's an exercise: how much of Falcon 9's R&D cost is recovered on every flight, do you think? What's the number SpaceX uses? $1m? $5m? $20m? More? Less? Put a figure on it.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: meberbs on 06/03/2020 11:05 pm
... design costs are divided by the total number of flights ever, so that has to do with price and ROI timescale...

This is not the correct way to think about this. Many do, but they are wrong.

Even if we accept that it is the right way it's still an awful method because nobody knows the denominator of the equation (R&D costs/lifetime # flights) until the final flight is flown, at which point you could be positively or negatively surprised.

Here's an exercise: how much of Falcon 9's R&D cost is recovered on every flight, do you think? What's the number SpaceX uses? $1m? $5m? $20m? More? Less? Put a figure on it.
You appear to have entirely missed the point of my post. As I said, accounting for development costs has to do with ROI timescale, but the exact assumptions and way you account for ROI is not something I attempted to describe because it is irrelevant. The point in the context that you left out was that HMXHMX bringing up development costs was not actually relevant to the final point he made which was that the majority of launch costs typically are labor involved in building the rocket. In context I was just briefly mentioning the development costs to point out that he changed subject from development costs to instead talk about total per launch costs, in a sense that excludes the development costs, so his original mention of development costs simply did not apply to what he said at the end.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 06/04/2020 07:03 am
The way VC works, development costs are sunk costs and the value of the business has more to do with discounted future cash flows. Relativity’s printing tech, if it works as they say, would greatly lower labor costs for all future rockets (and anything else they choose to print) meaning the discounted future value of the company is already large in theory, just not proven yet. Development costs themselves do not matter as long as investors are willing to fund them at increasing valuations with an eye toward taking a slice of those very lucrative future cash flows while they hit proof points.

Also talked about less, but 3d printing is such a nascent technology still in its early days of possibility. Traditional manufacturing has largely been honed over 50-100+ years and is already so refined that it’s not going to grow as quickly in progress as printing. Terran 1 as a first version doesn’t have to be light years better itself. Printing will get far faster and cheaper over time, and if Relativity is at this forefront for rockets then it will be positioned to keep compounding upon its success more quickly than others. It’s a new paradigm, and since businesses are valued on this future potential that’s why investors are buying into it. Doesn’t hurt that several sophisticated customers, the US government, and a pretty impressively experienced team all agree there’s potential here enough to join. This is similar to why Tesla is worth what it is, or really any tech company - the future is electric/software/robotics/etc, and these companies are building that future.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 06/04/2020 11:47 am
The actual assembly is only part of the question, there's also test and inspection which can also be automated. Here 3D printing has the nice advantage that you can nondestructively inspect the entire cross-section of the product in the manner you could normally only achieve with a destructive slice. e.g. you can verify dimensionality as material is laid down rather than after-the-fact with laser probing, you can detect porosity and inclusions during material laydown rather than after the fact with X-ray or ultrasonic testing, etc. You can do this in real-time and catch defects at moment of manufacture, either rejecting a part before even needing to complete manufacture or potentially repairing the defect in place.
Most of Relativity's work is not going to be in the additive manufacture process itself (while direct metal deposition is not quite trivial, it's not novel or unique either) but in the test and verification during manufacture and the backend modelling that allows for design and simulation. This is mature in subtractive manufacturing, but much less so when it comes to additive manufacture and often 'bodged on' (e.g. taking an AM part and subjecting it to the same testing regime you would a milled part).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 06/12/2020 02:49 am
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1271175937309020160?s=21
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: meberbs on 06/15/2020 03:47 pm
Fair enough.  Let's focus only on build costs, since they dominate the calculus (and also shows why reusables that don't require much refurbishment post-flight are game-changing).  I maintain that labor is by far and away the largest contributor to launch cost at "OldSpace" companies (as well as "NewSpace" firms that revel in high head counts).
...
They're solving a problem that doesn't exist and gullible investors haven't done their due diligence to realize that.
These statements from you are contradictory. The first one states the exact problem that they are trying to solve, high labor costs for building rockets.

And no, your anecdote does not demonstrate this problem being solved. Actual rocket stages that fly, even from companies that focused on massively reducing production cost, still cost millions of dollars. Your statement about "subsequent articles would have been" implies that this was abandoned for some reason and will never fly, there are dozens of launch startups that think they have a better way, flying is what will ultimately prove whether their plans work or not. Relativity is at least still progressing towards flight.

As we both agree, re-use is a proven way to address this problem, but that doesn't necessarily exclude other solutions, especially ones that don't necessarily conflict with reuse.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/16/2020 06:00 pm
Fair enough.  Let's focus only on build costs, since they dominate the calculus (and also shows why reusables that don't require much refurbishment post-flight are game-changing).  I maintain that labor is by far and away the largest contributor to launch cost at "OldSpace" companies (as well as "NewSpace" firms that revel in high head counts).
...
They're solving a problem that doesn't exist and gullible investors haven't done their due diligence to realize that.
These statements from you are contradictory. The first one states the exact problem that they are trying to solve, high labor costs for building rockets.
They actually don't.

His point is twofold.
1) The bulk of costs for LV's in design and mfg are staff costs.
2) Those staff costs are not an inherent law-of-nature, they are determined by management choices, and better management choices can substantially reduce them to the point where the supposed benefits of no human labor" are eliminated.

OTOH
Integrated in  house mfg means you can tweak designs continuously should you run into a "unknown unknown."
But you are left carrying a lot of staff once the design is complete.
Unitised (as NASA used to describe it) eliminates joints and hence either weak points or points where you have to add extra metal (colloquially "doublers"). So instead of welding pipes onto tank ends make the tank ends thick enough (power spinning or casting) and machine those parts from solid.

but unitised construction could be sub contracted out anyway to delivery most (all) of the benefits of fully automated construction.

This raises the question are ELV's Relativity's end game or is this merely a means to fund their version of a "Christmas machine" or as nanotechologiests put it a "universal assembler."

 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: meberbs on 06/16/2020 06:29 pm
They actually don't.

His point is twofold.
1) The bulk of costs for LV's in design and mfg are staff costs.
2) Those staff costs are not an inherent law-of-nature, they are determined by management choices, and better management choices can substantially reduce them to the point where the supposed benefits of no human labor" are eliminated.
He quite clearly agreed with me about focusing on build costs not development costs. If management insists on keeping pure design engineers around during production at the same level as initial development, without them working on future projects, that is purely bad management that is simply not what is relevant here.

What is relevant is the cost of the people actually required to perform the build, technicians, test techs, engineers to review data, etc. (This includes their full labor rate which includes management overhead proportioned out, but not the costs of people working other projects.) That is the bulk of the cost based on what HMXHMX said, and I agree.

It seems clear that Relativity is attempting to reduce these costs with 3D printing, since they can have fewer parts, less integration, more optimal design in certain ways, and it also changes test needs with the ability to observe things during the print (Again something Relativity believes will result in less work.)

I don't know if this will ultimately work, but considering the resumes of some of their team members, I expect at least a relatively reasonable chance of success.

(Not replying to the rest of your post, because I don't have any particular disagreement with it or anything relevant to add.)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/16/2020 09:13 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1272997520881393666

Quote
Here’s a sneak peek at what’s going on at our Long Beach HQ. The lifts for #Templar have been successfully installed. Once the robots are mounted, they will print, machine, and inspect parts for Terran 1. We’re getting closer and closer to finishing our #factoryofthefuture.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 06/24/2020 03:12 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/24/2020 07:41 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.
The Iridium contract is for spare satellites which will only be launched if needed, so not a launch they can bank on. Given reliability of current satellites, these may not be needed for +10yrs.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 06/24/2020 11:37 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.
The Iridium contract is for spare satellites which will only be launched if needed, so not a launch they can bank on. Given reliability of current satellites, these may not be needed for +10yrs.

Still, that they were selected instead of RocketLab for ground spare emergency replacement standby launch services is interesting.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/24/2020 11:41 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.
The Iridium contract is for spare satellites which will only be launched if needed, so not a launch they can bank on. Given reliability of current satellites, these may not be needed for +10yrs.

Still, that they were selected instead of RocketLab for ground spare emergency replacement standby launch services is interesting.

Given that each satellite masses 860 kg, that isn't really surprising.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/25/2020 06:25 pm
https://youtu.be/zeQTrWU1RlU

Quote
Bloomberg QuickTake Originals

California-based startup Relativity Space is manufacturing rockets using giant Westworld-esque 3D printers, a process they say could drastically shorten the rocket-making process from years to weeks. Tim Ellis, the company’s 30-year-old CEO, explains how the high degree of automation in Relativity’s factory has enabled them to build rockets remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic.

#Coronavirus #Space #HelloWorld
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 06/25/2020 10:55 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.
The Iridium contract is for spare satellites which will only be launched if needed, so not a launch they can bank on. Given reliability of current satellites, these may not be needed for +10yrs.

Still, that they were selected instead of RocketLab for ground spare emergency replacement standby launch services is interesting.

Given that each satellite masses 860 kg, that isn't really surprising.

oops, forgot Iridium NEXT is still one of the "big" boys...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/26/2020 08:04 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.
I wonder why they could not use SLC 8, which is not far from the building mentioned.  Perhaps SLC 8 is reserved for mostly-solid motor rockets?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jstrotha0975 on 06/26/2020 08:55 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.
I wonder why they could not use SLC 8, which is not far from the building mentioned.  Perhaps SLC 8 is reserved for mostly-solid motor rockets?

 - Ed Kyle

Minotaur rockets are still in service, though it rarely launches.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 06/26/2020 09:02 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.
I wonder why they could not use SLC 8, which is not far from the building mentioned.  Perhaps SLC 8 is reserved for mostly-solid motor rockets?

 - Ed Kyle

Minotaur rockets are still in service, though it rarely launches.
SLC-8 resumes launches in 2021 starting with a Minotaur-IV Lite. SLC-8 Is presently being converted to a multiple user SLC, similar to what is/will become available at all other Minotaur launch complexes such as the recently renovated SLC-46.

Other users cannot have permanent infrastructure and must be mobile.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/10/2020 04:21 pm
One thing that most folks don't realize is this fairly simple truth: it takes the same number of people to launch  vehicle that places 100 kg in orbit, as one that places 100,000 kg into orbit.  And, to a first order, the same number of people to design either vehicle, as well.  Labor is 80% of the production and operational cost of a launch vehicle, so it is always better to go larger rather than smaller, when you can.  Up to the point where infrastructure gets in the way...
Hold up, you changed subjects in the middle there. You started talking about fixed launch costs and design costs not changing much with rocket size. You then switched to talking about the overall cost of a rocket launch being 80% labor, now suddenly including production costs as well. For non reusable rockets the production cost is much more than the fixed launch costs (and design costs are divided by the total number of flights ever, so that has to do with price and ROI timescale, it is not a production or operational cost.) And at least for rockets with comparable build methodologies then the production cost will scale with rocket size.

Relativity is aiming for major reductions in the amount of labor required to build the rocket, since building the rocket is the driving cost for most rockets, and you just stated that most  of the build cost is labor, so that seems like a reasonable plan addressing the biggest cost driver

Fair enough.  Let's focus only on build costs, since they dominate the calculus (and also shows why reusables that don't require much refurbishment post-flight are game-changing).  I maintain that labor is by far and away the largest contributor to launch cost at "OldSpace" companies (as well as "NewSpace" firms that revel in high head counts).  But it is possible to reduce labor costs by properly managing a supply chain and exploiting a vendor's existing capability without vertically integrating one's development by fabricating your own structures.  I managed to build a prototype common bulkhead tank set almost exactly the same as Relativity's recent build in four months from design to delivery with one engineer on staff responsible for the work for around $300k.  Subsequent articles would have been half the price and half the time to delivery.  The vendor used custom tooling and two-four people to fab on a part-time basis.  It worked fine, was lightweight and functional and required no post-processing to be integrated into the stage assembly ready for testing. How is Relativity better than that?  They're solving a problem that doesn't exist and gullible investors haven't done their due diligence to realize that.
Have to say I agree.

And 3D printing the tanks in the way Relatively is doing is unlikely to be superior technically, either. It's extremely hard to make certifiable aerospace structures using 3D printing, particularly large structural tanks like this. And these structures *want* to be thin-gauge which is exactly what welder-on-a-robot-arm type 3D printing machines do *not* want to make.

By certifiable I mean provably absent of defects OR with a known defect distribution and an objectively appropriate knockdown factor. Using plate or sheet from a foundry is just a far easier start for this kind of defect. The manufacturing process involved in making plate or sheet has large sheering stresses which disrupt oxide layers and heal any voids. Consistent, high-quality material with controlled grain flow is just much easier to ensure. You can also produce a LOT of certifiable quality metal stock in this way versus welding/3Dprinting. And the surface finish is going to automatically be better than the result from 3D printing, and surface finish has a huge impact on material strength.

Relativity doubtless does a LOT of post-processing (perhaps done in-situ) to improve surface quality. I don't know of they do shotpeening or maybe use rollers or whatever. But it is a big band-aid just to approach the surface finish you already get using stock plate or sheet.

and again, there are serious minimum-gauge problems you get with try to use 3D printing, especially of the wire-feed kind. Blown powder is also feasible for smaller gauges, but less efficient as producing good powder is energy-intensive and expensive by itself and a lot of the powder is lost in the process. And that STILL has minimum-gauge issues.

So yeah, I think even on a technical level, the tanks Relativity produces are going to require a ton of work to equal the quality of tanks made with other processes, and due to minimum-gauge issues and difficulty in removing defects in the material, probably will be significantly heavier (or they'll have to operate at a higher ullage pressure to make the thicker walls worthwhile... same effect as being heavier).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/10/2020 04:23 pm
I don't recall if this was posted yet, LC-16 draft environmental assessment from April.
https://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/2%20Draft%20EA%20Relativity%20LC16%20Public%20Release.pdf
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 07/15/2020 04:49 pm
One thing that most folks don't realize is this fairly simple truth: it takes the same number of people to launch  vehicle that places 100 kg in orbit, as one that places 100,000 kg into orbit.  And, to a first order, the same number of people to design either vehicle, as well.  Labor is 80% of the production and operational cost of a launch vehicle, so it is always better to go larger rather than smaller, when you can.  Up to the point where infrastructure gets in the way...
Hold up, you changed subjects in the middle there. You started talking about fixed launch costs and design costs not changing much with rocket size. You then switched to talking about the overall cost of a rocket launch being 80% labor, now suddenly including production costs as well. For non reusable rockets the production cost is much more than the fixed launch costs (and design costs are divided by the total number of flights ever, so that has to do with price and ROI timescale, it is not a production or operational cost.) And at least for rockets with comparable build methodologies then the production cost will scale with rocket size.

Relativity is aiming for major reductions in the amount of labor required to build the rocket, since building the rocket is the driving cost for most rockets, and you just stated that most  of the build cost is labor, so that seems like a reasonable plan addressing the biggest cost driver

Fair enough.  Let's focus only on build costs, since they dominate the calculus (and also shows why reusables that don't require much refurbishment post-flight are game-changing).  I maintain that labor is by far and away the largest contributor to launch cost at "OldSpace" companies (as well as "NewSpace" firms that revel in high head counts).  But it is possible to reduce labor costs by properly managing a supply chain and exploiting a vendor's existing capability without vertically integrating one's development by fabricating your own structures.  I managed to build a prototype common bulkhead tank set almost exactly the same as Relativity's recent build in four months from design to delivery with one engineer on staff responsible for the work for around $300k.  Subsequent articles would have been half the price and half the time to delivery.  The vendor used custom tooling and two-four people to fab on a part-time basis.  It worked fine, was lightweight and functional and required no post-processing to be integrated into the stage assembly ready for testing. How is Relativity better than that?  They're solving a problem that doesn't exist and gullible investors haven't done their due diligence to realize that.
Have to say I agree.

And 3D printing the tanks in the way Relatively is doing is unlikely to be superior technically, either. It's extremely hard to make certifiable aerospace structures using 3D printing, particularly large structural tanks like this. And these structures *want* to be thin-gauge which is exactly what welder-on-a-robot-arm type 3D printing machines do *not* want to make.

By certifiable I mean provably absent of defects OR with a known defect distribution and an objectively appropriate knockdown factor. Using plate or sheet from a foundry is just a far easier start for this kind of defect. The manufacturing process involved in making plate or sheet has large sheering stresses which disrupt oxide layers and heal any voids. Consistent, high-quality material with controlled grain flow is just much easier to ensure. You can also produce a LOT of certifiable quality metal stock in this way versus welding/3Dprinting. And the surface finish is going to automatically be better than the result from 3D printing, and surface finish has a huge impact on material strength.

Relativity doubtless does a LOT of post-processing (perhaps done in-situ) to improve surface quality. I don't know of they do shotpeening or maybe use rollers or whatever. But it is a big band-aid just to approach the surface finish you already get using stock plate or sheet.

and again, there are serious minimum-gauge problems you get with try to use 3D printing, especially of the wire-feed kind. Blown powder is also feasible for smaller gauges, but less efficient as producing good powder is energy-intensive and expensive by itself and a lot of the powder is lost in the process. And that STILL has minimum-gauge issues.

So yeah, I think even on a technical level, the tanks Relativity produces are going to require a ton of work to equal the quality of tanks made with other processes, and due to minimum-gauge issues and difficulty in removing defects in the material, probably will be significantly heavier (or they'll have to operate at a higher ullage pressure to make the thicker walls worthwhile... same effect as being heavier).
On inspection: this is one area where additive manufacturing has a (potential) distinct advantage over subtractive: you can continuously monitor material as it is deposited right the way through the cross-section of your part. Voids and inclusions don't need to be detected via NDT after manufacture, you can literally see them as the material is laid down. This also goes for monitoring of dimensionality: thin-wall part thickness (or any other dimension) can be logged throughout the entire part volume, even for areas that would be inaccessible after the part is completed (e.g. imagine trying the measure the thickness of a baffle fin within a nearly sealed container, where you have to manoeuvre along a 10m stretch  and around 20 other fins to get to the last one).

For just making a tank to integrate traditionally, it is rather using a hammer to drive a screw. But once you start to integrate things into the tank at manufacture time (e.g. thrust structure, ullage features, internal plumbing, pressurant tanks, RCS mounts and plumbing, payload adapter, etc) with a process that is completing QA on the final assembly as it completes manufacturing of the final assembly, you have an interesting route to total production time reduction and cost saving.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: anof on 07/15/2020 05:47 pm
I remember hearing in a couple podcasts from the executives of Relativity saying that one of the main things they work on is automated inspection as the part is being printed. That seems to be one of the hardest tasks of printing the rocket body. If they have come up with a good solution it could be very useful for other industries.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 07/18/2020 02:44 am
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tim-ellis-11167172_relativity-space-appoints-caryn-schenewerk-activity-6689235950872199168-IrRH

Man, they sure keep sucking the top talent out of SpaceX. VP of Sales was already former head government sales person there, now hired one of their longtime top lobbyists. Bodes well for future government business.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 08/24/2020 08:07 am
Relativity have been given the 'go ahead' to start construction and there seems to be movement at SLC-16 https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&permitNumber=163512

Imagery from Sentinel-2 taken at 2020-08-23 16:05:33 UTC.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 08/30/2020 05:28 am
Imagery from Sentinel-2 taken @ 2020-08-28 16:05:34 UTC shows what looks like more land cleared, most notably for their hanger.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/30/2020 05:38 am
https://twitter.com/gregwautry/status/1299825317146746880

Quote
Had a great visit to @relativityspace test site and 200k sq. ft. future factory at @NASAStennis. Thanks @thetimellis for showing me around & congrats on successful engine testing!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 09/09/2020 06:34 pm
Looks like Relativity's CTO Jordan Noone is leaving transitioning to Executive Advisor while he transitions to his next project.

Losing one of your key founders prior to first launch doesn't look good. He was involved with the company for 4 years and 9 months (not an uncommon tenure for employees in this industry, but I'd expect substantially longer for a founder).

Quote from: LinkedIn
Relativity Space has been the dream of a lifetime. Yesterday I began a transition from CTO to Executive Advisor in preparation for starting my next venture. As a first-time founder, I am so lucky and grateful to have been surrounded by the industry’s best and brightest to build this incredible organization with Tim Ellis for the past five years. It's with great confidence that I transition the helm to Tim and the entire Relativity team to keep moving our mission forward to launch the world’s first 3D printed rocket into orbit. I’m looking forward to continuing to support Relativity as I move forth onto new adventures. I will share more details at a later date.
- Trust and investment from the world’s best partners, including BOND, Tribe Capital, Playground Global, Social Capital LP, Y Combinator, Mark Cuban.
- Built an unparalleled team of nearly 200
- Invented the world’s largest metal 3D printers, Stargate, and increased size and capability over four generations
- Began printing our flight stages
- Developed world-class test sites with hundreds of successful tests, including our Aeon 1 engine, at NASA Stennis.
- Built the world’s first 3D factory for aerospace in Long Beach
- Two launch sites in work
- And being on track to launch the world’s first 3D printed rocket
Source: LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jordan-noone_relativity-space-has-been-the-dream-of-a-activity-6709517977311694848-Yv4Z)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 09/09/2020 08:30 pm
Looks like Relativity's CTO Jordan Noone is leaving transitioning to Executive Advisor while he transitions to his next project.

Losing one of your key founders prior to first launch doesn't look good. He was involved with the company for 4 years and 9 months (not an uncommon tenure for employees in this industry, but I'd expect substantially longer for a founder).

Quote from: LinkedIn
Relativity Space has been the dream of a lifetime. Yesterday I began a transition from CTO to Executive Advisor in preparation for starting my next venture. As a first-time founder, I am so lucky and grateful to have been surrounded by the industry’s best and brightest to build this incredible organization with Tim Ellis for the past five years. It's with great confidence that I transition the helm to Tim and the entire Relativity team to keep moving our mission forward to launch the world’s first 3D printed rocket into orbit. I’m looking forward to continuing to support Relativity as I move forth onto new adventures. I will share more details at a later date.
- Trust and investment from the world’s best partners, including BOND, Tribe Capital, Playground Global, Social Capital LP, Y Combinator, Mark Cuban.
- Built an unparalleled team of nearly 200
- Invented the world’s largest metal 3D printers, Stargate, and increased size and capability over four generations
- Began printing our flight stages
- Developed world-class test sites with hundreds of successful tests, including our Aeon 1 engine, at NASA Stennis.
- Built the world’s first 3D factory for aerospace in Long Beach
- Two launch sites in work
- And being on track to launch the world’s first 3D printed rocket
Source: LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jordan-noone_relativity-space-has-been-the-dream-of-a-activity-6709517977311694848-Yv4Z)

It sounds like this is a relatively (... pun not intended, I swear) positive and amicable "departure" though. I don't think I'm too worried about this.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 09/09/2020 09:19 pm
It sounds like this is a relatively (... pun not intended, I swear) positive and amicable "departure" though. I don't think I'm too worried about this.

Oh certainly. I wouldn't say it's a red flag, more of a yellow flag. If it wasn't amicable I'd be wondering what type of stuff went down which would be indicative of an impending fissure. Instead, my thoughts are more along the lines of: is being CTO at Relativity no longer an exciting prospect that makes him excited to come to work? The final push is coming around the corner and he didn't want to stick around to be there when it happens?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 09/09/2020 11:14 pm
Definitely a possibility, would concur. But at least looking at other startups that have grown quickly, this is not uncommon at all. Lots of differences between being buddies in a garage and now having the pressure of hundreds of millions of dollars of VC money, customers, USAF, etc. and some people just don’t want that vs the earlier formational stages.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 09/10/2020 10:44 am
Or alternatively: Relativity see potential for their large-volume metal fab technology (and potentially more important, QC-as-you-fab technology) outside of rocket bodies and engines, and intend to spin out that arm as a separate company, with one founder taking over operations of the spinoff. Though I'd expect that to be announced all at the same time if so.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 09/10/2020 11:16 am
Definitely a possibility, would concur. But at least looking at other startups that have grown quickly, this is not uncommon at all. Lots of differences between being buddies in a garage and now having the pressure of hundreds of millions of dollars of VC money, customers, USAF, etc. and some people just don’t want that vs the earlier formational stages.
Noone graduated in 2014, did 2 years at SpaceX - some months as an intern - then became CTO of Relativity at the startup.

He's done well to stay there that long; I suspect he was starting to struggle to maintain credibility when he has some seriously experienced players like Dunn and Giger from SpaceX under him. Maybe some people haven't noticed that they reset the propulsion program a few months back?

I would not be surprised if he was... eh... invited to explore exciting new opportunities.... With all the money at play now and that tech team you need an A player in that role.

To me all the back slapping is just careful PR management.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 09/10/2020 02:07 pm
Maybe some people haven't noticed that they reset the propulsion program a few months back?


Could you clarify by what you mean by that?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 09/10/2020 03:28 pm
They updated the engine from 17,000 pound thrust to 23,000 and at the same time added a gas generator to run the turbines. This was when they increased the payload fairing dimensions to be much larger and needed to lift more.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 09/10/2020 03:35 pm
They updated the engine from 17,000 pound thrust to 23,000 and at the same time added a gas generator to run the turbines. This was when they increased the payload fairing dimensions to be much larger and needed to lift more.

Ah, did not notice that. I figured the chamber needed to be A LOT longer for the expander cycle to work, especially for a non vacuum engine and using a nickel based alloy for the chamber liner material. May be the mass was just too big for the chamber for when the engine cycle balances, and they might had to look into bimetal AM as well to get a material with a higher conductivity as the liner (like chromium zirconium copper)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/10/2020 05:22 pm
Or alternatively: Relativity see potential for their large-volume metal fab technology (and potentially more important, QC-as-you-fab technology) outside of rocket bodies and engines, and intend to spin out that arm as a separate company, with one founder taking over operations of the spinoff. Though I'd expect that to be announced all at the same time if so.

To me, that theory seems entirely inconsistent with an announcement that someone is transitioning out of their role at a company.  A company would never make a big announcement that makes it sound like someone is leaving if they're secretly going to be staying with a spin-off of the company.  It just wouldn't happen.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 09/10/2020 05:51 pm
They updated the engine from 17,000 pound thrust to 23,000 and at the same time added a gas generator to run the turbines. This was when they increased the payload fairing dimensions to be much larger and needed to lift more.

I actually hadn't noticed that. Honestly it's not even a change to the engine, it's just a new engine. That's a pretty drastic change to make this far into development.

Let's take a moment and put this into context with their two most obvious competitors, Firefly Aerospace and ABL Space Systems.

Firefly's design hasn't changed in years now, and they are planning to launch in the next few months.

Despite being founded two years after Relativity, ABL is also planning for a launch next year, and avoided this problem altogether by going with the simplest possible design from the beginning.

Relativity recently changed the most fundamental aspect of their engine design, after thousands of hours of testing of the old engine design over years, and (last I saw) still claim they will be launching next year.

Hey, maybe this'll prove that 3D printing your engine decreases iteration time so much that it's possible to design and thoroughly test a new one in only a year. I'm skeptical though.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 09/10/2020 06:18 pm
I actually hadn't noticed that. Honestly it's not even a change to the engine, it's just a new engine. That's a pretty drastic change to make this far into development.

Indeed. As I said, a reset. It was first mooted in the big interview with Eric Berger earlier this year:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/relativity-space-has-big-dreams-is-the-company-for-real/

Quote
Relativity recently changed the most fundamental aspect of their engine design, after thousands of hours of testing of the old engine design over years, and (last I saw) still claim they will be launching next year.

Precisely.

I think that slipped by most observers.

There are other symptoms if you look closely and read carefully. Just look at the number of days it takes to print a Stage 2 tank....

If you are the CTO and these things have to be corrected by experienced new hires it has to lead to... discussions.

But the real issue might be one deck higher.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 09/10/2020 06:40 pm
If you are the CTO and these things have to be corrected by experienced new hires it has to lead to... discussions.

But the real issue might be one deck higher.

I mean alternatively, maybe the switch to gas generator and increase in performance is something the SpaceX new hires with experience on the Merlin were pushing for, and if Noone had stuck to his guns they'd still be using the old design and he'd still be CTO.

I could come up with 10 more possibilities, but my actual point is that it's hard to judge any personnel problems an organization might have from the outside. I think we're better off acknowledging the personnel changes, and only reading into the technical problems.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 09/11/2020 05:29 am
At least worth pointing out, from the time they announced upgrading the engine (shortly after a $140m funding round) they signed a contract for a half dozen Iridium launches, announced a launch site at Vandenberg, and hired a very impressive top engineer in Zach Dunn and US Govt leader from spacex too. I imagine all of these people have more insight to where the tech is really at
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 09/11/2020 11:16 am
It may have just been changing tradeoffs: from "we don't have the funds or experience to develop a GG engine as our first engine, and we're targeting a smaller launcher" to "we have cash, we have a bunch of new hires with experience with GG engines, and the launch market appears to be aiming for larger payloads, so we can start developing now. Do we even need the old design now?".
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: novak on 09/12/2020 06:14 am
It may have just been changing tradeoffs: from "we don't have the funds or experience to develop a GG engine as our first engine, and we're targeting a smaller launcher" to "we have cash, we have a bunch of new hires with experience with GG engines, and the launch market appears to be aiming for larger payloads, so we can start developing now. Do we even need the old design now?".

A GG engine is much simpler than an autogenous press expander cycle mathematically, it's the difference between open and closed cycle.  So I think it's the opposite: realism sinking in instead of early optimization, and building a better, simpler, engine to get the job done.  Maybe a setback, but a rational engineering decision, corresponding to the talent they've attracted.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 09/12/2020 06:16 am
Initially they were doing open cycle expander not closed, but still true GG likely easier especially as thrust increases.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: novak on 09/12/2020 06:28 am
Initially they were doing open cycle expander not closed, but still true GG likely easier especially as thrust increases.

Open expander cycle with autogenous press still has the difficulty of a closed cycle engine in many ways.  Depends on the valves but any cycle based on the integrated heat into the rocket nozzle is highly complex.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/12/2020 09:58 pm


Initially they were doing open cycle expander not closed, but still true GG likely easier especially as thrust increases.

Open expander cycle with autogenous press still has the difficulty of a closed cycle engine in many ways.  Depends on the valves but any cycle based on the integrated heat into the rocket nozzle is highly complex.

Keep it simple and start with He tank pressure system, upgrade to autogenous in future when flying regularly.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 09/30/2020 10:31 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1311347723426246656?s=20

Relativity published a new video today. Some closeup shots of the turbopump and chamber, and then a lot of shots of the same hotfires from different angles.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 09/30/2020 10:38 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1311347723426246656?s=20

Relativity published a new video today. Some closeup shots of the turbopump and chamber, and then a lot of shots of the same hotfires from different angles.

LOL at the spinning fitting at 8 sec.

Looks like they might only have a LOX turbopump on those hot fires. The fuel is coming from way out of the way.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 10/08/2020 09:52 pm
New article on Relativity from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/07/inside-relativity-space-hq-3d-printer-rocket-factory-of-the-future.html

Overall the text seems large common with everything else we've seen before. The only thing that stuck out to me is an updated photo of the enclosures they're putting each printer inside and a nice glamor shot of their new lobby.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 10/09/2020 11:56 am
Question for the Relativity guys: how many pieces of furniture in that lobby were self-printed?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 10/10/2020 12:35 am
I was going to ask if they were moving in right next door to Virgin Orbit, Spin Launch, and Rocket Lab (all of which are now almost next-door neighbors on Conant Street, just north of the Long Beach airport). The architecture and size seemed similar. But apparently Relativity's new facility is on the south side of the airport. Still pretty cool. Last time I visited them, they were spread out across a bunch of smaller buildings over by LAX. This should be a lot more convenient for them.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/10/2020 07:39 am
A GG engine is much simpler than an autogenous press expander cycle mathematically, it's the difference between open and closed cycle.  So I think it's the opposite: realism sinking in instead of early optimization, and building a better, simpler, engine to get the job done.  Maybe a setback, but a rational engineering decision, corresponding to the talent they've attracted.
Yes, you wonder how ever did P&W manage to do it in the early 60's.

6 decades later I'd guess things have gotten a bit easier.

I'd say when it comes to complexity staged flow combustion, were everything is tightly coupled  would be the hardest challenge. The SSME retrospective series offers a rich set of object lessons in some of the pitfalls you can expect.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: novak on 10/12/2020 07:35 am
A GG engine is much simpler than an autogenous press expander cycle mathematically, it's the difference between open and closed cycle.  So I think it's the opposite: realism sinking in instead of early optimization, and building a better, simpler, engine to get the job done.  Maybe a setback, but a rational engineering decision, corresponding to the talent they've attracted.
Yes, you wonder how ever did P&W manage to do it in the early 60's.

6 decades later I'd guess things have gotten a bit easier.

I'd say when it comes to complexity staged flow combustion, were everything is tightly coupled  would be the hardest challenge. The SSME retrospective series offers a rich set of object lessons in some of the pitfalls you can expect.

I'd surely grant that staged combustion is harder than an expander cycle, but while on the subject of the SSME...  It took the SSME 35 weeks and 13 turbopump replacements before they managed to hit their minimum power level for an instant.  A bunch of these small, lean companies can't and shouldn't try to afford that type of thing.

Whether it's easier these days- it should be, for sure.  But I don't think Relativity's problem is biting more off, it's chewing.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/16/2020 01:59 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1317102747490058246

Quote
Lockheed Martin's in-space cyrogenic fluid management demonstration (which won a $89.7 million NASA Tipping Point award) will launch on a Relativity Space Terran 1 rocket in Oct. 2023 and with support from a Momentus Vigoride vehicle: lockheedmartin.com/content/lockhe…
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 10/21/2020 03:50 pm
Missed this focusing on why Lockheed/NASA decided to launch with Terran. Custom complex payload fairing for fueling.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/19/lockheed-picks-relativitys-3d-printed-rocket-for-experimental-nasa-mission/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/21/2020 05:01 pm

I'd surely grant that staged combustion is harder than an expander cycle, but while on the subject of the SSME...  It took the SSME 35 weeks and 13 turbopump replacements before they managed to hit their minimum power level for an instant.  A bunch of these small, lean companies can't and shouldn't try to afford that type of thing.

Whether it's easier these days- it should be, for sure.  But I don't think Relativity's problem is biting more off, it's chewing.
True. But SSME was built with no CAD. It was entirely blueprints (literally) and microfiche for archival storage.
Where CAD scores is it can serve as the direct input to multiple FAE and CFD systems from day one.

I'm quite sure that Raptor was started up 10s (100s?) of times inside an HPC array before it was ever started IRL.

I would expect any similar development effort to do likewise.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/09/2020 09:22 pm
Quote
Relativity Space completes full-duration test fire of its Aeon 1 rocket engine
"Despite coronavirus, we actually hit that target on track."

ERIC BERGER - 11/9/2020, 10:18 PM

Relativity Space said Monday that the company has successfully completed a full-duration test-firing of its Aeon 1 rocket engine, running it at full power for 187 seconds.

The test at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi took place with all of the engine's key components—including turbopumps, injector, and combustion chamber—operating in a flight-like configuration. Surprisingly, the company met this milestone ahead of schedule—Relativity had been targeting completion of this mission duty cycle test before the end of 2020.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/relativity-space-completes-full-duration-test-fire-of-its-aeon-1-rocket-engine/

https://youtu.be/iWYaRpeLhrU
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/17/2020 04:00 pm
Quote
Relativity Space raising $500 million at $2 billion valuation from Tiger and others, sources say
PUBLISHED TUE, NOV 17 202011:57 AM EST

Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Rocket builder and 3D-printing specialist Relativity Space is raising $500 million of fresh capital in a new round being led by Tiger Global Management, people familiar with the financing told CNBC on Tuesday.

The new fundraise, expected to close in the coming days, would jump Relativity’s valuation to $2.3 billion, those people said.

Existing investors in Relativity are also expected to be contributing to the round -- those include Social Capital, Playground Global, Y Combinator, Bond Capital, Tribe Capital, Jared Leto and Mark Cuban.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/17/relativity-space-raising-500-million-at-2-billion-valuation-from-tiger-and-others-sources-say.html
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/17/2020 07:04 pm
Doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/17/2020 07:10 pm
Quote
Relativity Space raising $500 million at $2 billion valuation from Tiger and others, sources say
PUBLISHED TUE, NOV 17 202011:57 AM EST

Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Rocket builder and 3D-printing specialist Relativity Space is raising $500 million of fresh capital in a new round being led by Tiger Global Management, people familiar with the financing told CNBC on Tuesday.

The new fundraise, expected to close in the coming days, would jump Relativity’s valuation to $2.3 billion, those people said.

Existing investors in Relativity are also expected to be contributing to the round -- those include Social Capital, Playground Global, Y Combinator, Bond Capital, Tribe Capital, Jared Leto and Mark Cuban.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/17/relativity-space-raising-500-million-at-2-billion-valuation-from-tiger-and-others-sources-say.html
"Relativity’s new valuation is expected to make it one of the world’s most valuable private space companies after SpaceX, which commands a valuation above $44 billion after it raised capital in August."

I don't see how company that is 1-2years away from earning revenue is valued so highly. They will be late comers into a very competitive launch market. Both Firefly and ABL their main competitors in 1000-1500kg class are doing stage testing now, while SpaceX and ULA are both targetting rideshare market.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 11/17/2020 07:40 pm
I think it's their investment into the wire deposition process and their 21st century approach to it is really what investors are investing in. $2+ billion valuation though? Not too sure about that one.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/17/2020 07:57 pm
I think it's their investment into the wire deposition process and their 21st century approach to it is really what investors are investing in. $2+ billion valuation though? Not too sure about that one.
Yeah. People think this is some new, crazy, hyper-modern 21st century development, but it definitely isn't. The wire deposition process (on a gantry or a robot arm) is approximately half a century old. I'm sure they've probably improved quality a bit ("AI-driven quality-optimization feedback loop" or some such Silicon Valley buzzword), but a $2 billion evaluation without having a real product deployed, even a minimally viable one, is pretty nuts.

Not as nuts as Virgin Galactic, tho.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 11/17/2020 08:20 pm
I think it's their investment into the wire deposition process and their 21st century approach to it is really what investors are investing in. $2+ billion valuation though? Not too sure about that one.
Yeah. People think this is some new, crazy, hyper-modern 21st century development, but it definitely isn't. The wire deposition process (on a gantry or a robot arm) is approximately half a century old. I'm sure they've probably improved quality a bit ("AI-driven quality-optimization feedback loop" or some such Silicon Valley buzzword), but a $2 billion evaluation without having a real product deployed, even a minimally viable one, is pretty nuts.

Not as nuts as Virgin Galactic, tho.

As a comparison, Velo3D is a firm that incorporate simulations, in situ inspections, and other software driven processes to the powder bed SLM process only raised $128 million total by round D. Again SLM has been around for decades, but with the Silicon Valley tech mentality, it brought it to the 21st century. They have actual paying customers using their products and services too. It's not a fallible process, but still has advantages that companies are using.

May be an enclosed box with lasers is less cool that a giant robot arm that makes rocket tanks? Velo3D just needs to merge with one of the many rocket start ups and raise 5 times they've raise so far.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/17/2020 08:25 pm
SLM is a newer process, too.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/17/2020 09:12 pm
Doesn't make sense.
I think I'm getting the hang of this game....

It's not about how much you ask for as such, it's how how much you give in return

Without the shares being traded on a stock market "valuing" a company is very much a matter of opinion.  There are some numbers. Above (IIRC) 25% you're a substantial share holder. At 51% you can over ride any other share holders vote (if there is a vote on an issue to begin with).  Beyond that....

If I raise $100m and sell you 40% of the company to do so I'm now a $250m company. By extension that's what the rest of the business is worth.

If I raise $100m and sell you 10% (because it's such an amazing outfit and I'm a genius CEO  :)) We are now a $Bn corporation.

The actual practical difference is likely minimal, until the profits start coming in or the shares are offered to the general public on a stock exchange.

The final arbiter is the market when the shares are actually offered for sale.   If people really believe it's worth that then the price will hold up. If not then it will crash. 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: bodhiandphysics on 11/17/2020 09:42 pm


The actual practical difference is likely minimal, until the profits start coming in or the shares are offered to the general public on a stock exchange.
.

The difference is less than you think since in most of thee deals, if the company has to raise more capital at a lower valuation, or if it IPOs or sells at a lower valuation, the losses come out first of the founder's equity.  So in this series investors are buying %25 for 500 mil, but if in the next round the company is valued at only 1 billion, that %25 becomes closer to %50.  The risk for the investors is smaller than it appears.

One thing to note on these deals is that I don't think they're actually buying the rocket.  They're buying a company that can make a rocket.  Spacex lost every penny invested into falcon 1, but they also proved that they could actually build hardware, which is where everything started.  if you think space is going to be a big industry, than you want to find companies that can build hardware, and building a small launcher is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff (i.e. Relativity from Virgin Orbit).  The idea might be that if you an build a rocket, you can build anything else.  Worked out pretty well in the case of Spacex! 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 11/17/2020 09:59 pm
I think it's their investment into the wire deposition process and their 21st century approach to it is really what investors are investing in. $2+ billion valuation though? Not too sure about that one.
Yeah. People think this is some new, crazy, hyper-modern 21st century development, but it definitely isn't. The wire deposition process (on a gantry or a robot arm) is approximately half a century old. I'm sure they've probably improved quality a bit ("AI-driven quality-optimization feedback loop" or some such Silicon Valley buzzword), but a $2 billion evaluation without having a real product deployed, even a minimally viable one, is pretty nuts.

Not as nuts as Virgin Galactic, tho.

The Emperor's new clothes... Sooner or later someone in the crowd will say "but can't you just, uh, make a tube in a few hours by bending or extruding metal?"

And this is the weakness in the entire thing. This process, while admittedly good for press photos, is just too clunky and slow for the application. Rocket Lab showed video of them making the main tanks in a couple of days. Relativity famously had that video showing them making a small one in about a month. And the GIF of the tank burst looks like something ARCA might have done.

For all the PR they are years away from launching, and if this raise is anything to go by, burning cash faster than Virgin Orbit or Vector, which is some kind of record.

That said, $500m, if the investors don't wake up from their bewitched slumber, will probably see them through to launch.

At least now we know why the CTO left a few weeks ago; obviously a condition of them raising this round. Bad news also for Astra and Virgin Orbit you would think.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/18/2020 06:44 am

The Emperor's new clothes... Sooner or later someone in the crowd will say "but can't you just, uh, make a tube in a few hours by bending or extruding metal?"

And this is the weakness in the entire thing. This process, while admittedly good for press photos, is just too clunky and slow for the application. Rocket Lab showed video of them making the main tanks in a couple of days. Relativity famously had that video showing them making a small one in about a month. And the GIF of the tank burst looks like something ARCA might have done.
As a "Thing making factory" they might have something but building the bulk of a rocket IE the tanks does not play to the strengths of the technology.

Any new mfg concept in making rockets has to make it a)Better b)Faster c)Cheaper. It doesn't do b). It might do a) and c) is possible, but not a given. 

Relatively attacks the "Standing arm" of rocket mfg. But the other money sink to rocket development are Non Recurring Engineering costs. Which for this technology are huge

AM scores when you look at the more complex areas like tank ends. The shape, but especially incorporating fittings without welding. Inspection hatches, sensor pockets, fluid flanges etc.

I can think of a number of unconventional ways to mfg tanks (including integral stiffeners). Likewise tank ends and engines. When you factor in all the development costs there would be no guarantee any of them would work out cheaper either.  :(  Although I do think a slinky spring combustion chamber would be pretty cool.  :)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/18/2020 08:26 pm
One thing to note on these deals is that I don't think they're actually buying the rocket. 
They are not.

They are buying a portion of the company that makes rockets, in the expectation they will get profits afterward  and that most of the costs have already been spent to do this, so each rocket will have a profit margin, some of which they can have.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 11/19/2020 09:28 am
Valuations of non-public companies are not a measure of how much an investor thinks the company is worth.

At best, it's the minimum an investor is willing to bet that it will be worth at some point in the future (which could well be over a decade) when it eventually becomes a publicly traded company or is acquired. Any investor is hoping that it will be worth (a lot!) more than that, but the valuation is basically "we're confident enough to risk an investment of $x that the company will not sell/float for less than this". Complicating this is that acquisitions of private firms are also based on future valuations: when a company acquires a private firm, they do not buy it at the 'price it is worth' they do so at some proportion of the value they expect it to deliver over its lifetime.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/19/2020 05:12 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1329486092714663937

Quote
We’re kicking our engine testing at our @NASAStennis  facility into high gear as we march towards launching the world’s first entirely 3D printed rocket in 2021! Stay tuned for more updates. 🔥 #RelativitySpace #HotfireTest #EngineTestStand
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 11/20/2020 01:12 pm
Don't think I've seen that small diameter shock cone behaviour on an engine starting up before.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Craftyatom on 11/20/2020 08:31 pm
Don't think I've seen that small diameter shock cone behaviour on an engine starting up before.
It is interesting - I assume that's their igniter.  Relativity lists the Aeon's igniter as a "Gas-Gas Torch", but I've never seen one so strong and prominent.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/23/2020 03:02 pm
Quote
Relativity Space adds $500 million to ‘war chest’ for scaling production of 3D-printed rockets
PUBLISHED MON, NOV 23 202011:00 AM EST

Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

3D-printing rocket builder Relativity Space closed a $500 million round of new capital which CEO Tim Ellis said now gives the company a “war chest” to further advance its technology.

“This really accelerates Relativity’s momentum and scaling as we focus beyond first launch on production and various infrastructure expansion projects,” Ellis said.

Relativity’s valuation climbed to $2.3 billion after this round, CNBC reported last week, making it the second most valuable private space company in the world backed by venture capital after SpaceX, according to Pitchbook.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/relativity-space-builds-war-chest-for-building-.html
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 11/23/2020 03:31 pm
Quote
Relativity Space adds $500 million to ‘war chest’ for scaling production of 3D-printed rockets
PUBLISHED MON, NOV 23 202011:00 AM EST

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/relativity-space-builds-war-chest-for-building-.html

Some key items here:

Regarding funding:
Quote
The company was “not initially planning to raise” new capital right now, Ellis said. Relativity still has the majority of its funding from the $140 million it raised in October 2019, which funded the company’s Terran 1 rocket development through its first launch – a fact Ellis emphasized remains true today.

Ellis also said that taking Relativity public through a SPAC deal was “certainly a possibility,” but staying private “was the preferred direction by a longshot.”

Current staffing:
Quote
The company has continued to hire quickly this year, Ellis noted, and now has more than 230 employees.

Using a rule-of-thumb of $150/hour/head (this is a first order estimate for compensation, overhead, and hardware), this would put them at a $72m/year burn rate. With that burn rate (plus assumed growth), I'd expect them to start running dry around Q3-Q4 2021 without this Series D round. Given where they're at in their development, I suspect they're further than that for first launch and they actually did need this funding round more than they care to admit.

There's also a gif of the factor floor showing what looks like a tank for structural testing (equipped with strain gages on bottom right) and a second tank that appears to be predominately a display piece (used in the cover shot with Ellis in an empty factory).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/24/2020 08:28 pm
https://youtu.be/AKn5K10FdKU

Quote
Our Director of Structures & Mechanisms, David Lemire, leads Relativity's world-class team of engineers to design, build, analyze, and test all of our primary and secondary structures for our launch vehicle. Here at Relativity, we are revolutionizing tank design with our 3D printing technology and factory of the future. Take an inside look at how Relativity is disrupting over 60 years of aerospace manufacturing!

0:00 - Intro
0:18 - Learn about our additive process & manufacturing
0:46 - The advantages of an entirely 3D printing tank design & structures
1:36 - Sneak peek of Relativity's factory of the future!

-----------------
Subscribe to our channel for the latest behind-the-scenes on Relativity: https://www.youtube.com/c/RelativityS...

For more updates, visit our website: https://www.relativityspace.com/press
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 12/10/2020 03:43 pm
The high valuation must be from a huge backlog of customer agreements with reputable, established companies? Other than Iridium, Telesat, Lockheed, NASA, added a new mission to their manifest.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethhowell1/2020/12/10/3d-rocket-from-relativity-space-secures-dedicated-rideshare-mission-for-2022/?sh=4b51194b34ce
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 12/11/2020 03:44 am
The high valuation must be from a huge backlog of customer agreements with reputable, established companies? Other than Iridium, Telesat, Lockheed, NASA, added a new mission to their manifest.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethhowell1/2020/12/10/3d-rocket-from-relativity-space-secures-dedicated-rideshare-mission-for-2022/?sh=4b51194b34ce
Realistically, the high valuation is from investors who think "even if they fail to make it in the competitive small-launch market, they're poised to be a leader in aerospace-grade 3D printing, which is a substantially larger market." Of course, there are many in this thread who think that their 3D printing technology isn't very impressive either.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/11/2020 06:27 am
The high valuation must be from a huge backlog of customer agreements with reputable, established companies? Other than Iridium, Telesat, Lockheed, NASA, added a new mission to their manifest.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethhowell1/2020/12/10/3d-rocket-from-relativity-space-secures-dedicated-rideshare-mission-for-2022/?sh=4b51194b34ce
Realistically, the high valuation is from investors who think "even if they fail to make it in the competitive small-launch market, they're poised to be a leader in aerospace-grade 3D printing, which is a substantially larger market." Of course, there are many in this thread who think that their 3D printing technology isn't very impressive either.
As always it's a question of how much of the company did the investors get for $500m?

On paper this is yet another TSTO ELV.  And it hasn't launched yet.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/11/2020 09:20 pm
NASA Awards Venture Class Launch Services Demonstration 2 Contract

-Relativity Space Inc. of Long Beach, California: $3.0 million

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-venture-class-launch-services-demonstration-2-contract
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 12/11/2020 11:11 pm
-Relativity Space Inc. of Long Beach, California: $3.0 million

Stunning price tag. That's less than an Electron and even less than Astra, which charges $ 3.9 M to NASA. (Firefly gets $ 9,8 M).

This could explain why Relativity has been collecting so many launch contracts so early. They seem to be confident that robotic manufacturing will produce very cheap rockets.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 12/11/2020 11:28 pm
-Relativity Space Inc. of Long Beach, California: $3.0 million

Stunning price tag. That's less than an Electron and even less than Astra, which charges $ 3.9 M to NASA. (Firefly gets $ 9,8 M).

This could explain why Relativity has been collecting so many launch contracts so early. They seem to be confident that robotic manufacturing will produce very cheap rockets.
That said, Firefly's award is also under their nominal dedicated mission price of $15 million. So maybe NASA got a discount off the "normal" launch prices for committing in advance of the vehicles actually flying.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 12/12/2020 11:11 am
Or more likely they plan to get their money back by flying other non-NASA secondary payloads. The primary mission is just putting 30 to 95kg to 500 to 550km orbit (https://spacenews.com/nasa-preparing-second-round-of-smallsat-launch-services-program/), well below the capability of these 1 ton class smallsat launchers.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/15/2020 06:13 am
https://youtu.be/-z9B0iOqvhM

Quote
NASA has selected Relativity Space to place CubeSats into low Earth orbit as part of its Venture Class Launch Services Demonstration 2 (VCLS Demo 2) contract. This marks the second publicly announced U.S. Government launch contract for Relativity for launch services. The launch will take place by June 30, 2022 from Relativity’s orbital launch site at Cape Canaveral LC-16.

Under this award, Relativity will demonstrate its unique capabilities and sector-leading momentum by launching Terran 1, the first entirely 3D printed rocket. NASA's efforts to expand launch options are vital for the future growth of space access. Additionally, small satellites and CubeSat missions are increasingly critical to humanity's multiplanetary research, technology and innovation.

For more information and updates, visit our website: https://www.relativityspace.com/updates
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 01/04/2021 05:10 pm
Based on the recently-released Source Selection Statement for the VCLS Demo 2 contract (https://www.scribd.com/document/489695613/VCLS-Demo-2-Source-Selection-Statement), Relativity applied for (and won) a Mission 1 contract, for a dedicated CubeSat launch to put 30 kg worth of payload in a 500 km orbit. Rather than a Mission 2 contract, which requires being a primary payload and putting 95 kg worth of payloads into two different 550 km orbits with a plane change in between. I find this odd, given the Terran 1's nominal capabilities (900 kg to 500 km SSO).

I guess one confusion is what a "dedicated launch service for CubeSats" means for Mission 1. Can Relativity Space deploy 90U worth of CubeSats, only 1/3 of which come under the VCLS Demo 2 contract, and still satisfy Mission 1? The Mission 2 phrasing of "Primary Payload" implies that secondary payloads are permitted, but can other payloads go on a Mission 1 launch?

And if the main difficulty of Mission 2 is the requirement for an inclination change, what does that tell us about the Terran 1's capabilities?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/04/2021 05:48 pm

And if the main difficulty of Mission 2 is the requirement for an inclination change, what does that tell us about the Terran 1's capabilities?

The inclination change is super expensive. Up to 1400 m/s for the minimum 10 degree plane change. The combination of polar orbit and minimum 10 degree plane/inclination change puts the difficulty more in line with reaching GTO, which these small launchers typically don't do without a third stage. Speaking of third stage, Firefly does talk about what they are calling a Space Utility Vehicle that uses solar electric propulsion to reach locations that the launch vehicle typically couldn't reach. I linked how it is configured below and it does seem to fit this mission relatively well. I haven't seen anything similar from Relativity yet.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/04/2021 06:01 pm
Based on the recently-released Source Selection Statement for the VCLS Demo 2 contract (https://www.scribd.com/document/489695613/VCLS-Demo-2-Source-Selection-Statement), Relativity applied for (and won) a Mission 1 contract, for a dedicated CubeSat launch to put 30 kg worth of payload in a 500 km orbit. Rather than a Mission 2 contract, which requires being a primary payload and putting 95 kg worth of payloads into two different 550 km orbits with a plane change in between. I find this odd, given the Terran 1's nominal capabilities (900 kg to 500 km SSO).

I guess one confusion is what a "dedicated launch service for CubeSats" means for Mission 1. Can Relativity Space deploy 90U worth of CubeSats, only 1/3 of which come under the VCLS Demo 2 contract, and still satisfy Mission 1? The Mission 2 phrasing of "Primary Payload" implies that secondary payloads are permitted, but can other payloads go on a Mission 1 launch?

And if the main difficulty of Mission 2 is the requirement for an inclination change, what does that tell us about the Terran 1's capabilities?
Depends if their 2nd stage supports engine restart to enable orbit changes. Boiloff becomes if issue if its a few hours between orbit changes.

Relativity and its competitors in 1000kg class will mainly do rideshares to maximise their extra performance, which means they really do need kickstage/spacetug. There is option of using 3rd party tug eg Momentus or Spaceflight but then launch company misses out on that extra revenue. Firefly plan to offer a SEP tug.

RL decided to keep 2nd stage simple and use long life Photon kick stage for it orbit changes.

Edit.
Plus side of 3rd party tugs is Relativity can concentrate on getting their 2stage LV operational before developing a tug.


Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 01/04/2021 06:10 pm
Depends if their 2nd stage supports engine restart to enable orbit changes. Boiloff becomes if issue if its a few hours between orbit changes.

Relativity explicitly says that their second-stage Aeon Vac engine is "Restart Capable" on their current rocket description (https://www.relativityspace.com/terran), but you may have a point about boiloff limiting the magnitude of the changes they can make with that.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/07/2021 09:24 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1347307344741298178

Quote
Another day, another rocket factory visit:

Thank you to Relativity VP David Giger and SVP Zach Dunn for the tour of their “factory of the future!”

The enormous Stargate 3D-printer high bays have to be seen to be believed.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 01/21/2021 05:28 am
I thought I'd share an update on Relativity's progress at SLC-16 using imagery from Sentinel-2.

The first attachment is the latest image taken @ 2021-01-20 16:05:29 UTC.
The second attachment is a gif that shows the progress made so far this year.

If my eye is correct I believe that they may be preparing the area to the south of the pad for construction of their HIF.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/21/2021 07:05 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1352342386060505088

Quote
We’re keeping the momentum strong in #2021 with hotfire testing of our development second stage!
 
Up next: Fully-integrated stage testing of the orbital flight article, to kick off later this year! #RelativitySpace #Aerospace #Propulsion #Manufacturing
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 01/30/2021 05:38 am
Behind-the-scenes video showing multiple of the larger printers, turbopump engine tests, and rockets in manufacture. A lot to get done this year still it seems but sounds like good progress.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jf9PGYVBoZc&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 01/31/2021 11:00 pm
Some imagery of SLC-16 taken on 2020-12-11 from Google Earth Pro.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 01/31/2021 11:06 pm
The anniversary video also included a rare view of LC-16 from the ground!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/01/2021 04:05 am
wen launch?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/17/2021 07:05 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1362129115898212354

Quote
Check out this timelapse of our stage 2 flight print of Terran 1! Relativity's unique additive technology allows us to print in one integral piece, including all 3 domes. #RelativitySpace #3DPrinting #Innovation
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/24/2021 09:32 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1364667198384447489

Quote
We've officially completed and buckle-tested the Stage 1 Iron Bird tank demonstrator model! Check out these shots of the tank moving outdoors, going fully vertically and being installed into our LA1 Structures Test Stand.💥#RelativitySpace #3DPrinting #Innovation
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/25/2021 07:09 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/relativitys-reusable-terran-rocket-competitor-to-spacexs-falcon-9.html

Quote
Relativity Space unveils a reusable, 3D-printed rocket to compete with SpaceX’s Falcon 9
PUBLISHED THU, FEB 25 20213:05 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

3D-printing rocket builder Relativity Space is working on Terran R, a fully reusable launch vehicle that would be near the capabilities of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket.

Terran R is “really an obvious evolution” from the company’s Terran 1 rocket, Relativity CEO Tim Ellis told CNBC, the latter of which is scheduled to launch for the first time later this year.

“I’ve always been a huge fan of reusability. No matter how you look at it ... making [a reusable rocket] has got to be part of that future,” Ellis added.

Edit to add: caption for attached image

Quote
An artist’s illustration of the difference in size between the company’s Terran 1 rocket, to the left, and the planned Terran R rocket.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 02/25/2021 08:00 pm
From that article:
Quote
“We’ve also tested the engine for the upper stage,” Ellis said. “It’s a copper chamber engine ... and it’s actually now the same engine on the upper stage of Terran R as on Terran 1.”
Quote
Image caption: The company test fires an Aeon 1 engine, upgraded with copper and designed for use in the upper stage of the Terran R rocket, at its facility at NASA’s Stennis center in Mississippi.

So, they're modifying the Aeon 1 to add a copper chamber (which the nine Aeon 1s on the first stage don't have?) for use in the upper stage of the Terran 1, so it won't just be "the standard Aeon 1 with an extended nozzle." But they also want to use this copper-chamber version of the Aeon 1 as the second-stage engine for a Falcon 9-class rocket? Their website gives the Aeon 1 Vac as having 29,800 lbf of thrust. Compare with the Merlin 1D Vac, which has 220,500 lbf of thrust. Sure, the RL-10, used on many upper stages, has 24,800 lbf of thrust, so actually less than the Aeon 1 Vac. But vehicles using the RL-10 stage quite late, to give their second stage more time to take advantage of that low-thrust, high-Isp engine. If the Terran R will also be staging late, that raises questions about how they plan to recover the first stage.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2021 09:28 pm
Cool to see that they're adding plans for a fully-reusable vehicle after Terran-1. There aren't enough credible US companies pursuing reusable launch. I had cornered Tim after a speaking engagement several years back (he was one of my two last interns at Masten), and asked him why he wasn't going for something more reusable at the time. He pointed out that a lot of the structural and fabrication challenges of making a reusable vehicle (which often want to be more complex than a traditional expendable rocket) are made easier with the 3d printing technologies they're developing.

Looking forward to seeing more details, and how they evolve over time,

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2021 09:32 pm
On a fun related note, anyone want to take bets on which company will put something in orbit first -- Relativity or Blue Origin?

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Solarsail on 02/25/2021 10:41 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1362129115898212354

Quote
Check out this timelapse of our stage 2 flight print of Terran 1! Relativity's unique additive technology allows us to print in one integral piece, including all 3 domes. #RelativitySpace #3DPrinting #Innovation

A few days after the fact, but it's also somewhat interesting to have a confirmation that their 3D printing head (and robotic arm) are indeed operating in a room with a regular atmosphere, not all-argon or similar.  Not sure if they have any sort of shielding gas, or if they can do without one.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 02/25/2021 10:43 pm
Cool to see that they're adding plans for a fully-reusable vehicle after Terran-1. There aren't enough credible US companies pursuing reusable launch. I had cornered Tim after a speaking engagement several years back (he was one of my two last interns at Masten), and asked him why he wasn't going for something more reusable at the time. He pointed out that a lot of the structural and fabrication challenges of making a reusable vehicle (which often want to be more complex than a traditional expendable rocket) are made easier with the 3d printing technologies they're developing.

Looking forward to seeing more details, and how they evolve over time,

~Jon

Rocket Lab seems pretty serious about reusability, although only partial reusability. Firefly has also talked about their "Firefly Gamma" two-stage spaceplane, where the first stage is reusable; it seems a bit fanciful, though, and I'll believe them once they're actually flying the Beta. iRocket talks about being "fully reusable," but this probably pushes the definition of "credible" US companies.

And to answer the question you posed in your other comment, at this point I think SLS will launch many months before New Glenn does. That should tell you where I think New Glenn stands compared to any even semi-credible launch provider.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 02/26/2021 12:07 am
On a fun related note, anyone want to take bets on which company will put something in orbit first -- Relativity or Blue Origin?

~Jon

I think you meant to say "which is faster, a 3D printer or Blue Origin?"...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: GWH on 02/26/2021 05:33 am
Their website gives the Aeon 1 Vac as having 29,800 lbf of thrust. Compare with the Merlin 1D Vac, which has 220,500 lbf of thrust.

They didn't specifically say they would only use 1 did they?
May as well go for 9, seems to work well for landing  ;)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 02/26/2021 06:14 am
Their website gives the Aeon 1 Vac as having 29,800 lbf of thrust. Compare with the Merlin 1D Vac, which has 220,500 lbf of thrust.

They didn't specifically say they would only use 1 did they?
May as well go for 9, seems to work well for landing  ;)

That's what I was thinking. Let's also keep in mind that their using methalox, so if we're ball-parking it, the ideal/acceptable thrust value is going to be somewhere in between centaur and the F9 upper stage.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/26/2021 03:03 pm
Their website gives the Aeon 1 Vac as having 29,800 lbf of thrust. Compare with the Merlin 1D Vac, which has 220,500 lbf of thrust.

They didn't specifically say they would only use 1 did they?
May as well go for 9, seems to work well for landing  ;)
Use SS approach and have mixture of vac and SL landing engines. May even copy SS reentry design.
Reuseable 2nd stages also allow for return stuff to earth in their cargo bay. This downmass market maybe more valuable than upmass especially when it comes to servicing commercial space stations.

The could use Terran 1 booster to develop their RLV technology.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cheapchips on 02/28/2021 12:30 pm

Can't wait to see what their design for full reuse looks like.  If the Terran R is actually a similar size to the silutette, they're cramming full reuse into something not much bigger than an F9 but for very little payload penalty.

It suggests that they don't need a dedicated heat shield. With 3d printing, what material(s) would enable 'naked' stage 2 tanks?

The other option would be transpiration cooling as part of the printed tank design?  I'm not sure that Stargate can print with the necessary fineness though.
 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 03/01/2021 04:57 pm
They will now be competing against this: https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-to-go-public-through-spac-merger-and-develop-medium-lift-rocket/

Larger rockets from small and medium satellite players not wholly unexpected, but interesting to see them be announced at similar times. Relativity announced theirs last week, now Rocket Lab...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 03/02/2021 01:57 am
They will now be competing against this: https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-to-go-public-through-spac-merger-and-develop-medium-lift-rocket/

Larger rockets from small and medium satellite players not wholly unexpected, but interesting to see them be announced at similar times. Relativity announced theirs last week, now Rocket Lab...

It'll be cool having some competition for SpaceX in the reusable launch world. Especially from companies that have been more open to playing nice with others than SpaceX has.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 03/02/2021 04:29 am
RocketLab plays nice with others? I have some doubt about that, but that's for another thread.

What's interesting here is different reactions to the announcements, Relativity announced a new fully reusable F9 class LV and everyone is just "meh", but RocketLab announces Neutron and everyone is like "OMG OMG OMG", while in reality both is at about the same stage (i.e. paper), and will likely launch in the same time frame.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/02/2021 04:59 am
RocketLab plays nice with others? I have some doubt about that, but that's for another thread.

What's interesting here is different reactions to the announcements, Relativity announced a new fully reusable F9 class LV and everyone is just "meh", but RocketLab announces Neutron and everyone is like "OMG OMG OMG", while in reality both is at about the same stage (i.e. paper), and will likely launch in the same time frame.

There's the slight difference that Rocket Lab has been launching to orbit bimonthly for over two years, and Relativity Space will be very lucky if they make orbit by the end of this year. Also, Neutron is less ambitious than Terran R: the former is planned to have first-stage reuse, but the latter plans to have full (all-stage) reuse, from a company with no experience whatsoever in rocket reuse. Plus Terran R has over twice the payload as Neutron. There's good reason to be more skeptical of Terran R than of Neutron.

That said, I'm excited about Terran R too. I feel like I'm more bullish on Relativity than most in this forum, I certainly wouldn't count them out. If they can actually launch their Terran 1 this year (rather than the typical "Q4 means the next year" we've come to expect from space launch), it will be a good sign that they really are as nimble as they say they are, which would suggest they may be able to pivot to Terran R more quickly than one would expect.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2021 01:44 pm
They will now be competing against this: https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-to-go-public-through-spac-merger-and-develop-medium-lift-rocket/

Larger rockets from small and medium satellite players not wholly unexpected, but interesting to see them be announced at similar times. Relativity announced theirs last week, now Rocket Lab...

It'll be cool having some competition for SpaceX in the reusable launch world. Especially from companies that have been more open to playing nice with others than SpaceX has.

~Jon
RocketLab is that.

BTW, I wonder what role abolishing non-competes in California played in allowing RocketLab to pivot so hard to reuse. While SpaceX has “poached” employees from elsewhere, RocketLab has probably hundreds of SpaceX alums in their ranks. It goes both ways. Locking up knowledge and talent is good for the company that produces the innovation, but bad for the industry as a whole. And likewise, the opposite is true. Free flow of ideas and people allows fierce competition. Gentlemen’s agreements and keeping a tight lid on IP through massive litigation is ultimately bad for the industry and employees in particular.

SpaceX will be given a run for their money by RocketLab, and maybe Relativity (if Relativity can discard their obsession with 3D printing everything including tanks).

This competition is also good as it keeps the power of people like Elon in check. Don’t like Elon? Go work for a competitor! (I tend to like him, but I understand why some don’t.)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/02/2021 05:56 pm
They will now be competing against this: https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-to-go-public-through-spac-merger-and-develop-medium-lift-rocket/

Larger rockets from small and medium satellite players not wholly unexpected, but interesting to see them be announced at similar times. Relativity announced theirs last week, now Rocket Lab...

It'll be cool having some competition for SpaceX in the reusable launch world. Especially from companies that have been more open to playing nice with others than SpaceX has.

~Jon
RocketLab is that.

BTW, I wonder what role abolishing non-competes in California played in allowing RocketLab to pivot so hard to reuse. While SpaceX has “poached” employees from elsewhere, RocketLab has probably hundreds of SpaceX alums in their ranks. It goes both ways. Locking up knowledge and talent is good for the company that produces the innovation, but bad for the industry as a whole. And likewise, the opposite is true. Free flow of ideas and people allows fierce competition. Gentlemen’s agreements and keeping a tight lid on IP through massive litigation is ultimately bad for the industry and employees in particular.

SpaceX will be given a run for their money by RocketLab, and maybe Relativity (if Relativity can discard their obsession with 3D printing everything including tanks).

This competition is also good as it keeps the power of people like Elon in check. Don’t like Elon? Go work for a competitor! (I tend to like him, but I understand why some don’t.)
SpaceX and Blue have produced large talent pool of engineers which small launch companies have hired and expanded. Developing a turbopump engine isn't as big a deal as it use to be given large talent pool of experienced propulsion engineers out there.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 03/03/2021 11:52 pm
That said, I'm excited about Terran R too. I feel like I'm more bullish on Relativity than most in this forum, I certainly wouldn't count them out. If they can actually launch their Terran 1 this year (rather than the typical "Q4 means the next year" we've come to expect from space launch), it will be a good sign that they really are as nimble as they say they are, which would suggest they may be able to pivot to Terran R more quickly than one would expect.

I've been a Relativity fan since they started. Tim was one of my last two interns at Masten, and I've been really impressed with what he's done since then. He does a really good job of focusing on the right problems to solve (from a business standpoint), though I agree that how well things go with Terran-1 this year is going to be a good indicator of how seriously to take Terran-R.

I'm just glad our industry is now getting multiple well-funded "shots on goal" for partially and fully-reusable launch. People who haven't been following this industry for the past quarter century have no idea how insane it is to think that we have multiple companies that have raised $500-750M to go after medium-lift RLVs. SpaceX's success is a big driver of that, but even outside of launch, VC's willingness to put serious money into space ventures seems to have really increased in the last 3-5yrs.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 03/04/2021 10:39 am
Even if Relativity don't have commercial luck with Terran-1, they have the consolation prize of a high-TRL direct metal deposition system with an extraordinary working volume. The 'inspect-while-depositing' software alone has value, never mind the custom alloy and bank of printers themselves!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/04/2021 01:23 pm
Even if Relativity don't have commercial luck with Terran-1, they have the consolation prize of a high-TRL direct metal deposition system with an extraordinary working volume. The 'inspect-while-depositing' software alone has value, never mind the custom alloy and bank of printers themselves!
These alternative revenues to launch are what make Relativity and RL good investments. In RL cases its their satelite systems and components.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 03/04/2021 02:29 pm
When it comes to being a launch provider, Relativity, their 3D printing, and reusability are all fairly un-impressive to me in the current market. However, their claims of really bringing down the part count on their Terran-1 does interest me a lot. I've included an image of the part of their site which talks about that.

Do we know what vehicle their comparing Terran-1 to here? Is ~60,000 parts really normal in launch vehicles? How much of this is actually because of 3D printing?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 03/04/2021 07:24 pm
Do we know what vehicle their comparing Terran-1 to here? Is ~60,000 parts really normal in launch vehicles? How much of this is actually because of 3D printing?

I think the part counts in that plot are apples and oranges, cherry-picked by marketing to make a pitch. 60k parts on a launch vehicle passes my sniff check. 720 sounds to me like they're applying a different standard on what counts as a part to an disingenuous level.

Take for example a single pressure transducer on their pump discharge line. It's a cryogenic propellant, so it needs to be isolated from the flow on a sense line. There's the tube, there's the tapoff fitting going to the sense line, there's the sense line itself, the pressure transducer, the support for the transducer so its not shaking itself apart, and the electrical harness back to the flight computer. That sense line is made of a tube, sleeves, and nuts. The support is probably a clamp, bolt, washer, nut, and maybe a standoff. The electrical harness has connectors and backshells. That single instrument consists of  of 10-20 individual parts. Multiply that by what's probably around 100 pressure transducers for a vehicle with that many engines and you've blown their count out of the water just on pressure transducers.

I bet they're ignoring all instrumentation, fluid connections, and hardware at a minimum when coming up with their counts and then comparing it to the full-up BoM from other another program that one of them worked on.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 03/04/2021 07:42 pm
Do we know what vehicle their comparing Terran-1 to here? Is ~60,000 parts really normal in launch vehicles? How much of this is actually because of 3D printing?

I think the part counts in that plot are apples and oranges, cherry-picked by marketing to make a pitch. 60k parts on a launch vehicle passes my sniff check. 720 sounds to me like they're applying a different standard on what counts as a part to an disingenuous level.

Take for example a single pressure transducer on their pump discharge line. It's a cryogenic propellant, so it needs to be isolated from the flow on a sense line. There's the tube, there's the tapoff fitting going to the sense line, there's the sense line itself, the pressure transducer, the support for the transducer so its not shaking itself apart, and the electrical harness back to the flight computer. That sense line is made of a tube, sleeves, and nuts. The support is probably a clamp, bolt, washer, nut, and maybe a standoff. The electrical harness has connectors and backshells. That single instrument consists of  of 10-20 individual parts. Multiply that by what's probably around 100 pressure transducers for a vehicle with that many engines and you've blown their count out of the water just on pressure transducers.

I bet they're ignoring all instrumentation, fluid connections, and hardware at a minimum when coming up with their counts and then comparing it to the full-up BoM from other another program that one of them worked on.

Right, are they counting COTS parts that other programs may have brought in internally like a regulator to be part of the part count? Like the springs, seals, valve stem, housing, ect. If they are buying a regulator off the shelf, are they just calling that 1 part? Like the slosh baffles are definitely counted piece by piece in a traditional LV vs the integral baffles in their tanks.

Like a Merlin is inherently made up of more parts like a liner, jacket, manifolds, ect that are just one or two printed parts on a 3D printed chamber. But that's just due to the scale of the engine. The Terrran R sized engine probably won't have that luxury anymore and will have to revert to mostly traditional manufacturing methods like brazing and welding.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 03/04/2021 09:16 pm
I find it difficult to know how serious to actually take Relatively as a launch vehicle developer and operator.

They have from the beginning looked like a business that was specializing in 3D printing for launch vehicle needs with the ultimate goal of being acquired for such technology by SpaceX/ULA/Blue Origin/whomever rather than building their own launch vehicle.

I hope they are able to actually finish and fly Terran 1. If they drop that and switch Terran R then that just reinforces the impression that they are more interested in selling or being acquired rather than flying.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2021 04:26 am
I thought the team seemed pretty good. They had the potential to be kind of like RocketLab. But they picked a bad technology to build the tanks IMHO.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/05/2021 11:02 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Quote
Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 03/05/2021 11:15 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Quote
Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.

My guess, pure speculation: He offered to make Ellis CEO of Blue Origin, or at least considering it.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 03/05/2021 11:27 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Quote
Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.

My guess, pure speculation: He offered to make Ellis CEO of Blue Origin, or at least considering it.

More realistically buying it out. Or even more realistically just checking it out.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/06/2021 12:14 am
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Quote
Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.

My guess, pure speculation: He offered to make Ellis CEO of Blue Origin, or at least considering it.

More realistically buying it out. Or even more realistically just checking it out.

Discussions about buying out Relativity (which may not come to fruition, mind you) seem like the only plausible explanation here, IMO. Which would be a shame: I used to think that Relativity's end game was always going to be "bought out by SpaceX or Blue Origin," but more recently I've come to really want to see Terran 1 launch. And it kind of feels that despite the obvious overlap in industry, there's actually not much synergy here. What use does Blue Origin have for Relativity's unique capabilities? They're not going to redesign New Glenn to use Stargate-printed tanks instead of isogrids. And it's too late in the BE-4's development cycle to radically redesign it to use significantly more 3D printing, either.

If anything, the only thing Blue Origin gains by buying out Relativity is making sure that Terran R never sees the light of day, potentially competing with New Glenn. And I guess getting a cadre of skilled engineers, but again, if they're focused on 3D printing specifically, that may have less value than making sure there's one fewer new 20-ton launch vehicle in the next decade.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: J-B on 03/06/2021 02:31 pm
My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/06/2021 08:34 pm
My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.

I'd like to believe that, Relativity continuing to build their own launch vehicles as well as subcontracting for others to build various aerospace-grade hardware. On the one hand, it doesn't really make sense for Blue Origin to be looking into something like that right now, they have so much on their plate (with New Shepard, BE-4, Blue Moon, and New Glenn all in the works), they can't afford to be picking up a new project (e.g., actually designing their in-space infrastructure beyond some paper plans). On the other hand, as their existing "plate" demonstrates, they already have a history of taking on (too) many simultaneous projects, so I can't really rule out them adding another. And maybe the visit was really informal, not "can we start work on building these designs?", but "can you tell me about the general capabilities of your machines, so we can have a slow-burn project to design something for them and come back in five years to discuss actual fabrication?"
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/07/2021 12:36 am
My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.
This is what I think as well.

It bothers me when people ignore the fact that both SpaceX and Blue Origin are means to an end that isn't just more money. (Which isn't to say that money doesn't become seductive and turn people's will to its own aims, but I don't think everyone just mechanistically operates with money as the end goal. Blue Origin in particular has been a money pit which Bezos has been happy to dump his wealth into.)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/07/2021 01:23 pm
My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.
This is what I think as well.

It bothers me when people ignore the fact that both SpaceX and Blue Origin are means to an end that isn't just more money. (Which isn't to say that money doesn't become seductive and turn people's will to its own aims, but I don't think everyone just mechanistically operates with money as the end goal. Blue Origin in particular has been a money pit which Bezos has been happy to dump his wealth into.)

I believe that Blue's and SpaceX's goal is to be transportation companies. Neither of these companies make habitats. I know that Blue likes to talk about living and working in space and SpaceX's about settling Mars but unless such goals can become profitable, neither of these companies will be engaged in these activities. These companies aren't non-profit companies.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: GWH on 03/08/2021 01:25 pm
Neither of these companies make habitats. I know that Blue likes to talk about living and working in space...

Not entirely true, Blue has participated in ISS successor studies, and recently posted a habitat designer position: https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-considers-entering-commercial-space-station-business/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/08/2021 02:18 pm
My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.
This is what I think as well.

It bothers me when people ignore the fact that both SpaceX and Blue Origin are means to an end that isn't just more money. (Which isn't to say that money doesn't become seductive and turn people's will to its own aims, but I don't think everyone just mechanistically operates with money as the end goal. Blue Origin in particular has been a money pit which Bezos has been happy to dump his wealth into.)

I believe that Blue's and SpaceX's goal is to be transportation companies. Neither of these companies make habitats. I know that Blue likes to talk about living and working in space and SpaceX's about settling Mars but unless such goals can become profitable, neither of these companies will be engaged in these activities. These companies aren't non-profit companies.
Wrong. Both of the companies are essentially charities in their goals. But operating as a non-profit is suboptimal for what they want to achieve as there are regulatory constraints for non-profits (for instance, you can’t make a profit in the usual sense), and the prerequisite to enabling living in space is to address the insane cost-of-transport problem. Ideally, a for-profit company in a competitive market WILL be very effective at reducing launch costs. But if the market is non-ideal, then it may become more profitable to actually not reduce price, and many of the cost reduction methods rely on a price-reduction-driven demand growth. So they can’t act PURELY as for-profit companies or they could get stuck simply sitting in a position where they collect rents from a monopoly/oligopoly position. Also, non-profits can’t attract private investment (which wants a return, of course) for obvious reasons.

I mean, the launch market is pretty limited in revenue. A few billion per year, largely government, and with inelastic demand. Which is why the ULAs of the world didn’t bother investing in reusability: why invest in lowering cost per kg to orbit if your revenue at the end of the day will be the same? If tonnage demand increases 10 fold for a 10 fold reduction in price (so the revenue & likely profit remains constant), then there’s no profit incentive to put billions into developing reuse.

So they act like one or the other or both, depending on which best suits the goal of making humanity a spacefaring civilization. Many multimillionaires and billionaires before them sunk millions and billions of dollars with nothing to show for it, so the idea it’s a highly lucrative market is a bit ludicrous. They developed reuse because it was necessary and the market wasn’t evolving in that direction on its own. SpaceX even created their own demand by producing Starlink (on such a scale that it might only just break even).

So again, they’ll do what’s necessary. It’s silly to call them “just a transport company” as Starlink already proves that false. If no one else steps up and produces habitats and develops demand, they will just create habitats themselves, profit-be-damned. And Blue in particular has shown presentations where they develop habitats and other elements of deep space infrastructure (they’re just kind of slow at it).

Lunar Starship already is a sort of makeshift habitat-in-the-making. Lunar crew accommodations are a non-trivial portion of their HLS contract work.

So again, they both actually are somewhat “charity” based in that their end goals may require sacrificing profit margin to achieve.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/08/2021 02:22 pm
I should point out that relativity does not bill itself as primarily a launch company. They see their main strength as manufacturing, with their manufacturing method suited for in space manufacturing. Rockets are just an early revenue stream and a sort of stress test of the technology.

It is well suited to an eventual Blue Origin acquisition, if you set aside concerns about the scalability of this kind of 3D printing.

Relativity has SpaceX/BlueOrigin-like starry eyes in their company vision. This is in contrast to Relativity or Astra who billed themselves more like a for-profit BUSINESS (although doubtless Peter Beck, etc, also has his long term sights set on enabling a spacefaring humanity). For Relativity, it’s “Business Time,” not “let’s build a business with questionable profit potential—underwear gnomes?—to enable a City on Mars.” Private investors like that. Except for Bezos, who probably appreciates the starry eyes of the Relativity founders.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 03/08/2021 06:16 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Quote
Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.

My guess, pure speculation: He offered to make Ellis CEO of Blue Origin, or at least considering it.

More realistically buying it out. Or even more realistically just checking it out.

There's also the potential that he wants to invest in it without Blue Origin buying it out. He easily has the resources to and if Blue Origin doesn't pan out in the long run at creating that vision of human settlement of space, it helps to have eggs in more than one basket. Their technology would also be quite complementary to building rockets and eventually space infrastructure from extraterrestrial resources.

If what Relativity are doing is half as good as they claim, it's only a matter of time before someone else with a lot of money thinks or putting a large investment in them or buying them out right. There's no reason why their technology couldn't be applied to building other more Earthly things like airplanes, ships and weapons systems. 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 03/08/2021 09:42 pm
Where does Amazon and Kuiper fit into all of this? Bezos still involved with Amazon as founder and probably holds a lot of influence there, and their satellite project needs a lot of launch capacity and high rate of progress to keep up with SpaceX’s blindly fast pace of execution or risk being left in the dust. Arianespace, ULA, even Blue... none of them seem to be matching SpaceX rate of innovation by even 1/10th. Rocket Lab has gone far with their team and quite innovative, and their recently announced larger rocket could fit the bill for Kuiper plus they now have public funding to do it. Relativity’s announcement of Terran R their fully reusable Falcon 9 sized rocket is uncannily timed with this visit...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/09/2021 03:04 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1369317464811700233

Quote
.@relativityspace CEO Tim Ellis joined CNBC, live from inside the company's 3D-printing rocket factory, to announce the signing of its first Pentagon launch contract with the Defense Innovation Unit:
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/09/2021 05:29 pm
Where does Amazon and Kuiper fit into all of this? Bezos still involved with Amazon as founder and probably holds a lot of influence there, and their satellite project needs a lot of launch capacity and high rate of progress to keep up with SpaceX’s blindly fast pace of execution or risk being left in the dust. Arianespace, ULA, even Blue... none of them seem to be matching SpaceX rate of innovation by even 1/10th. Rocket Lab has gone far with their team and quite innovative, and their recently announced larger rocket could fit the bill for Kuiper plus they now have public funding to do it. Relativity’s announcement of Terran R their fully reusable Falcon 9 sized rocket is uncannily timed with this visit...
Blue may just be investing in Relativity 3D technology ie buying the printers or contract them to build parts of NG.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/09/2021 06:43 pm
Where does Amazon and Kuiper fit into all of this? Bezos still involved with Amazon as founder and probably holds a lot of influence there, and their satellite project needs a lot of launch capacity and high rate of progress to keep up with SpaceX’s blindly fast pace of execution or risk being left in the dust. Arianespace, ULA, even Blue... none of them seem to be matching SpaceX rate of innovation by even 1/10th. Rocket Lab has gone far with their team and quite innovative, and their recently announced larger rocket could fit the bill for Kuiper plus they now have public funding to do it. Relativity’s announcement of Terran R their fully reusable Falcon 9 sized rocket is uncannily timed with this visit...
Blue may just be investing in Relativity 3D technology ie buying the printers or contract them to build parts of NG.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
I would bet hard against this.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 03/09/2021 07:58 pm
Where does Amazon and Kuiper fit into all of this? Bezos still involved with Amazon as founder and probably holds a lot of influence there, and their satellite project needs a lot of launch capacity and high rate of progress to keep up with SpaceX’s blindly fast pace of execution or risk being left in the dust. Arianespace, ULA, even Blue... none of them seem to be matching SpaceX rate of innovation by even 1/10th. Rocket Lab has gone far with their team and quite innovative, and their recently announced larger rocket could fit the bill for Kuiper plus they now have public funding to do it. Relativity’s announcement of Terran R their fully reusable Falcon 9 sized rocket is uncannily timed with this visit...
Blue may just be investing in Relativity 3D technology ie buying the printers or contract them to build parts of NG.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
I would bet hard against this.

Anyone dealing with Bezos has to be VERY cautious to not get the "Amazon Basics" treatment. (where they just copy/steal ideas and do them in-house)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/09/2021 08:18 pm
Where does Amazon and Kuiper fit into all of this? Bezos still involved with Amazon as founder and probably holds a lot of influence there, and their satellite project needs a lot of launch capacity and high rate of progress to keep up with SpaceX’s blindly fast pace of execution or risk being left in the dust. Arianespace, ULA, even Blue... none of them seem to be matching SpaceX rate of innovation by even 1/10th. Rocket Lab has gone far with their team and quite innovative, and their recently announced larger rocket could fit the bill for Kuiper plus they now have public funding to do it. Relativity’s announcement of Terran R their fully reusable Falcon 9 sized rocket is uncannily timed with this visit...
Blue may just be investing in Relativity 3D technology ie buying the printers or contract them to build parts of NG.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
I would bet hard against this.

Anyone dealing with Bezos has to be VERY cautious to not get the "Amazon Basics" treatment. (where they just copy/steal ideas and do them in-house)
SpaceX does the same thing.

And I realize this is an unpopular opinion, but I actually think it's good that it happens. Ideas are for sharing, and the idea of Intellectual Property (enforced by the government) itself is a kind of theft.

And I'm glad RocketLab is doing it to SpaceX by copying Falcon 9.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/09/2021 09:30 pm
Copying an idea is one thing. Stealing's someone else's intellectual property is another.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/13/2021 02:02 am
Some launch mounts spotted for installation at Relativity's LC-16 launch site at CCSFS.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1370547217132572672
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 03/15/2021 05:02 pm
https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/15/relativity-space-lands-first-department-of-defense-launch-contract/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: kessdawg on 03/24/2021 01:20 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/relativity-space-printed-its-terran-1-rockets-second-stage-in-a-few-weeks/

Quote from: Burger
In an interview, Relativity CEO Tim Ellis said the company recently printed the second stage that will be used on the inaugural flight of the Terran 1 rocket, which is presently scheduled to take place before the end of 2021. The stage was printed at a rate of about 1 linear foot per day, so it took about three weeks in total to print the 20-foot tall second stage.

"We're now confident in this build process," Ellis said. "Not only is the second stage now completed, but we're 75 percent of the way through printing the rocket's first stage."
...
Relativity has also been able to prove the merits of 3D printing by rapidly changing the metal used in the thrust chamber of its Aeon engine—nine of which will power the rocket's first stage. Engineers started out using a nickel-based alloy inside the thrust chamber because it was an easier material to work with during the manufacturing process. But a copper-based alloy has better conductivity and allows for higher combustion temperatures—and therefore a higher-efficiency engine.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/24/2021 04:44 pm
twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1374777117968265219

Quote
Progress is key as we work towards first launch! Our world-class team successfully removed the Stage 2 flight print tank out of its print cell at our #factoryofthefuture. We are excited to keep the momentum going! #RelativitySpace #3DPrinting #Innovation

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1374777855725334529

Quote
Here's a look behind-the-scenes as our team removes the Stage 2 flight print from the print cell.📽️
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/24/2021 07:15 pm
https://youtu.be/-qgIT4ScYnI
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Tywin on 04/05/2021 01:12 am
Could Blue sell the BE-4 for the Terran-R to Relativity?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Scintillant on 04/05/2021 01:52 am
Could Blue sell the BE-4 for the Terran-R to Relativity?

Relativity says they'll be using an upgraded Aeon for the Terran-R, so no need to buy BE-4's.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/relativity-space-printed-its-terran-1-rockets-second-stage-in-a-few-weeks/
Quote from: Eric Berger
Because Relativity will need this technology for future rockets, such as the larger Terran R rocket that will use a larger version of the Aeon engine, it decided to go ahead and make the change to a copper-based thrust chamber and nozzle now.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 04/05/2021 07:35 am
Quote
In an interview, Relativity CEO Tim Ellis said the company recently printed the second stage that will be used on the inaugural flight of the Terran 1 rocket, which is presently scheduled to take place before the end of 2021. The stage was printed at a rate of about 1 linear foot per day, so it took about three weeks in total to print the 20-foot tall second stage.

3 weeks for a Stage 2 tank? So that is what, 12-15 weeks for a Stage 1 tank? How is this a revolution in manufacturing? SpaceX are making a new Starship a week by manually welding steel plate!

Quote
Relativity has also been able to prove the merits of 3D printing by rapidly changing the metal used in the thrust chamber of its Aeon engine—nine of which will power the rocket's first stage. Engineers started out using a nickel-based alloy inside the thrust chamber because it was an easier material to work with during the manufacturing process. But a copper-based alloy has better conductivity and allows for higher combustion temperatures—and therefore a higher-efficiency engine.

Wow.

Firstly they are using standard printers from SLM or EOS for their engines. That's shown earlier in this thread somewhere (reposted below). Nothing proprietary or special going on there - Launcher is printing copper engines the same way for example.

Secondly it's almost certainly a standard feature that you can change the material used on ANY of those off-the-shelf 3D printing systems. It would be idiotic if you couldn't. To position that as some kind of revolutionary technological advancement... hard to know what to say to that kind of thing.

Thirdly: copper >> Inconel. No, really? This company is what, 5 years old? And making statements like this? Kindergarden.


BEGIN REPOST SHOWING STANDARD 3D PRINTING MACHINES AT RELATIVITY


https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1191770988423372800?s=21

First time I believe seeing print speed of Stargate published. 1 ft per day on what looks to be 7-8 ft diameter tank. So that’s about 24 sq ft per day of wall area per printer. They have 4 now, each one can print about 30 foot tall. So scaling to a Falcon 9 size vehicle, that would take about 8 printers to do it in pieces. Multiplying out, I get about 45 days to print an entire Falcon 9. That’s pretty quick and low cost I’d believe.

In the future they won’t be limited to just simple cylindrical shapes with skin-stringers like Falcon and Starship, they could do non-symmetric shapes and also use things like isogrid and topology to tune structure shapes. The question is if they can actually pull this technology off but if they do seems like a game changer.

What's the time delta versus a welded tank? I understand there's tooling time, but once tooling is made, it's a matter of popping out tanks is it not?

if you watch the full video above there is a timelapse half-way through which shows the full printing of an upper stage (?) tank, which according to the clock at the top of the screen takes them about 23 days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7q0qwfuGz0?t=1752

In the same video CEO Tim Ellis says they hope to complete a new vehicle every 60 days, and that is probably driven by the print time of a main booster tank - if you scale that 23 days you are probably looking at a full main stage tank taking about 60 days to "print" the full length (although we are yet to see a full length one from Relativity I believe).

I think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.

Where it does have some advantages, but probably not as much as they claim, is in flexibility for complex shapes e.g. for producing the complex tank-end shape. But is that such a huge advantage versus a carbon layup? I doubt it, I would guess they are roughly equivalent in time, and carbon will be stiffer and stronger for the same mass.

The engines are not printed on their Stargate machine. If you follow a few clues in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whv-b1QFqe4

it is nothing more clever than commercial grade SLM system like an SLM 280, which is probably why they do it three pieces. Example clue is the shape of the unit:

(https://i.imgur.com/kHrE9E5.png)

Another clue are the internals of the machine:

(https://i.imgur.com/CwAqPot.png)

In the same interview you can see Tim Ellis is pivoting to talk about printing cars, airplanes etc., becoming the factory that can build anything. Hype factor 9 Mr Sulu, pass me the Koolaid.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 04/05/2021 09:18 pm
Thirdly: copper >> Inconel. No, really? This company is what, 5 years old? And making statements like this? Kindergarden.

Copper based alloys are head and shoulders above nickel based alloys for conducting heat away. No alloy is a Swiss Army knife.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 04/05/2021 10:10 pm
Thirdly: copper >> Inconel. No, really? This company is what, 5 years old? And making statements like this? Kindergarden.

Copper based alloys are head and shoulders above nickel based alloys for conducting heat away. No alloy is a Swiss Army knife.

Also it was relatively challenging, AFAIK, to develop copper alloy that is sinterable with lasers due to how well it conducts heat. But it's not a Relativity achievement, but the vendors that Relativity uses.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/06/2021 02:42 pm
Thirdly: copper >> Inconel. No, really? This company is what, 5 years old? And making statements like this? Kindergarden.

Copper based alloys are head and shoulders above nickel based alloys for conducting heat away. No alloy is a Swiss Army knife.
Yup.

Ringside, I have my share of skepticism for the idea of printing rocket tanks (etc), but you don’t know what you’re talking about for rocket engine alloys.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 04/06/2021 08:32 pm
The thread title should be fixed. It is impossible to build and operate rockets on Earth without human labor. Even if all parts are printed and then assembled by robots, there will be some work left for humans, including programming and servicing the printers and robots. And then humans will sell launches, integrate payloads and operate the rockets.

"zero human labor" is just empty PR speak.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 04/06/2021 08:33 pm
The thread title should be fixed. It is impossible to build and operate rockets on Earth without human labor. Even if all parts are printed and then assembled by robots, there will be some work left for humans, including programming and servicing the printers and robots. And then humans will sell launches, integrate payloads and operate the rockets.

"zero human labor" is just empty PR speak.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 04/06/2021 08:52 pm
The thread title should be fixed. It is impossible to build and operate rockets on Earth without human labor. Even if all parts are printed and then assembled by robots, there will be some work left for humans, including programming and servicing the printers and robots. And then humans will sell launches, integrate payloads and operate the rockets.

"zero human labor" is just empty PR speak.

And I don't think it's even PR speak they use these days. I assume it's an artifact of their earlier claims.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 04/07/2021 01:48 am
Thirdly: copper >> Inconel. No, really? This company is what, 5 years old? And making statements like this? Kindergarden.

Copper based alloys are head and shoulders above nickel based alloys for conducting heat away. No alloy is a Swiss Army knife.
Yup.

Ringside, I have my share of skepticism for the idea of printing rocket tanks (etc), but you don’t know what you’re talking about for rocket engine alloys.

When I read that sentence, I assumed ringsider meant using copper in engines is common knowledge, not something you brag about in a press release. I mean I know close to nothing about rocket engines, even I know copper is used in engines due to the whole "green flame of death" thing.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 04/07/2021 02:25 am
Ringside, I have my share of skepticism for the idea of printing rocket tanks (etc), but you don’t know what you’re talking about for rocket engine alloys.

Attack the post, not the poster.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 04/07/2021 06:20 am

Ringside, I have my share of skepticism for the idea of printing rocket tanks (etc), but you don’t know what you’re talking about for rocket engine alloys.

When I read that sentence, I assumed ringsider meant using copper in engines is common knowledge, not something you brag about in a press release.

Precisely.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 04/07/2021 04:23 pm
Quote
In an interview, Relativity CEO Tim Ellis said the company recently printed the second stage that will be used on the inaugural flight of the Terran 1 rocket, which is presently scheduled to take place before the end of 2021. The stage was printed at a rate of about 1 linear foot per day, so it took about three weeks in total to print the 20-foot tall second stage.

3 weeks for a Stage 2 tank? So that is what, 12-15 weeks for a Stage 1 tank? How is this a revolution in manufacturing? SpaceX are making a new Starship a week by manually welding steel plate!
Don't confuse end-to-end manufacturing time for parallelised manufacturing rate. You can spend a year to make a part and have parts rolling off the line once a day if you have 365 parts in production in parallel. Your comparison is apples to oranges, so of no value in comparing production time.
For example: the SN15 common dome was spotted being sleeved mid-November 2020. Even if we take that part as the first ever part of SN15 to be made and that the dome and barrel section were fabricated that same day, that's still a minimum build time of 5 months (assuming rollout and engine fitting later this month) at a build site with something close to 1000 staff now.

The lack of touch labour is the interesting part. The time-lapse for the S2 build showed one mid-build touch to flip the forward dome from dome-up to dome-down. The rest is hands-off manufacture. That means one team can monitor a large fleet of printers working in parallel, rather than one or more teams per rocket body. In addition, a lot of the manual fitout (brackets & mount-points, thrust structure, plumbing, etc) is built in as part of the initial fabrication, so finishing steps are reduced compared to sheet-stock fabrication. No need to fabricate brackets, fabricate piping, weld brackets to body (and inspect), weld piping to length, inspect piping, install piping, QC assembly, when your piping run was built as part of the body and inspect-as-you-build (you literally have a cross-sectional view of the entire vehicle) is in effect.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/07/2021 07:18 pm

Ringside, I have my share of skepticism for the idea of printing rocket tanks (etc), but you don’t know what you’re talking about for rocket engine alloys.

When I read that sentence, I assumed ringsider meant using copper in engines is common knowledge, not something you brag about in a press release.

Precisely.
Well in their defense, 3D printing copper is kind of a challenge, although they’re not the first to do it by far. The high thermal conductivity and high reflectivity to IR light means its pretty tough to laser sinter it. May need quite a bit of tweaking to get it to work.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 04/07/2021 07:39 pm
Quote
In an interview, Relativity CEO Tim Ellis said the company recently printed the second stage that will be used on the inaugural flight of the Terran 1 rocket, which is presently scheduled to take place before the end of 2021. The stage was printed at a rate of about 1 linear foot per day, so it took about three weeks in total to print the 20-foot tall second stage.

3 weeks for a Stage 2 tank? So that is what, 12-15 weeks for a Stage 1 tank? How is this a revolution in manufacturing? SpaceX are making a new Starship a week by manually welding steel plate!
Don't confuse end-to-end manufacturing time for parallelised manufacturing rate. You can spend a year to make a part and have parts rolling off the line once a day if you have 365 parts in production in parallel. Your comparison is apples to oranges, so of no value in comparing production time.
For example: the SN15 common dome was spotted being sleeved mid-November 2020. Even if we take that part as the first ever part of SN15 to be made and that the dome and barrel section were fabricated that same day, that's still a minimum build time of 5 months (assuming rollout and engine fitting later this month) at a build site with something close to 1000 staff now.

The lack of touch labour is the interesting part. The time-lapse for the S2 build showed one mid-build touch to flip the forward dome from dome-up to dome-down. The rest is hands-off manufacture. That means one team can monitor a large fleet of printers working in parallel, rather than one or more teams per rocket body. In addition, a lot of the manual fitout (brackets & mount-points, thrust structure, plumbing, etc) is built in as part of the initial fabrication, so finishing steps are reduced compared to sheet-stock fabrication. No need to fabricate brackets, fabricate piping, weld brackets to body (and inspect), weld piping to length, inspect piping, install piping, QC assembly, when your piping run was built as part of the body and inspect-as-you-build (you literally have a cross-sectional view of the entire vehicle) is in effect.

Alright, long post but having never seen anyone try to put objective numbers to Relativity’s costs for printing the rocket primary structure (domes, stiffened tanks, thrust structure, baffles, etc) I wanted to make a go at it. I’m definitely a fan of their long term mission for Mars, but wanted to see for myself how good near term competitiveness could be.

Starting with Terran 1. Taking vehicle dimensions of 7 ft by 100 ft tall, and their print rate of about 1 foot of rocket per day, that is about 22 square feet of rocket shell printed per printer, per day. There are at least 5 printers shown in recent videos, so that’s 110 square feet per day – or a total vehicle print time of 20 days spread across all the printers. But that is sans any internal features like domes, etc, so we can add in a factor of say 1.25x for those features for a total print time of 25 days. Let’s assume it’s not perfectly 24/7 operations, so the 5 printers build about 12 rockets per year. Looking at the printer design, it’s mostly 6-axis robotic arms, a welder of some kind, cameras, and a structure. That maybe costs $1 million unless some special “sauce” I’m missing. A 5 printer factory costs $5M, and produces 60 rocket fuselages over 5 years, or about $83,000 per fuselage amortized cost. Raw aluminum wire looks to be about $6 per pound searching online, theirs is a special custom alloy with unknown cost, but let’s say its closer to $10 per pound due to customization. The rocket thickness I really don’t know, maybe 0.25”? So for the whole height and surface area, that’s about 10,000 pounds give or take, or $100,000 in raw material. Labor rates it appears are just some people watching the printers going automatically, and is perhaps a team of 4-6 people over a year at rate production, or another $40,000 ish per rocket produced.

Added all up, we get $223,000 per Terran 1 rocket fuselage, including labor. Is that cheap? I don’t know at this scale, but it seems so and depends on just how many features are integrated into one print.

Now let’s scale that to Terran R, their new Falcon 9 sized rocket. We don’t know exact dimensions, but let’s scale off of the same cost per square foot printed as Terran 1 – that’s about how this printing approach will scale, is linearly with print surface area and multiplied by number of printers. Cost per square foot printed is $81/sq ft given Terran 1 cost and dimensions above, and includes all the material/labor/printer costs, etc. This assumes the tank thickness for Terran R is the same 0.25”, maybe it is, maybe it’s not. If Terran R is same size as Falcon, it would be 12 foot wide and 230 foot tall, plus a factor for all the extra features. Let’s say about 11,000 sq ft of print area. That would translate to $891,000 cost for a Falcon 9 sized fuselage, and depending on how many printers, could still be built in weeks.

Lastly, scaling to Starship, which is 390 feet by 30 feet. More uncertainty here because it uses stainless steel not aluminum, is a lot larger, and who knows the print speed of something like this. But using similar logic above, if it holds true for stainless, would yield a cost of about $3.7 million for something Starship sized. It would probably start to take longer to print, but those are roughly the estimated costs.

As to whether any of this is competitive, it sure sounds promising to me, and I imagine Relativity investors, to take a shot at building a launch vehicle in this way.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Pueo on 04/07/2021 11:16 pm
Regarding the tanks, do we have any idea what, if anything, they're doing with the tank wall structure?  One of the big criticisms of printing tanks is that it's cheaper and faster to just use sheet metal.  The only way 3D printing begins to make sense is if the design needs something like isogrid for a better dry mass fraction.  However in all the images of Relativity's tanks the inside wall is smooth except for the baffles, so they're clearly not using isogrid, nor a ring and stringer design.

They could be doing some sort of sandwich structure, but the old timlapse  of the tank being printed certainly looks like a monocoque:
(https://i.imgur.com/RN71Yqlm.png)
And the January tweet of the test firing with significant frosting on the tank.
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1352342386060505088

On the other hand the time lapse of the stage 2 flight print is set at an angle that makes it impossible to see a wall cross-section and the Dev 2 Mission Duty Cycle Test shows a tank completely free of frost.
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1362129115898212354

So do they have a new tank wall design that they are keeping hidden for proprietary reasons?  Are they using a graduated monocoque like SpaceX so we only see the monocoque portion of the tank during print videos because they print upside down?  Did they determine that an entirely monocoque structure was sufficient for the second stage or weren't able to lighten it further because they are limited by minimum line width?  If so did they still choose to 3D print the second stage out of pride, or because they determined it was simplest given the relatively small size and ability to include mounting and plumbing in the print?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/08/2021 09:17 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1380267027206602752

Quote
We are making exciting progress as we work towards first launch of Terran 1! Check out this timelapse to see how our Stage 1 fuel barrel tank is being 3D-printed at Stargate, our #factoryofthefuture. #RelativitySpace
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 04/08/2021 09:44 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1380267027206602752

Quote
We are making exciting progress as we work towards first launch of Terran 1! Check out this timelapse to see how our Stage 1 fuel barrel tank is being 3D-printed at Stargate, our #factoryofthefuture. #RelativitySpace

Very impressive that all of those ladders and lifts move around with zero human labor.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 04/08/2021 09:53 pm

Very impressive that all of those ladders and lifts move around with zero human labor.

Maybe they aren't doing anything? Just watching...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/08/2021 10:02 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1380267027206602752

Quote
We are making exciting progress as we work towards first launch of Terran 1! Check out this timelapse to see how our Stage 1 fuel barrel tank is being 3D-printed at Stargate, our #factoryofthefuture. #RelativitySpace

Very impressive that all of those ladders and lifts move around with zero human labor.

Probably chroma keyed the people out.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 04/08/2021 10:19 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1380267027206602752

Quote
We are making exciting progress as we work towards first launch of Terran 1! Check out this timelapse to see how our Stage 1 fuel barrel tank is being 3D-printed at Stargate, our #factoryofthefuture. #RelativitySpace

Very impressive that all of those ladders and lifts move around with zero human labor.

Probably chroma keyed the people out.

What a colossal and pointless waste of time that would be. This video is going really fast, it may just be that we can't see them. Or the camera is going at like 1 frame every 5 minutes or something. But they definitely did not edit people out of a timelapse just to comply with a claim that they don't even make anymore, and that was pure PR nonsense to begin with.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Pueo on 04/08/2021 10:58 pm
Very impressive that all of those ladders and lifts move around with zero human labor.

Also impressive how the dark oxidized patches of the recently printed sections magically become shiny every now and then, almost as if a pixie comes by with an angle grinder to polish it.  Of course, pixies aren't human so it isn't human labor.  ;D
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 04/09/2021 07:14 am
Regarding the tanks, do we have any idea what, if anything, they're doing with the tank wall structure?  One of the big criticisms of printing tanks is that it's cheaper and faster to just use sheet metal.  The only way 3D printing begins to make sense is if the design needs something like isogrid for a better dry mass fraction.  However in all the images of Relativity's tanks the inside wall is smooth except for the baffles, so they're clearly not using isogrid, nor a ring and stringer design.

They could be doing some sort of sandwich structure, but the old timlapse  of the tank being printed certainly looks like a monocoque:
(https://i.imgur.com/RN71Yqlm.png)
And the January tweet of the test firing with significant frosting on the tank.
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1352342386060505088

On the other hand the time lapse of the stage 2 flight print is set at an angle that makes it impossible to see a wall cross-section and the Dev 2 Mission Duty Cycle Test shows a tank completely free of frost.
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1362129115898212354

So do they have a new tank wall design that they are keeping hidden for proprietary reasons?  Are they using a graduated monocoque like SpaceX so we only see the monocoque portion of the tank during print videos because they print upside down?  Did they determine that an entirely monocoque structure was sufficient for the second stage or weren't able to lighten it further because they are limited by minimum line width?  If so did they still choose to 3D print the second stage out of pride, or because they determined it was simplest given the relatively small size and ability to include mounting and plumbing in the print?

Maybe they 3d printed the 2nd stage for pride, but I think it isn't the inly reason. They could be testing an refining the technology. Maybe starting a second different production line isn't worth it.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 05/07/2021 01:39 am
This photo taken from the International Space Station shows Relativity's pad SLC-16, with what looks like the hangar up at the south end of the pad!

Credit: https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Phil Stooke on 05/07/2021 08:34 pm
PM3: "The thread title should be fixed. It is impossible to build and operate rockets on Earth without human labor. Even if all parts are printed and then assembled by robots, there will be some work left for humans, including programming and servicing the printers and robots. And then humans will sell launches, integrate payloads and operate the rockets.

"zero human labor" is just empty PR speak."


The title is unfortunate too because, though we know lots of people are in fact working on it, it seems to be saying 'orbital rockets with massive layoffs in the aerospace sector'.  Not true, but hardly a confidence builder for someone thinking of getting into the industry. 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 05/10/2021 06:19 pm
PM3: "The thread title should be fixed. It is impossible to build and operate rockets on Earth without human labor. Even if all parts are printed and then assembled by robots, there will be some work left for humans, including programming and servicing the printers and robots. And then humans will sell launches, integrate payloads and operate the rockets.

"zero human labor" is just empty PR speak."


The title is unfortunate too because, though we know lots of people are in fact working on it, it seems to be saying 'orbital rockets with massive layoffs in the aerospace sector'.  Not true, but hardly a confidence builder for someone thinking of getting into the industry.

I agree that it is pr speak, but I also question if not having human labor is necessary better. And, aren't current rocket building methods low human labor? For example spacex in boca chica uses many automatixation, but human labor doesn't seem to be the limiting factor in current rocketry.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 05/14/2021 05:38 pm
Relativity Space is showing off a newly-built structural test stand. I've seen some on Twitter compare this to SpaceX's "nosecone jail" in terms of role and purpose.

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1393248848185679877
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 05/15/2021 12:43 pm
More akin to the blue frameworks at McGregor for S1 and S2 testing than the 'nose jail'.
It's odd that there are two identical (or near-identical) structural stands though. Unless they're expecting to pump out extreme numbers of stages in short enough order to form a queue, one stand would be sufficient.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Alberto-Girardi on 05/16/2021 03:05 pm
More akin to the blue frameworks at McGregor for S1 and S2 testing than the 'nose jail'.
It's odd that there are two identical (or near-identical) structural stands though. Unless they're expecting to pump out extreme numbers of stages in short enough order to form a queue, one stand would be sufficient.

Great point. But if they really expect to become a big rocket producer they may come to a point at which they need two stands. Maybe it is just cheaper to build two stands togheter than one today and another one two years after today.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 06/04/2021 01:43 am
During a recent presentation on the future of launches from Vandenberg, the following slide was presented:

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1400575131978661888/photo/1

While there are some surprises here (believing that SpinLaunch is a thing, showing Electron and New Glenn launching from Vandenberg), for our purposes what's interesting is that in addition to "Relativity T1" (presumably, Terran 1), this picture shows "Relativity T2." That is very specifically T2 and not TR, which would represent the announced Terran R vehicle. The picture of this "T2" looks way too small to be the Terran R, in any event:  using pixel measurements, it's only about 25% taller than the Terran 1, and half the height of Falcon 9. That comes out to 35-44 meters tall, because the Terran 1 and Falcon 9 in this picture aren't properly to scale with each other.  Since the Terran R is supposed to have the same-ish payload capacity as 70-meter-tall Falcon 9, this "T2" probably can't be it.

Do we think this is a typo/misunderstanding, or is Relativity Space possibly working on a "Terran 2" vehicle with payload in the Soyuz/Antares/Neutron range? Those vehicles are 46.3, 40.5, and 40 meters tall (respectively), for comparison. Although, since a "Terran 2" would likely be methalox, not kerolox like the first stages of Soyuz/Antares/Neutron, maybe this direct comparison isn't helpful.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/04/2021 02:50 am
During a recent presentation on the future of launches from Vandenberg, the following slide was presented:

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1400575131978661888/photo/1

While there are some surprises here (believing that SpinLaunch is a thing, showing Electron and New Glenn launching from Vandenberg), for our purposes what's interesting is that in addition to "Relativity T1" (presumably, Terran 1), this picture shows "Relativity T2." That is very specifically T2 and not TR, which would represent the announced Terran R vehicle. The picture of this "T2" looks way too small to be the Terran R, in any event:  using pixel measurements, it's only about 25% taller than the Terran 1, and half the height of Falcon 9. That comes out to 35-44 meters tall, because the Terran 1 and Falcon 9 in this picture aren't properly to scale with each other.  Since the Terran R is supposed to have the same-ish payload capacity as 70-meter-tall Falcon 9, this "T2" probably can't be it.

Do we think this is a typo/misunderstanding, or is Relativity Space possibly working on a "Terran 2" vehicle with payload in the Soyuz/Antares/Neutron range? Those vehicles are 46.3, 40.5, and 40 meters tall (respectively), for comparison. Although, since a "Terran 2" would likely be methalox, not kerolox like the first stages of Soyuz/Antares/Neutron, maybe this direct comparison isn't helpful.
Old slide or pictures of old LVs. Firefly Beta is now single stick 8t LEO LV, most likely RLV if they want to compete in this market.

No sooner these small LV companies get flying than they will be moving onto larger RLVs. Do wonder if they will make the small LVs reuseable, Electron is already going down this path.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 06/04/2021 05:02 am
Old slide or pictures of old LVs. Firefly Beta is now single stick 8t LEO LV, most likely RLV if they want to compete in this market.

Good catch, perhaps Terran 2 was the plan originally but they've switched to Terran R, and the Terran 2 will go the way of the Falcon 5. Still, vaguely interesting insight into their original plans, even if those plans have changed.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/04/2021 10:48 am
Old slide or pictures of old LVs. Firefly Beta is now single stick 8t LEO LV, most likely RLV if they want to compete in this market.

Good catch, perhaps Terran 2 was the plan originally but they've switched to Terran R, and the Terran 2 will go the way of the Falcon 5. Still, vaguely interesting insight into their original plans, even if those plans have changed.
Both RL and Relativity are convince there is market demand for their larger RLVs.
Most likely  constellation owners contacting launch providers first as they need launch price plus launch rates to build their  business plans.

With 2-3 companies flying these medium RLVs, constellation owners would have reliable launch rates and competitive prices.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/09/2021 09:16 am
Have split off Terran R into a new thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54061.0

Hopefully there will be Terran 1 progress to report soon in this thread, together with any other general (non Terran R) Relativity news.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: rakaydos on 06/09/2021 10:38 am
Reading over the Relativity mission statement, their approach, and such, I cant shake the feeling that their endgame is to become purveyors of the finest mars-fabricated carbon-monoxide-fueled hoppers and other vehicals.

They may need to branch into smelting to locally craft materials to feed their 3d printer processes, which will likely make them one of the largest industrial employers on mars.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cheapchips on 06/10/2021 09:40 am

I don't think this was posted. Interview with ex CTO Jordan Noone from March last year. 

https://youtu.be/XsB6dJVwQCA

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 06/11/2021 02:44 pm
If Relativity can succeed at getting Terran-1 and eventually Terran-R to flight, one thing I'll be very interested in is the potential for upper-stage derived or repurposed systems. Things like repurposing one of their upper stages as a habitat ala NanoRacks' Outpost design or Blue Origin's Blue Hab, or repurposing tanks on-orbit for propellant depots, or for upper-stage derived lunar landers and/or tankers.

In the past I had often used ULA as a starting point for such concepts, but being a smaller, more agile company (that doesn't have pesky parent companies to get in the way of fun), plus having a really really easy way to scar the stages with whatever other structures of plumbing you might need could be very interesting, if they chose to go that route. Plus, from the looks of it, the Terran-R upper stage looks like it's only a hair narrower than Centaur V, and likely bigger, and it's in a very useful size range. You wouldn't do this to a reusable Terran-R design, but given their manufacturing flexibility, it feels like Relativity would have an easier time doing purpose-built variants.

3d printing might not be amazing for low-cost mass-production, but could be very enabling for mass-customization.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/11/2021 03:58 pm
My take is that making Terran-R fully reusable means they might be able to afford the massive cost penalty of trying to 3D print the whole rocket. And , if combined with refueling, it’ll only have to initially launch to LEO, so the higher dry mass of 3D printed tanks may be acceptable.

No one else besides SpaceX has announced plans for full reuse.

And while I’m not bullish on 3D printing to reduce costs, it can be made to work if you throw enough money and hard work at it, so 3D printing isn’t necessarily a showstopper.

Being fully reusable matters more than using a somewhat suboptimal manufacturing process.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 06/11/2021 04:10 pm
If Relativity can succeed at getting Terran-1 and eventually Terran-R to flight, one thing I'll be very interested in is the potential for upper-stage derived or repurposed systems. Things like repurposing one of their upper stages as a habitat ala NanoRacks' Outpost design or Blue Origin's Blue Hab, or repurposing tanks on-orbit for propellant depots, or for upper-stage derived lunar landers and/or tankers.

In the past I had often used ULA as a starting point for such concepts, but being a smaller, more agile company (that doesn't have pesky parent companies to get in the way of fun), plus having a really really easy way to scar the stages with whatever other structures of plumbing you might need could be very interesting, if they chose to go that route. Plus, from the looks of it, the Terran-R upper stage looks like it's only a hair narrower than Centaur V, and likely bigger, and it's in a very useful size range. You wouldn't do this to a reusable Terran-R design, but given their manufacturing flexibility, it feels like Relativity would have an easier time doing purpose-built variants.

3d printing might not be amazing for low-cost mass-production, but could be very enabling for mass-customization.

~Jon

Part of me has wondered for a while whether Relativity would be perfectly positioned to build a custom expendable third/kick stage for Starship. Sure, with refueling you really shouldn't need it, but if the options are "send a full Starship upper stage to Europa" or "send a Relativity-built kick stage to Europa," the latter is probably cheaper. And of course, it would be fairly easy to fuel this kickstage from Starship's own GSE: not completely trivial, since new pipes and connections would be needed, but it'd use the same tanks and condensers.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 06/11/2021 04:35 pm
If Relativity can succeed at getting Terran-1 and eventually Terran-R to flight, one thing I'll be very interested in is the potential for upper-stage derived or repurposed systems. Things like repurposing one of their upper stages as a habitat ala NanoRacks' Outpost design or Blue Origin's Blue Hab, or repurposing tanks on-orbit for propellant depots, or for upper-stage derived lunar landers and/or tankers.

In the past I had often used ULA as a starting point for such concepts, but being a smaller, more agile company (that doesn't have pesky parent companies to get in the way of fun), plus having a really really easy way to scar the stages with whatever other structures of plumbing you might need could be very interesting, if they chose to go that route. Plus, from the looks of it, the Terran-R upper stage looks like it's only a hair narrower than Centaur V, and likely bigger, and it's in a very useful size range. You wouldn't do this to a reusable Terran-R design, but given their manufacturing flexibility, it feels like Relativity would have an easier time doing purpose-built variants.

3d printing might not be amazing for low-cost mass-production, but could be very enabling for mass-customization.

~Jon

Part of me has wondered for a while whether Relativity would be perfectly positioned to build a custom expendable third/kick stage for Starship. Sure, with refueling you really shouldn't need it, but if the options are "send a full Starship upper stage to Europa" or "send a Relativity-built kick stage to Europa," the latter is probably cheaper. And of course, it would be fairly easy to fuel this kickstage from Starship's own GSE: not completely trivial, since new pipes and connections would be needed, but it'd use the same tanks and condensers.

In theory yes, but you could get the same result by LEO refueling of a Terran-R upper stage (either from tankers or at a Terran-R derived propellant depot). I know though, totally counting 2nd generation chickens before the first generation has even hatched.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/15/2021 03:28 pm
https://youtu.be/FDnf8VfbMmo

Says launching Terran 1 this year
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 06/15/2021 06:12 pm
https://youtu.be/FDnf8VfbMmo

Says launching Terran 1 this year

They've kept their "Q4 2021" promised launch date for quite a while now...I know everyone expects them to slip until 2022, but so far they've resisted.

From that video, any idea what the notches on the outside of the tank (visible at around 0:10 and 0:22) might be? Something to facilitate manipulating the tank within the factory and on the launch pad?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: moddedLimes on 06/15/2021 06:41 pm
https://youtu.be/FDnf8VfbMmo

Says launching Terran 1 this year

They've kept their "Q4 2021" promised launch date for quite a while now...I know everyone expects them to slip until 2022, but so far they've resisted.

From that video, any idea what the notches on the outside of the tank (visible at around 0:10 and 0:22) might be? Something to facilitate manipulating the tank within the factory and on the launch pad?

I was thinking it was more like for raceways for the harnessing and possibly fluids.
Other companies have that same kind of feature too and you can see that kind of structure when they have the covers off.

On the part where they are still saying Q4 2021, I'm still betting it is like ABL at the moment. They say everything is going to be ready, but then hit regulatory, license and range requirement issues (FCC, RCC-324/319, etc).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hug on 06/23/2021 06:49 am
Here's a summary of some stuff relating to Relativity I created if anyone's curious.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RelativitySpace/comments/o2gwag/relativity_space_block_post/

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/30/2021 01:12 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/relativity-to-open-a-huge-factory-that-measures-up-to-its-grand-ambitions/

Quote
Relativity to open a huge factory that measures up to its grand ambitions
"It can fit the USC Coliseum inside of it."


ERIC BERGER - 6/30/2021, 2:00 PM

Relativity Space announced on Wednesday morning plans to move into a new factory—its third new facility in three years—as the startup company continues to scale up its ambitious launch plans. The new factory, formerly a 93-acre Boeing facility that manufactured the C-17 aircraft in Long Beach, California, comes with 1 million square feet of work space.

"It can fit the USC Coliseum inside of it," Relativity CEO Tim Ellis said in an interview, referring to the iconic stadium that hosted the opening ceremonies of the 1984 Summer Olympics. "To our knowledge, it's the second-largest factory in private space, with SpaceX being number one."
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/30/2021 01:25 pm
Relativity Announces New 1M+ Sq. Ft. Factory Headquarters in Long Beach, CA

New HQ Accommodates Scaling Production for Terran R, Fully Reusable, Entirely 3D Printed Rocket

 

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA (June 30, 2021) –  Relativity Space, the first company to 3D print an entire rocket and build the largest metal 3D printers in the world, today announced a major expansion of its operations in Long Beach with the signing of a new, 1M sq. ft. headquarters factory at Goodman Commerce Center, Long Beach.

As a 93-acre former Boeing C-17 manufacturing plant in Long Beach, the new Relativity headquarters, designed in collaboration with Gensler, is one of the largest headquarters in the private space industry. Relativity Headquarters will have capacity for 2,000+ employees, metallurgical laboratory, DMLS printers, mission control center, as well as dozens of the company’s proprietary Stargate 3D printers, the largest metal 3D printers in the world. With software changes, Relativity’s Stargate printers are capable of printing both Terran 1, the world’s first entirely 3D printed launch vehicle and its fully reusable, entirely 3D printed rocket, Terran R.

The announcement builds on the company’s continued momentum, including its reveal of Terran R, the closing of its $650M Series E fundraise, and an unprecedented year of job creation. Relativity now employs 400+ people, growing 300% within the last year, across its Long Beach, Vandenberg, Seattle, Washington D.C., Stennis, and Cape Canaveral locations. The company is on track to hire 200+ additional employees by the end of the year.

With its expansion, Relativity is doubling down on its Factory of the Future, which is centered on Stargate, the world’s largest 3D printer that the company created in-house. Through collaboration between humans and machines, Relativity’s Factory of the Future fuses 3D printing, artificial intelligence, and autonomous robotics. Disrupting 60 years of aerospace, Relativity’s radically simplified supply chain enables the company to print its rockets with 100x fewer parts in less than 60 days.

Due to its novel use of automation, Relativity’s Factory of the Future was operational during COVID-19, working safely with key Stargate operators, keeping the company on track for the launch of Terran 1 later this year. Incorporating AI-driven controls, Relativity’s Stargate 3D printers continuously optimizes production, resulting in exponentially compounded quality and time improvements, lower costs, and product designs not possible in traditional aerospace manufacturing.

“Relativity is at the forefront of an inevitable shift to software-driven manufacturing, and the opportunity to reimagine this facility for the future of aerospace is incredibly exciting,” said Tim Ellis, CEO and co-founder of Relativity. “Securing this space for Relativity Headquarters, which is now one of the largest facilities in private space, right here in Long Beach, is key for scaling out our Terran R program, while also continuing to tap into the unparalleled talent here to join us on our mission.”

As part of Long Beach City Council’s recently passed Globemaster Corridor Specific Plan, the new Relativity headquarters is part of 437 acres of coveted land west of Long Beach Airport that will be transformed into a modern business district, commencing over the coming weeks with move in planned for January 2022.

“We want to welcome Relativity Space to Space Beach, and we couldn’t be more excited to welcome their new 1M square foot headquarters to our city,” said Mayor Robert Garcia. “Relativity is a fierce and growing leader in our world’s space economy, and we’re proud they chose Long Beach as home. This new HQ will bring thousands of great, good-paying jobs to Long Beach and strengthen economic growth for the entire region.”

Goodman Group, one of the largest global industrial property groups, will be working with local stakeholders and communities to create employment opportunities, and demonstrate sustainable and innovative use of the spaces. Architecture and design firm, Gensler, will be collaborating with Relativity to completely reimagine the space.

Anthony Rozic, CEO of Goodman North America said, “The adaptive re-use of this iconic Long Beach building sees Goodman deliver our global strategy of being leaders in sustainability and providers of unique real estate solutions for our customers in rare strategic locations. We know that regeneration of existing sites will have the lowest impact on the environment. Partnering with the City of Long Beach, the site has been sustainably redeveloped removing the need for large scale demolition and new construction. In Relativity, we found the ideal partner for the space providing thousands of job opportunities for the Long Beach community. At Goodman, our purpose is ‘making space for greatness’ which I have no doubt Relativity will achieve as they expand their vertically integrated technology platform and 3D manufacturing capabilities.”

The company’s existing Long Beach facility will continue to be utilized for Terran 1 production. To learn more about Relativity Space and its multiplanetary mission, visit relativityspace.com.

About Relativity Space
Relativity is building humanity’s multiplanetary future. We invented a new approach to design, print, and fly our own rockets, starting with the world’s first entirely 3D-printed rocket, Terran 1, and Terran R, a larger, fully reusable, entirely 3D-printed launch vehicle.

As a vertically integrated technology platform, Relativity is at the forefront of an inevitable shift toward software-defined manufacturing. By fusing 3D printing, artificial intelligence, and autonomous robotics, we are pioneering the factory of the future. Disrupting 60 years of aerospace, Relativity offers a radically simplified supply chain, building a rocket with 100x fewer parts in less than 60 days.

We believe in a future where interplanetary life fundamentally expands the possibilities for human experience. Our long-term vision is to upgrade humanity’s industrial base on Earth and on Mars.
Relativity Space is backed by leading investors including Baillie Gifford, Blackrock, BOND, Coatue, Fidelity, General Catalyst, ICONIQ Capital, K5 Global, Mark Cuban, Playground Global, Social Capital, Tiger Global, Tribe Capital, Y Combinator, and 3L. For more information, please visit relativityspace.com or connect with us on LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram or YouTube.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/30/2021 03:01 pm
That is like twice the size of hawthorne. Over half the size of Michoud.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: loekf on 06/30/2021 03:43 pm
That is like twice the size of hawthorne. Over half the size of Michoud.

I hope they are successfull, but the launch market is not a very steep hockey stick in marketing slides or did I miss something ?

I am always amazed by startups who immediately invest in the biggest production facilities they can afford and then at some point run out of cash. See some EV start-ups, some initially with backing from large Chinese investors. Looks like the VCs are hungry for more space.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Scintillant on 06/30/2021 05:35 pm
That is like twice the size of hawthorne. Over half the size of Michoud.

I hope they are successfull, but the launch market is not a very steep hockey stick in marketing slides or did I miss something ?

I am always amazed by startups who immediately invest in the biggest production facilities they can afford and then at some point run out of cash. See some EV start-ups, some initially with backing from large Chinese investors. Looks like the VCs are hungry for more space.

Relativity isn't really a rocket company like SpaceX or ULA. It's a 3D printing company whose primary product currently is a rocket. Berger's article talked about how they already were planning on 3D printing things for other industries, so they're probably not gonna be a rocket-only outfit for long. When viewed from that perspective, this move makes a bit more sense - gotta have plenty of room if you're going to be printing rockets and plane parts and bridge components and who knows what else. Still, it's a high-risk high-reward move, and I wish them luck.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cheapchips on 06/30/2021 05:47 pm
Nice to see Relatively continuing to show ambition.

Having spent far to much time looking at how Starship would have been transported out of various build sites before they settled on BC, I wonder how they'll move the 5m Terran R to the sea?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 07/01/2021 10:46 am
Some vindication for Terran R's 5m diameter:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1410537178762027009
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/04/2021 05:03 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1411731721301622784

Quote
Happy 4th of July! 🇺🇸 Here at Relativity, the Launch team recently completed the maiden lift of the Strongback at our Cape Canaveral launch pad!

To learn more about recent #news about #RelativitySpace, visit our link in bio.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 07/13/2021 03:38 pm
Relativity updated their site to include a never before published view of the Aeon 1 engine being built up:

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/59a8fb50d2b8575fad311abb/1626128217820-M4OKL4TBF4PTOB5DUNV1/Edit_Relativity_Space-7_sm.jpg?format=2500w

edit: attached image
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/13/2021 03:53 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1414975657478475780

Quote
We are picking up stellar momentum here at #RelativitySpace as we work towards #launch! Check out the latest video recap from our maiden lift at Cape Canaveral, where we will launch Terran 1.

For more video updates, subscribe to our YouTube channel! Link in bio.📽️

https://youtu.be/T1IO9VOeV4U
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/05/2021 07:26 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1423363174238015488

Quote
Stage 1 assimilator welding complete.💥

Here’s a timelapse of several of our 3D prints being welded together to build our Stage 1 tank! #RelativitySpace #Innovation #3DPrinting #Tech #Milestone
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 08/05/2021 07:29 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1423363174238015488

Quote
Stage 1 assimilator welding complete.💥

Here’s a timelapse of several of our 3D prints being welded together to build our Stage 1 tank! #RelativitySpace #Innovation #3DPrinting #Tech #Milestone

So they require all of the gear for printing, AND all of the gear and jigs for welding? Saving seem like they will be elusive?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 08/05/2021 07:36 pm
If by "all the gear and jigs" you mean "what appears to be a commercial large-diameter pipe welder". There are no stiffening jigs required, as the stiffeners are already installed as printed. There are no ring forming jigs, as the rings are printed to size (this is no desktop FDM printer where part shrinkage is a mystery compensated for by random guesswork). There are no external alignment jigs required, as you can print the outer roll boss right onto the part. Crane them on, clock them, then run the welder to full circumference, as you would any other pipe.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Parker Huntington on 08/12/2021 04:43 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: mihirneal on 08/12/2021 05:07 pm
can someone explain what Tim meant by reverse warping? It's at 5:30
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Davidthefat on 08/12/2021 05:12 pm
can someone explain what Tim meant by reverse warping? It's at 5:30

Software to compensate for warping from thermal distortion. So they characterized how the material warps as it cools down and they know what their intended final geometry is. They compensate for that natural warping by placing the material down in the "warped" geometry knowing that it will naturally warp into place.

ANSYS has software to predict that thermal distortion that other companies use: https://www.ansys.com/products/additive/ansys-additive-print
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 08/12/2021 05:30 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E

At around 11:54 into that video we get a glimpse of Terran R's tank dome, with a scalloped design which would be entirely infeasible using traditional manufacturing. I'm not a rocket scientist and can't assess whether this is actually better, but this is one answer to the question "why would you 3D print tanks, they're not even doing anything fancy with hoops and stringers, so bending a single piece of metal is sufficient."

Of course, doing fancy things with domes (including Y-joints) don't explain why you wouldn't 3D print the domes exclusively but then use traditional approaches for the long portions, but maybe once you've got the 3D printer set up you might as well use it for the whole thing.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 08/12/2021 09:15 pm
Idle thought while watching the Veritasium video; I wonder if Terran R will be bid for the next lunar lander contract.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 08/12/2021 10:17 pm
Idle thought while watching the Veritasium video; I wonder if Terran R will be bid for the next lunar lander contract.

Terran R is said to be close to the Falcon 9 in paylaod capacity. You think it could support a crew-rated lunar lander? It could certainly carry the various CLPS missions currently flying on Falcon 9, but those are separate.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: niwax on 08/12/2021 10:41 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E

At around 11:54 into that video we get a glimpse of Terran R's tank dome, with a scalloped design which would be entirely infeasible using traditional manufacturing. I'm not a rocket scientist and can't assess whether this is actually better, but this is one answer to the question "why would you 3D print tanks, they're not even doing anything fancy with hoops and stringers, so bending a single piece of metal is sufficient."

Of course, doing fancy things with domes (including Y-joints) don't explain why you wouldn't 3D print the domes exclusively but then use traditional approaches for the long portions, but maybe once you've got the 3D printer set up you might as well use it for the whole thing.

I'm not sure what they mean by "traditional manufacturing", because scalloped stiffened metal parts at the 1m²+ level are being stamped daily in car factories. Even the Starship top dome was made from stamped sections before they went to rolling and stretching. The four welds to assemble the thing can hardly be the deciding factor over printing.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/12/2021 10:47 pm
Don't think stamping 16-foot diameter pieces as shown is normally done.  And if you want to stamp pieces and then weld together via friction stir welding, you might have to build quite the machine to do so.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 08/12/2021 10:51 pm
Idle thought while watching the Veritasium video; I wonder if Terran R will be bid for the next lunar lander contract.

Terran R is said to be close to the Falcon 9 in paylaod capacity. You think it could support a crew-rated lunar lander? It could certainly carry the various CLPS missions currently flying on Falcon 9, but those are separate.

Starship requires refueling to get to the moon and land anyway. Once refueling is on the table, Ariane V, Atlas V, Vulcan, Falcon 9, etc. are all perfectly capable of doing manned lunar missions. However, as a, theoretically, rapidly and fully reusable vehicle, Terran R should be better qualified.

More to the point though, I was just suggesting a lander based closely on the Terran R upper stage. The exact mission architecture that might use could vary.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 08/12/2021 10:59 pm
Don't think stamping 16-feet diameter pieces as shown is normally done.  And if you want to stamp pieces and then weld together via friction stir welding, you might have to build quite the machine to do so.
The entire tube of an Ariane 5 stage is pressure formed from a massive flat aluminum billet in about 4-5 minutes. That is 5.4m (ca.18 ft) in diameter. They also mill the end dome segments from solid billet. I guess if they wanted to stamp a flowery pattern into the dome they could do it pretty easily.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robert Thompson on 08/12/2021 10:59 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E)

At around 11:54 into that video we get a glimpse of Terran R's tank dome, with a scalloped design which would be entirely infeasible using traditional manufacturing. I'm not a rocket scientist and can't assess whether this is actually better, but this is one answer to the question "why would you 3D print tanks, they're not even doing anything fancy with hoops and stringers, so bending a single piece of metal is sufficient."

Of course, doing fancy things with domes (including Y-joints) don't explain why you wouldn't 3D print the domes exclusively but then use traditional approaches for the long portions, but maybe once you've got the 3D printer set up you might as well use it for the whole thing.

I would like to see the cross product of this innovation and the limitations of the X-33 LH2 tanks.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: niwax on 08/12/2021 11:22 pm
Don't think stamping 16-foot diameter pieces as shown is normally done.  And if you want to stamp pieces and then weld together via friction stir welding, you might have to build quite the machine to do so.

They literally have a multi-axis laser welder of precisely the right dimensions. The largest stamping in typical mass manufacturing are 2m*2m for newer platforms that use a two-piece underbody, but that's also reasonably thick high strength steel.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2021 05:24 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E
Presenter ask intelligent questions eg will rough surface increase aerodynamics. Ans No according to Tim.
Does it add extra mass compared to traditional sheet metal? Ans +10-15%.

NB there are likely to be weight savings else where in structure from 3D print which help offset some of this extra mass. More importantly does build cost savings from 3D printing help offset lost payload mass, most likely yes. Its $ per kg to orbit that matters not LV to payload mass ratio.

I think Scott Manley is correct in that win or lose in LV market, Relativity 3D printing technology will still be successful in other industries.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/14/2021 12:06 am
twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1425975985573285890

Quote
Get *inside* Stargate, the world’s largest metal 3D printer, with @veritasium and @thetimellis to understand why 3D printing rockets is a great idea. Guest appearance by @DJSnM – Check it out youtu.be/kz165f1g8-E

#RelativitySpace

https://twitter.com/djsnm/status/1426061290485673993

Quote
One question I would have had is how you manage the shielding gas used on the welding head, I mean it looks like a system very similar to MIG welding, which usually needs Argon.
Is it recaptured and reused?

twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1426298848578719746

Quote
Good eye @DJSnM it’s similar to MIG welding in that we use a variety of shielding gases like Argon & Helium -- no recapture tho (it mixes & dilutes in the ambient atmosphere & other metal vapors). We capture & contain the vapors from our proprietary alloys using fume extractors.

https://twitter.com/djsnm/status/1426299423106109440

Quote
So is it not economical to recapture and reuse when building such large objects, or to use airtight printing cells with inert atmospheres.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 08/14/2021 02:24 pm
Having inert-gas-filled rooms dotted around (AKA warningless asphyxiation chambers) sounds like far more trouble than is worth the cost of purchasing pure process gasses.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Spaceman_From_Italy on 08/17/2021 11:56 am

Does it add extra mass compared to traditional sheet metal? Ans +10-15%.


This is not exactly accurate to his answer, he was comparing leaving the rough surface finish to smoothing it out, but he was still talking about 3D printed metal, not sheet metal
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/20/2021 06:08 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1428780883696181254

Quote
A few updates on #Terran1:

✅We're excited to share that Stage 2 passed cryo pressure proof + hydro mechanical buckling test on our structural test stand. Up next: S1 structural testing!

✅Terran 1’s demonstration launch is now set for early 2022 from Cape Canaveral LC-16.

Edit to add:

https://youtu.be/T6IQU0RUkxQ
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 08/20/2021 08:24 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1428780883696181254

Quote
A few updates on #Terran1:

✅We're excited to share that Stage 2 passed cryo pressure proof + hydro mechanical buckling test on our structural test stand. Up next: S1 structural testing!

✅Terran 1’s demonstration launch is now set for early 2022 from Cape Canaveral LC-16.

Edit to add:

https://youtu.be/T6IQU0RUkxQ

I'm pretty sure that music should qualify as assault. There's such a thing as too much base when you're subjecting unknowing headphone users to it.

Good to actually see progress though.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 09/03/2021 10:14 pm
https://youtu.be/Yz6vEipapXg
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/09/2021 07:20 pm
https://youtu.be/QS91MFQcPxg
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 09/09/2021 07:30 pm
https://youtu.be/QS91MFQcPxg

It still feels a little weird to hear them talk about "we can print any geometry," and then all the shots show cylinders with ring stiffeners. That picture of Terran R's dome from a while back actually looked like it used novel shapes, but for Terran 1, that aspect of 3D printing doesn't seem to have helped them.

There still might be benefits to "we have no fixed infrastructure, we can change vehicle diameter on a whim and use the exact same machines for very different components," but Terran 1's uniqueness does not come from its geometry.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 09/09/2021 08:42 pm
https://youtu.be/QS91MFQcPxg
Massive welding robots, AI algorithms...

It has tones of that juice company that built the most ridiculously over-engineered device to squeeze juice pulp, Juicero. Everybody drank the juicy Koolaid until somebody pointed out that all they were doing was squeezing packets of incredibly expensive juice pulp.

All Relativity is doing is making metal cylinders, very, very slowly, and very, very expensively. If they made them by bending and welding sheet metal like Astra they might already be flying and wouldn't need however many hundreds of millions they have raised so far - some of it apparently being used to buy Christian Dior belt buckles.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 09/10/2021 10:57 am
https://youtu.be/QS91MFQcPxg

It still feels a little weird to hear them talk about "we can print any geometry," and then all the shots show cylinders with ring stiffeners. That picture of Terran R's dome from a while back actually looked like it used novel shapes, but for Terran 1, that aspect of 3D printing doesn't seem to have helped them.

There still might be benefits to "we have no fixed infrastructure, we can change vehicle diameter on a whim and use the exact same machines for very different components," but Terran 1's uniqueness does not come from its geometry.
You print your first vehicle with a radical new geometry. It fails. Did it fail because of an issue with the print, or with the radical new geometry?
You print your first vehicle with a tried-and-tested geometry with well understood statics and dynamics. If it fails, you have an enormous head start on working your way down the failure tree. You can go for a more radical design with version 2, because you have vanishingly little sunk cost in legacy tooling that needs to be amortised over multiple launches of your test vehicle.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/14/2021 03:48 pm
https://youtu.be/aOFyRBsP-YY

Quote
Check out a timelapse of our Terran R test article, a path-finding prototype to help our team better understand the structure and performance of large-scale printing. In other words, additional proof that additive manufacturing really works! And that 3D printing robotics can help us build innovative and more sustainable products, like Terran R, to help build humanity's multiplanetary future. #ThisIsTerranR #RelativitySpace
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hug on 09/16/2021 08:09 am
In regards to complicated geometry enabled by Stargate, yes Terran 1 is very conventional for the most part and it does not utilize that. But right now; their priority is getting to first launch and (maybe then) orbit; taking on the additional risk/challenges with doing the funky parts isn't worth it for now. However as they look to increase the performance of Terran 1 and gain confidence in the structures as is; they can then get into that. Tim has said as much on twitter; https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1276396122886430725 (https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1276396122886430725).

As to comparing it to traditional manufacturing; yes that will give you better throughput, cost and higher material quality at high volume. But with the low volume associated with rockets, all structures being made on 1 type of machine and especially with the order of magnitude improvements in development for print speed, well that becomes a much less clear trade. With some advantages in the overall system vs the individual part; well it just might come out ahead.

Granted, getting Stargate working well has taken a significant amount of time and they probably would be in orbit by now had pursued more traditional manufacturing forms (assuming that they would have been able to raise the required money without the hypebeast investors). But then evolving into something like Terran R is harder, because you have a reset on structure production.

Now these things have yet to occur and it's perfectly reasonable to doubt the claims made. Proof is in the launch pudding and all that. Though I think i that a company pursuing the tech, especially given it's low maturity and potentially very attractive benefits is completely viable.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 09/16/2021 03:42 pm
Lockheed Martin has chosen ABL Space Systems (https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-to-launch-nasa-technology-demonstration-mission/) to carry their Tipping Point cryogenic fluid management demonstration mission. Notably, when LM won this award from NASA they listed Relativity Space as the launch provider, so this is a cancellation for Relativity. Unclear if something about Relativity made LM want to move away, if LM specifically wanted to improve ABL's manifest (LM is an investor in ABL), or if LM's falling out with Momentus (https://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-removes-momentus-from-nasa-technology-demonstration-mission/) had knock-on effects on their choice of launch provider.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 09/18/2021 11:10 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNbT21HZmdc

First look at faring? Stargate V4.0 will print 10x faster(10/ feet per day?).
Able to print structures in 6 days instead of 60.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/18/2021 04:30 pm
Lockheed Martin has chosen ABL Space Systems (https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-to-launch-nasa-technology-demonstration-mission/) to carry their Tipping Point cryogenic fluid management demonstration mission. Notably, when LM won this award from NASA they listed Relativity Space as the launch provider, so this is a cancellation for Relativity. Unclear if something about Relativity made LM want to move away, if LM specifically wanted to improve ABL's manifest (LM is an investor in ABL), or if LM's falling out with Momentus (https://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-removes-momentus-from-nasa-technology-demonstration-mission/) had knock-on effects on their choice of launch provider.

I think Momentus had made them a sweetheart deal that they had to back out on. If I had to guess this is more about Momentus problems than Relativity problems.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 09/24/2021 06:53 pm
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUNujV9JJRv/

A further look at the biomimicry used within the structure of Terran R.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 10/06/2021 07:09 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1445805962967732226?t=nblmInWnh6sjJkNoAm-v_w
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 10/07/2021 09:24 pm
Terran 1, stage 1: Lift, cryo testing and flight pressures reached: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eeT5XFeJk&t=7s

Nose cone print: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ANP4KCH5k
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: c4fusion on 10/08/2021 05:32 am
Nose cone print: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ANP4KCH5k

I am guessing this nosecone is not going to be jettisoned and they are going to need to redesign it for production.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/08/2021 05:34 am
New monthly newsletter:

https://manage.kmail-lists.com/subscriptions/web-view?a=VARUmk&c=01FDJF5RF9JMVB0GRVABJVYCZ2&k=c191dc5c90cd70bbc2c54ee791173b51&m=RgithA&r=EWQpULt
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 10/08/2021 05:51 am
Nose cone print: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ANP4KCH5k

I am guessing this nosecone is not going to be jettisoned and they are going to need to redesign it for production.

It does make me wonder about eventually 3D printing a clamshell fairing. Probably can't easily "skip" the gap when going around in a circle, but I suppose they could do each half separately, with a switchback for the edge. Not sure how that would affect the structure at the edge, though.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 10/08/2021 09:28 am
Probably can't easily "skip" the gap when going around in a circle, but I suppose they could do each half separately, with a switchback for the edge.
If the halves can be printed (and no reason they could not, as the stiffeners required to so so are print-in-place) then two halves can be printed with a minute gap between them on the same build plate. Saves time (one longer cycle rather than two individual shorter cycles, due to the fixed time costs of cycle change) and may make absolute print time shorter due to being able to use simpler continuous circular paths with just a momentary deposition interruption rather than needing to reverse print direction at the end of each half.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Senex on 10/08/2021 01:01 pm
And it's not like Relativity — all about additive manufacturing — isn't ALLOWED to do "reductive" manufacturing.

You know, like, maybe a saw . . .   ;)

Excellent comments!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 10/13/2021 01:58 pm
Announced first launch of Terran 1:

2018-03: "late 2020 (https://www.reddit.com/r/RelativitySpace/comments/9u5405/noone_terran_1_1250_kg_to_leo_is_scheduled_for/)" (in ~31 months)
2019-04: "very end of 2020 (https://spacenews.com/spaceflight-signs-contract-with-relativity-for-launches/)" (in 19 months)
2019-10: "early 2021 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/amidst-heavy-competition-relatively-space-secures-140-million-in-funding/)" (in ~16 months)
2020-03: "fall 2021 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/relativity-space-has-big-dreams-is-the-company-for-real/)" (in ~20 months)
2021-08: "early 2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40975.msg2280466#msg2280466) (in ~6 months)

This timeline is too bumpy to project it into the future. Clearly the rocket will not launch in early 2022, but when?

Firefly milestones:

- initial 2nd stage static fire in April 2019 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/firefly-has-successfully-tested-the-upper-stage-of-its-alpha-rocket/)
- initial 1st stage static fire in Jan. 2020 (https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/01/23/firefly-confirms-anomaly-and-fire-during-first-stage-hotfire-test/)
- first launch attempt in September 2021

Relativity is still before all that, they have just started tank testing, not integrated any stage. Development process may be different than at Firefly, but still ... a launch in 2022 looks very ambitious to me. Did I miss some hidden magic at Relativity?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hug on 10/13/2021 03:01 pm
Yeah it's very much a success orientated schedule. They've finished tank testing at this stage and they should be close to having the second stage being integrated with engine for static firing. Relativity are taking a higher risk by skipping building a dev first stage. For reference the first static fire of the flight Alpha first stage occurred in October 2020, which supported a September 2021 launch. But Alpha also got delayed by like half a year because of a single supplier being unable to deliver a FTS component; which should hopefully be avoidable for Relativity. At the time of the first stage static fire; they were targeting a launch in December 2020. Maybe that's a realism check for Relativity; but if they manage to conduct a first stage static by years end; a launch in H1 2022 seems possible. Also for the record they did static a dev second stage back in January. The other risk factor is just some subsystem that they haven't been paying attention to catching them out. Fairing seems underdeveloped and the pressurisation system seems novel as well.

Basically they can do the launch sooner rather than later assuming the first stage doesn't catch on fire and they've got a certified FTS; but unlikely.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/13/2021 06:50 pm
Yeah it's very much a success orientated schedule. They've finished tank testing at this stage and they should be close to having the second stage being integrated with engine for static firing. Relativity are taking a higher risk by skipping building a dev first stage. For reference the first static fire of the flight Alpha first stage occurred in October 2020, which supported a September 2021 launch. But Alpha also got delayed by like half a year because of a single supplier being unable to deliver a FTS component; which should hopefully be avoidable for Relativity. At the time of the first stage static fire; they were targeting a launch in December 2020. Maybe that's a realism check for Relativity; but if they manage to conduct a first stage static by years end; a launch in H1 2022 seems possible. Also for the record they've static'd a dev second stage back in January.

Basically they can do the launch sooner rather than later assuming the first stage doesn't catch on fire and they've got a certified FTS; but unlikely.
What is status of their launch pad?.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hug on 10/14/2021 12:06 am
Pads looking solid according to the hypebeast marketing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz6vEipapXg&list=PL965Xy_9asPh7XoO9ogocoBPr3AKTIZfJ&index=2
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/14/2021 01:25 am
They're still aiming for Q1 (as of a week ago).  They have a lot of stuff in work.  Stage one engines well into qual testing, stage 2 engine ready to ship for qual testing, a second stage hotfire scheduled for later this year, first stage delivery to the pad near the end of the year.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 10/14/2021 11:20 am
They're still aiming for Q1 (as of a week ago).  They have a lot of stuff in work.  Stage one engines well into qual testing, stage 2 engine ready to ship for qual testing, a second stage hotfire scheduled for later this year, first stage delivery to the pad near the end of the year.

That sounds precisely like ABL one year ago.  ;D

"The company expects to ship the first flight version of the RS1 first stage from its El Segundo, California, headquarters to Vandenberg Air Force Base by the end of the year for a launch attempt in the first quarter of 2021." - as of  October 22, 2020 (https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-tests-launch-vehicle-stage/)

One year later, they have not launched yet. And ABL has the most simple, conventional rocket design of all those small launcher startups.

Would be a good achievement if Terran 1 launches in late 2022.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/14/2021 11:45 pm
 Tom Markusic had lot to say about advantages of RP1 as booster fuel, especially cooling properties.

Something like this $10M machine is how Firefly plan to 3d print their tanks going forward.
https://youtu.be/_GDqxnahwbk
Combine it with likes of RL's ROSIE and most of composite construction is automated.





Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: irishmann on 10/23/2021 12:25 am
Anyone know what the corp culture is like over at Relativity? Just applied for a job there at the Cape (if this should be a separate thread for the question, lemme know)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 10/31/2021 10:14 pm
Some great photos of LC-16 at the Cape
https://twitter.com/derekiswise/status/1454948048568786945?s
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 11/02/2021 07:30 pm
"We recently shipped off our Terran 1 Interstage for heat treatment! This is the part of the rocket that will separate from Stage 2 in flight."

Edit: Is it just me or is this an absurd amount of work for what is just a propellant tank?
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1455620866314674180
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 11/02/2021 11:09 pm
Edit: Is it just me or is this an absurd amount of work for what is just a propellant tank?

Oh don't worry. It'll all be done by robots on Mars. Maybe the robots will make the heat treat facility too ;D.

Edit: this is just the interstage. They 3D printed a barrel... :o
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/02/2021 11:43 pm
"We recently shipped off our Terran 1 Interstage for heat treatment! This is the part of the rocket that will separate from Stage 2 in flight."

Edit: Is it just me or is this an absurd amount of work for what is just a propellant tank?
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1455620866314674180
It's not just you.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: niwax on 11/03/2021 12:44 am
"We recently shipped off our Terran 1 Interstage for heat treatment! This is the part of the rocket that will separate from Stage 2 in flight."

Edit: Is it just me or is this an absurd amount of work for what is just a propellant tank?
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1455620866314674180
It's not just you.

I hoped they were at least bringing this much innovation with their printing, like the custom Tesla casting alloy that alleviates the need for heat treatment. If this is really the state of their technology I respectfully retract my last shred of hopefulness under the usual "3D printing is stupid for nearly all kinds of manufacturing" rant.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: imprezive on 11/03/2021 05:00 am
I almost missed the satellite mock up in the photos. I wonder what it is?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 11/03/2021 05:40 am
"We recently shipped off our Terran 1 Interstage for heat treatment! This is the part of the rocket that will separate from Stage 2 in flight."

Edit: Is it just me or is this an absurd amount of work for what is just a propellant tank?
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1455620866314674180
It's not just you.
To quote someone in this thread:

"All Relativity is doing is making metal cylinders, very, very slowly, and very, very expensively. If they made them by bending and welding sheet metal like Astra they might already be flying and wouldn't need however many hundreds of millions they have raised so far."

You really have to drink the Koolaid to believe this is a revolutionary approach when people like Rocket Lab, Astra, Firefly and others can build the same structures in days using carbon or sheet metal.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 11/03/2021 07:45 am
Only assuming a rocket is a simple plain metal cylinder, with some unremarkable ancillary plumbing bolted to the bottom that's not worth concerning yourself about. Pay no attention to the slosh baffles, anti-vortex plates, surface-tension ullage control devices (e.g. mesh screens, wall channels, etc), pressurisation lines, fill and drain lines, avionics runs, hydraulic and/or pneumatic lines, stiffeners and stringers, aerosurfaces, staging hardware, payload interface hardware, thrust structures, or any of those elaborate fluid dump valves people persist in calling 'engines'.

It's amusing how literally their first piece of flight hardware is being scrutinised as if it were the best their production concept is ever possibly capable of. Reminds me of a certain boilerplate vehicle assembled by water-tower builders whose production could surely never be improved or refined after the first proof-of-concept...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: xyv on 11/04/2021 12:04 am
Hmmmm.  (checks earlier in the thread).  Stargate pictures with a small tank like structure in 2017.  Seems before the water tower guys were on the job, and we are just now printing an interstage that needs to be shipped off site for heat treating.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 11/04/2021 07:28 pm
Relativity's newsletter has sent out a video and some images of painting their stage 1 tank with "an electrostatic dissipative coating for protection in flight"; Chris Bergin has shared a couple of those images:

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1456313109644300294

While it's not evident from these pictures alone, the video makes it clear the painting was done manually, which I'm sure will elicit comments here about "what's the point of 3D printing if you need to take further manual steps to finish the product?"
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 11/04/2021 08:30 pm
Here's a link to the newsletter video in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnIW7glEJNQ

Also from the newsletter, an unlisted video of a copper Aeon running a full MDC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czXFwewrTrM
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 11/05/2021 07:40 am
While it's not evident from these pictures alone, the video makes it clear the painting was done manually, which I'm sure will elicit comments here about "what's the point of 3D printing if you need to take further manual steps to finish the product?"
Cost/benefit.

3D printing the stage has a high initial cost, but has the benefit of demonstrating a brand new stage construction technique - Relativity's raison d'être.

Robotic painting also has a high initial cost, but has zero benefit (vs. a few person-hours, some vinyl, and some sprayguns). It's a COTS system that has been in use in industry for decades.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 11/06/2021 08:14 pm
While it's not evident from these pictures alone, the video makes it clear the painting was done manually, which I'm sure will elicit comments here about "what's the point of 3D printing if you need to take further manual steps to finish the product?"
Cost/benefit.

3D printing the stage has a high initial cost, but has the benefit of demonstrating a brand new stage construction technique - Relativity's raison d'être.

Robotic painting also has a high initial cost, but has zero benefit (vs. a few person-hours, some vinyl, and some sprayguns). It's a COTS system that has been in use in industry for decades.

Not to mention that the paint scheme on this first vehicle is probably not representative of production vehicles. Firefly painted a Phoenix on the side of their first first-stage. The art is just another aspect of the race in this tight market, and excitement for the first launch. I expect all production Terran 1s and Alphas to be much less well painted.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 12/05/2021 12:57 pm
Some BTS Shots of Terran 1 and the R dome.

Likely a mixture of flight vehicles 1 and 2:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90694474/future-447-billion-space-industry-15-incredible-pictures-abl-relativity-millennium
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 12/09/2021 08:56 pm
https://youtu.be/zWOb9d5nJtY

https://youtu.be/P_9bjXbCN2o
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/09/2021 10:02 pm
https://youtu.be/zWOb9d5nJtY

https://youtu.be/P_9bjXbCN2o
New test stand and Launch pad videos.

Navier its nice to add short comment against links like this.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 12/09/2021 10:58 pm
https://youtu.be/zWOb9d5nJtY

https://youtu.be/P_9bjXbCN2o
New test stand and Launch pad videos.

Navier its nice to add short comment against links like this.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Sorry. I always forget that Tapatalk doesn't display embedded links like the full site does.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 12/22/2021 11:49 pm
Looks like they’ve completed flight engine qualification of their Methane and Oxygen engine.

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1473766841940123655?s=21
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 01/03/2022 03:09 pm
RELATIVITY NAMES SCOTT VAN VLIET AS SVP OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING AND REVEALS PLANS FOR 'NEW FACTORY OPERATING SYSTEM'


https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/jan03/newsvpatrelativity
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 01/06/2022 08:22 pm
Another edition of Relativity's email newsletter has gone out. They've got a new "sizzle reel" of vehicle development, but it doesn't appear to have any new material, and I'm not sure the policy of sharing the link to that since the featured video is an unlisted YouTube video when sent out to subscribers.

More significantly, they say that "We recently finished internal precision cleaning of S2 and sealed off the tanks, which means no more internal work to be done on this segment of Terran 1." So this is the first time they've had a "complete" second stage tank structure, ready for testing? I suppose they had test articles before, and this is the stage they hope to fly on their first attempt, but it feels kind of late to be sealing off the tanks given that until relatively recently, they claimed they could launch by the end of 2021.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: J-B on 01/14/2022 09:10 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1481612652950474757


https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1481707390089129986
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 01/26/2022 03:46 am
A Space Startup Worth $4 Billion Swears Off Fizzling SPAC Craze (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/space-startup-worth-4-billion-124558606.html)

Quote from: yahoo.com
(Bloomberg) -- One of the most valuable private space startups after Elon Musk’s SpaceX is the type of company that sponsors of special purpose acquisition companies would love to target for a deal.

But Tim Ellis, co-founder and chief executive officer of Relativity Space Inc., just isn’t interested.

Ellis, 31, didn’t actively pursue SPACs that approached the company, even during the height of their popularity last year among startups in the fast-growing space economy. Relativity, which makes 3D-printed and reusable rockets, has instead raised $1.3 billion through private rounds and was valued at $4.2 billion in June after backing from investors including Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC, Mark Cuban and Jared Leto.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 02/02/2022 06:30 am
Relativity and SpaceX bid on NASA commercial space station competition (https://spacenews.com/relativity-and-spacex-bid-on-nasa-commercial-space-station-competition/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
The company won technical strengths in NASA’s analysis for “proposed iterative prototyping and testing in hardware development” as well as short but frequent missions that could be handled by a “simple” environmental control system. However, NASA said there was no plan for longer missions as well as a lack of details on the design and a lack of technical maturity for key technologies.

For Relativity’s business plan, NASA found strong technical management and good in-house resources for development of the station, but a lack of a business strategy and “reliance on cash and revenue that is unsubstantiated.” The company also included launch vehicle development in its proposal which was outside the scope of the program. NASA gave Relativity a technical score of white and business plan score of yellow.

Tim Ellis, chief executive of Relativity, told SpaceNews Jan. 31 that the company has a “very early concept” on how the upper stage of its Terran R vehicle could be used as a commercial LEO destination, but declined to go into details. “Just because we did not place in top three selected for this program won’t deter us from continuing conversations with NASA leadership on Relativity’s future vision with a fully reusable Terran R,” he said.

This seems to indicate they have plan for crewed upper stage of Terran R. The proposed conops is similar to some people have envisioned for Starship: Basically just a short stay in LEO then return to Earth.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 02/12/2022 12:55 am
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1492269241550077955?s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaSRc6bpEMI
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/13/2022 12:10 am
Maiden launch teaser video:

https://youtu.be/v1JmBBZ6i7E
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 02/13/2022 06:09 am
That video looks like a badly failed launch. Telemetry lost and all systems crashing.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 02/13/2022 07:42 pm
Maiden launch teaser video:

https://youtu.be/v1JmBBZ6i7E
From the background text:
Quote
9 engines completed as of 1/27/2022
And also Mark Cuban's email address.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 02/14/2022 06:26 pm
Not sure about Peloton, but Amazon experience looks relevant for this role, and a former COO hire is some pretty big chops even if PTON been struggling it’s still a huge company.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=59420
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cheapchips on 02/22/2022 01:12 pm

Relativity are planning a rapid transition to a single Aeon-R on the Terran 1.  The first three flights will still use 9 Aeon 1's.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/relativity-space-plans-upgrade-to-terran-1-rocket-soon-after-its-initial-launch/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Kryten on 02/22/2022 01:15 pm
 Is there any accepted terminology for this? It seems Relativity are going to keep calling it just 'Terran-1', but that's a pretty drastic design change.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2022 01:21 pm
Is there any accepted terminology for this? It seems Relativity are going to keep calling it just 'Terran-1', but that's a pretty drastic design change.
Terran-1 Mark 2. ;)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FunBobby on 02/22/2022 01:36 pm
What a great way to prove out your new 150MT thrust engine with a few flights on your sub $10M rocket before risking 9 or them on your $100M rocket.  I would think you get more confidence than is possible on just the test stand.  Might be worth attempting parachute recovery(retrieval) not for the purpose of re-use but for the purpose of tearing down the Aeon R after-flight.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/22/2022 03:41 pm
What a great way to prove out your new 150MT thrust engine with a few flights on your sub $10M rocket before risking 9 or them on your $100M rocket.  I would think you get more confidence than is possible on just the test stand.  Might be worth attempting parachute recovery(retrieval) not for the purpose of re-use but for the purpose of tearing down the Aeon R after-flight.
The smaller LV will retire a lot of risk with Terran R. Both RL and SpaceX are carrying flight proven systems plus lessons learnt from their smaller LVs to larger ones.

Failure in first few launches is almost a given for their first LV, best they learn these lessons on small LV.

 

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/08/2022 01:33 am
They're still aiming for Q1 (as of a week ago).  They have a lot of stuff in work.  Stage one engines well into qual testing, stage 2 engine ready to ship for qual testing, a second stage hotfire scheduled for later this year, first stage delivery to the pad near the end of the year.

Is Terran-1 anywhen close to its first launch?
We've got it listed for NET March on the USA launch schedule thread.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 03/08/2022 02:12 am
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1500946636289105921

Quote
The shipping momentum continues! Check out some of our favorite 📸 of S2 leaving our factory in Long Beach. For more of the latest updates (including some exclusive content coming your way this week 😉) sign up for our newsletter #ThePrint: https://relativityspace.com/newsletter #GLHF
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/08/2022 04:24 am
Is Terran-1 anywhen close to its first launch?
We've got it listed for NET March on the USA launch schedule thread.

https://www.teslarati.com/relativity-space-reveals-plans-to-rapidly-upgrade-3d-printed-terran-1-rocket/
[dated February 24]
Quote
The first launch of Terran 1 is anticipated to take place by the end of 2022, with [Relativity co-founder and CEO Tim] Ellis stating that Relativity is “definitely launching this year.” Terran 1’s first launch won’t carry payloads, indicating its experimental nature, but it will be serving as the startup’s first orbital launch attempt.

Quote from: Tim Ellis
We are definitely launching this year. Yeah, we are definitely launching this year. I have no doubt about that one at this point, barring an act of nature or something going seriously wrong in stage testing.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1496119688555900934
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hug on 03/08/2022 11:44 am
It's currently summer. Spring was baselining shipping of stages by end of the 2021, which has been delayed obviously. Second stage will go to Stennis for hotfiring, but first stage will head straight to Cape to do static there. If they manage to do both by end of April; Alpha is taking 2-3 months from statics to launch, but this is first time launch so add 1 month (and hope for no FTS issues); August.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 03/09/2022 08:28 pm
The second stage that shipped the other day is already on the test stand. Looks like Relativity want to get it fired up soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1SSt55Xus0

New look at their new 1m+ sqf HQ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KNpDvkngF0&list=PL965Xy_9asPg1M738ino2gVIyd8OfCZeD
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FunBobby on 03/09/2022 08:33 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1500946636289105921

Quote
The shipping momentum continues! Check out some of our favorite 📸 of S2 leaving our factory in Long Beach. For more of the latest updates (including some exclusive content coming your way this week 😉) sign up for our newsletter #ThePrint: https://relativityspace.com/newsletter #GLHF

Who are all those people posing proudly in front of a rocket upper stage?  I thought these things were built with zero human labor.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/09/2022 08:39 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1500946636289105921

Quote
The shipping momentum continues! Check out some of our favorite 📸 of S2 leaving our factory in Long Beach. For more of the latest updates (including some exclusive content coming your way this week 😉) sign up for our newsletter #ThePrint: https://relativityspace.com/newsletter #GLHF

Who are all those people posing proudly in front of a rocket upper stage?  I thought these things were built with zero human labor.

This thread's title is an artifact of some of their earlier marketing material, I don't think they've actually used that line in years. It would make total sense to me for it to be removed from this thread as well.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jstrotha0975 on 03/10/2022 05:07 pm
Orbital rockets with minimum human labor.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 03/10/2022 05:58 pm
Orbital rockets with minimum human labor.

Maximum. Relativity has > 700 employees (source (https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/02/14/marianagaravaglia)). Rocket Lab and Astra made it to orbit with about half of that headcount. And I bet that ABL builds rockets for less than Relativity (indicated by their lower launch price).

Relativity is the most labour-intensive and cash-burning rocket startup company ever, and the most overrated IMHO.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/10/2022 06:42 pm
Orbital rockets with minimum human labor.

Maximum. Relativity has > 700 employees (source (https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/02/14/marianagaravaglia)). Rocket Lab and Astra made it to orbit with about half of that headcount. And I bet that ABL builds rockets for less than Relativity (indicated by their lower launch price).

Relativity is the most labour-intensive and cash-burning rocket startup company ever, and the most overrated IMHO.

My latest numbers for the "big six" US-based small-launch companies:

Rocket Lab: >1,100 (https://www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/rocket-lab-closes-acquisition-of-space-solar-power-products-company-solaero-holdings-inc/), although that includes 425 from SolAero and who knows how many from their other recent acquisitions (which all happened long after reaching orbit)
Virgin Orbit: 575 (https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_93d440057931574e43c03e887b7db8c4/virginorbit/db/2216/20681/pdf/1a.+Announcement-Presentation.pdf)
Astra: 100 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/12/astra-set-up-a-rocket-launch-with-five-people-and-came-within-seconds-of-orbit/) (that source is pretty out of date, would welcome an update)
Firefly: >400 (source is the tweet at the bottom of this list)
ABL: >100 (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/05/abl-joining-market-growing-contracts/)
Relativity: >700 (https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/02/14/marianagaravaglia)

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1421222398918107137

So yeah, discounting the SolAero employees at Rocket Lab, Relativity has more employees than anyone else.

Although side-note, I think ABL and Relativity are both promising launch for $12M, so the same price. But ABL's RS1 has greater payload mass, while Relativity's Terran 1 has greater payload volume.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2022 11:19 pm
There aren't that many of RL employees involved with Electron launches. Majority would space systems especially since new acquisitions and Neutron development.

While Relativity headcount is high and  aren't making any money at present. They do have large cash reserves enough to see both Terran 1 and Terran R fly.

Astra on the other hand are burning through their reserves at considerable rate. 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 03/11/2022 11:47 pm
Relativity are a freeform metal additive manufacturing company (whole stack, from alloy design to in-process NDI hardware and software) that is producing rockets as a systems demo and to tap into the copious venture capital around space systems.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 03/17/2022 08:02 pm
Relativity are a freeform metal additive manufacturing company (whole stack, from alloy design to in-process NDI hardware and software) that is producing rockets as a systems demo and to tap into the copious venture capital around space systems.

Though up until the last 2-3 years there wasn't copious VC investment in space systems...  For most of the 2010s, the only ones raising real VC money for space ventures were having to obfuscate that they were space companies "oh we're actually big data companies that just happen to build our own satellites to collect the data..."

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/17/2022 08:59 pm
Relativity are a freeform metal additive manufacturing company (whole stack, from alloy design to in-process NDI hardware and software) that is producing rockets as a systems demo and to tap into the copious venture capital around space systems.
That’s the pitch, but Terran-R is a substantial, multi-billion-dollar project. Fully reusable rocket in the HLV class. No fully reusable rocket has ever been made before. It’s no mere side project. It could launch more than the rest of the non-Starship launch industry combined.

And the launch industry is larger than metal additive manufacturing industry.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 03/23/2022 03:21 am
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1505990738244509705

Quote
Brost: Relativity's inaugural Terran 1 first stage for flight "will be leaving the factory in the next couple of weeks, and then we're working toward our first flight this summer."
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cheapchips on 03/29/2022 12:36 pm

Marcus House has a chat with Tim Ellis. Covers lots of ground, but not sure what's new info.

https://youtu.be/oGyL7aPFclU
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 03/29/2022 12:43 pm

Marcus House has a chat with Tim Ellis. Covers lots of ground, but not sure what's new info.

https://youtu.be/oGyL7aPFclU

New info

Terran R:

Terran R has grown from 5 meters to 5.4meters (16.4 ft - 18 feet) in diameter
Terran R can do both RTLS and Barge landing
Testing a lot of Terran R hardware this year; Aeon R testing, full scale, full power
Aeon R "super high pressure" version of Aeon 1; not much larger than Aeon 1
Aeon R will have lower part count than Aeon 1
Aeon R "a 250k + thrust class engine"

Terran 1:

"A few months away from launch". Will announce date once stage testing is complete
First stage of Terran 1 will ship direct to the Cape where they will conduct a full mission cycle on the pad.
Terran 1 still got a shot at being the first CH4/02 vehicle to orbit
A fun payload will feature on GLHF
Smaller nosecone fairing on flights 1 & 2; enables VCLS DEMO 2 to be deployed

Misc:
New alloys hopefully reduce the excess 5-10% "parasitic mass" to < 5%; increased strength
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 04/02/2022 03:44 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1510255736974102533
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 04/05/2022 10:16 pm
An update on the company's new installations.
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1511458079673503744
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 05/04/2022 09:15 pm
Fidelity slashes Relativity Space's valuation by as much as 21% in latest tech markdown (https://www.businessinsider.com/fidelity-slashes-relativity-spaces-valuation-startups-spacex)

Quote
The mutual fund giant Fidelity has slashed the value of some of its holdings in Relativity Space, an aerospace startup that makes 3D printed rockets. The SpaceX-rival was last valued at $4.2 billion in a funding round last year.

Fidelity's mutual fund Contrafund— a $110 billion fund that invests in a vast swath of private and public companies - marked down its holdings of Relativity's series D shares by around 21%, from $22.83 per share at the end of December to $17.96 per share at end of March, according to recent filings. The fund decreased the value of the smaller tranche of series E shares it purchased last year by a more modest 7%.

Neither Fidelity nor Relativity responded to requests for comment so the reasons for the decline or why the shares are valued differently are unclear, but it is possible Fidelity sold a portion of its shares. It's rare for asset managers like Fidelity not to equally value shares of a single company even if they are from different fundraising series.

Relativity was founded in 2015 by Tim Ellis and Jordan Noone, two young aerospace engineers who worked at Blue Origin and SpaceX, respectively. Since then it has raised $1.3 billion dollars in funding from marquee venture and private equity firms including BlackRock, Coatue, General Catalyst, ICONIQ Capital and Tiger Global. In 2021, the startup raised $650 million in funding led by Fidelity.

Late stage companies such as Instacart and Stripe have seen their valuations fall this year as publicly traded tech stocks have plummeted. Space companies such as Virgin Galactic have also been battered, with that company's stock down more than 40% this year after going public via SPAC in 2019. 

Assessing the value of privately held companies is more difficult since most shareholders do not publicly disclose change in valuations. Fidelity is a notable exception, which is why it provides a rare window into how late-stage startups are valued.

It is worth nothing Fidelity has not marked down the value of its holdings in Elon Musk-backed Space X, Relativity's much larger competitor.

Ellis, who is CEO, has said the company is still on track to complete its inaugural launch early this year, blasting Relativity's 3D-printed Terran 1 rocket into space. He also told Bloomberg earlier this year that is he is not interested in a SPAC.

"Some others tried SPACs when they were hot, but we were able to get private rounds done by high-quality investors," Ellis said. "We're focused on staying private as long as we can, and capital availability is high."

Does this mean investors are cooling off or are unhappy with the direction or progress lately?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/04/2022 11:00 pm
The space SPARC ship has sailed. Given depressed sharemarket and share prices of companies that did go public last year it wouldn't be worth going public now.
RL shares are down to $7.06 and they have decent revenue stream with healthy financial reserves.





Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 05/05/2022 07:15 am
Fidelity slashes Relativity Space's valuation by as much as 21% in latest tech markdown (https://www.businessinsider.com/fidelity-slashes-relativity-spaces-valuation-startups-spacex)
Quote
...
Fidelity's mutual fund Contrafund— a $110 billion fund that invests in a vast swath of private and public companies - marked down its holdings of Relativity's series D shares by around 21%, from $22.83 per share at the end of December to $17.96 per share at end of March, according to recent filings.
...

Does this mean investors are cooling off or are unhappy with the direction or progress lately?

It is in-line with devaluation of the whole "growth stock" market in Q1, driven by (expectation of) rising interest rates. When the expected earnings of the company are far in the future, discounting them to today's valuation is highly sensitive to interest rates.

The time of infinite amounts of cheap investor's money is over, for all industries including aerospace.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cheapchips on 05/08/2022 07:50 am
Interview with Tim Ellis.  Mostly a personal/company history piece.  They've gone from 100 to 700 employees over COVID, which is a fair growth rate.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/05/07/this-4-billion-space-start-up-began-with-a-cold-email-to-mark-cuban.html
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 05/08/2022 11:36 am
Interesting tease from Tim Ellis  :o
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1523019824527405058?s
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cheapchips on 05/09/2022 05:26 pm

Tim Ellis tweeted:

Quote
We roll in improvements in almost every print iteration… this newer version of Aeon 1 has a larger expansion ratio nozzle and higher efficiency, just realized I don’t think we showed off publicly until now


https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1523684126385053698?t=nyxeip36Oe7x2PeQNF-dOQ&s=19

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 05/10/2022 07:59 pm
The first Aeon-R hardware!

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1524109980932091904
"Ramping up printed Aeon R hardware and it’s HUGE vs Aeon 1. Fourth Aeon R full scale thrust chamber printed below, building to 52 full engines per year production rate by mid next year"

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1524110158829219840
"First turbopump housings for Aeon R are coming out lookin rad…again next to Aeon 1 for scale"

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1524110371434291201
"The main valve housings are coming along too, the team is doing an amazing job designing, building, and iterating as we push to first tests this year"

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1524110733994184704
"Also finish machining our gas generator throttle body valves, these will help control our engine cycle and enable us to land Terran R with fine control of our main boost Aeon R engines."
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 05/10/2022 08:10 pm
Looks like Timmy got the chairman's memo entitled:

Re: $1B Fidelity valuation downgrade.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 05/10/2022 08:27 pm
Eh, aren’t all the other space companies down like 50-70%? 20 feels light, and they are private so it doesn’t really matter or mean anything
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: c4fusion on 05/12/2022 06:45 am
Eh, aren’t all the other space companies down like 50-70%? 20 feels light, and they are private so it doesn’t really matter or mean anything

I wouldn't say it means nothing especially since they are trying to raise.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 05/13/2022 12:13 am
Eh, aren’t all the other space companies down like 50-70%? 20 feels light, and they are private so it doesn’t really matter or mean anything

I wouldn't say it means nothing especially since they are trying to raise.

Are they currently in fundraising mode? I thought they had north of $1B raised already. At 700 ppl, their burn rate can't be *that* high. Trying to build a bigger warchest for Terran-R maybe?

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/13/2022 01:52 am
Eh, aren’t all the other space companies down like 50-70%? 20 feels light, and they are private so it doesn’t really matter or mean anything

I wouldn't say it means nothing especially since they are trying to raise.

Are they currently in fundraising mode? I thought they had north of $1B raised already. At 700 ppl, their burn rate can't be *that* high. Trying to build a bigger warchest for Terran-R maybe?

~Jon
Last I read they had plenty of cash reserves. Because their technology isn't just limited to LV the investors like them. Have option to change direction if launch doesn't workout.

Terran 1 should fly this year so hopefully they will be launching regularly next year.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/17/2022 06:15 pm
https://youtu.be/eP2mrT6Jg2s
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/19/2022 04:56 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1527319824854003713

Quote
Data review ongoing - all clean and this baby will be shipping to our launch site at Cape Canaveral, next test in space! 🌠 Relativity’s first flight stage
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cheapchips on 05/21/2022 03:49 pm

Quote
And that’s a wrap! Flight stage 2 data reviews passed yesterday and we are shipping the stage to Cape Canaveral for launch. Thanks to our amazing team 🙌🏻 https://t.co/0NErwfGAYL

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1528017496212525057?t=Mz7TVGojZFhDdF1aTC7TgA&s=19
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 05/26/2022 08:49 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1529878828440465413
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/27/2022 02:11 pm
https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2022/05/27/cape-canaveral-rocket-printer-relativity-space-ready-terran-mission-florida/7318869001/

Quote
3D printed rockets: at Cape Canaveral, Relativity Space readies for first Terran launch
EMRE KELLY   | Florida Today
5 hours ago
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 05/28/2022 10:12 am
Relativity’s 3D Printed Rocket on Path for Summer Debut Flight
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-27/relativity-s-3d-printed-rocket-on-path-for-summer-debut-flight
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/29/2022 06:47 am
twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1530586594784190464

Quote
From 2 guys in a WeWork dreaming of an end-2020 first launch, to today: 800 people across multiple sites, we developed an entirely new large scale manufacturing tech + advanced oxygen/methane rockets, with $hundreds of millions in customer contracts launching in a few more weeks.

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1530694491430170624

Quote
*few more weeks like low digit months

twitter.com/marcushouse/status/1530705214910906369

Quote
The benefits of the 3D printing could be astronomical. @thetimellis, congrats on the stage 2 duty cycle result. Much there that requires tweaking before flight?

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1530721845112094720

Quote
All set. We passed data review so all testing complete! Next test on orbit ;)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/29/2022 02:47 pm
https://youtu.be/m0F81NHwkZ0
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 05/31/2022 03:40 pm
Terran 1' first stage begins its trip to LC-16 today!
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1531657865185792000
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/31/2022 04:08 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1531661704118927360

Quote
Factory is LIT this morning as we ship Terran 1 Flight 1 to Cape Canaveral… holy ⭐️⭐️ getting real! Stage one testing up next at our launch site, working toward full mission duty cycle hold down test.

twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1531661991298813953

Quote
Beautiful. By far the largest metal 3D printed product ever made, and the world’s first printed rocket.

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1531664068003520512

Quote
Oh and yes that is definitely flight 2 being printed in our Stargate printer next to this ^_^
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: HMXHMX on 05/31/2022 10:13 pm
Wait a minutę...it took 800 people to make a rocket untouched by human hands?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 05/31/2022 10:52 pm
Wait a minutę...it took 800 people to make a rocket untouched by human hands?

The outdated and no-longer-used slogan of "rockets with zero human labor" has been removed from the title of this thread for a couple of months now...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 05/31/2022 10:56 pm
Wait a minutę...it took 800 people to make a rocket untouched by human hands?
While nearly everything was printed by 3D additive manufacturing printers, people load and operate said machinery and other hardware. Q&A team inspecting the print medium as it arrives to the production line to NDT&E of the final prints of assembly components and then you have engineers, programmers, component assembly technicians, big list goes on and on. The figure could be team members per vehicle on the line to the whole company.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 06/01/2022 08:02 am
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1531661704118927360

Quote
Factory is LIT this morning as we ship Terran 1 Flight 1 to Cape Canaveral… holy ⭐️⭐️ getting real! Stage one testing up next at our launch site, working toward full mission duty cycle hold down test.

twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1531661991298813953

Quote
Beautiful. By far the largest metal 3D printed product ever made, and the world’s first printed rocket.

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1531664068003520512

Quote
Oh and yes that is definitely flight 2 being printed in our Stargate printer next to this ^_^
Big (and shallow! As well as scalloped) Terran R dome lurking in the back of shot there too.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 06/01/2022 12:45 pm
Wait a minutę...it took 800 people to make a rocket untouched by human hands?
While nearly everything was printed by 3D additive manufacturing printers, people load and operate said machinery and other hardware. Q&A team inspecting the print medium as it arrives to the production line to NDT&E of the final prints of assembly components and then you have engineers, programmers, component assembly technicians, big list goes on and on. The figure could be team members per vehicle on the line to the whole company.

SpaceX had 300 fewer employees by the end of the Falcon 1 launches, does the 3D printing really save work hours?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 06/01/2022 01:09 pm
Wait a minutę...it took 800 people to make a rocket untouched by human hands?
While nearly everything was printed by 3D additive manufacturing printers, people load and operate said machinery and other hardware. Q&A team inspecting the print medium as it arrives to the production line to NDT&E of the final prints of assembly components and then you have engineers, programmers, component assembly technicians, big list goes on and on. The figure could be team members per vehicle on the line to the whole company.

SpaceX had 300 fewer employees by the end of the Falcon 1 launches, does the 3D printing really save work hours?
IMHO only in certain departments. Coding what to build often can add hours during the rapid prototype phase.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/01/2022 03:10 pm
Wait a minutę...it took 800 people to make a rocket untouched by human hands?
While nearly everything was printed by 3D additive manufacturing printers, people load and operate said machinery and other hardware. Q&A team inspecting the print medium as it arrives to the production line to NDT&E of the final prints of assembly components and then you have engineers, programmers, component assembly technicians, big list goes on and on. The figure could be team members per vehicle on the line to the whole company.

SpaceX had 300 fewer employees by the end of the Falcon 1 launches, does the 3D printing really save work hours?
Nope. Probably more work, actually, to make rocket tanks entirely out welds.

But that’s okay. I think they can still succeed even though they picked a bad technology for making the tanks. They’re the only other company besides SpaceX (and arguably Blue Origin) pursuing full reuse of a medium or heavy lift launch vehicle. (Not sure what Stoke is up to) with Terran-R.

With full reuse, the exact manufacturing cost shouldn’t matter as much as you can amortize the vehicle over dozens or hundreds of flights.

Let’s hope they have enough of a runway (ie money) to get to full reuse.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/01/2022 03:17 pm
I think 3D printing is still a bad tech for making rocket tanks, but it is a good tech for making smaller rocket engines, and the 3D printing tech for that is slowly getting even better, so in some ways it’s not a worse approach than SpaceX took with Falcon.

Early clustering with Terran 1 helps them prepare for Terran-R a little bit. The Aeon-R is probably the largest engine you can reasonably 3D print, although that scale keeps increasing as the tech improves and there are ways to improve the scalability of 3D printing to larger engine thrusts. SpaceX also 3D prints parts of their engines, including Raptor, I think (you can see characteristic design features of 3D printing on some parts of Raptor). And as we know, SpaceX is extremely aggressive with cost on Raptor, so they must think 3D printing is appropriate from a cost perspective for those parts.

But I do think Relativity would be better off with some other method of making rocket tanks.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/01/2022 05:47 pm
I think 3D printing is still a bad tech for making rocket tanks, but it is a good tech for making smaller rocket engines, and the 3D printing tech for that is slowly getting even better, so in some ways it’s not a worse approach than SpaceX took with Falcon.

Early clustering with Terran 1 helps them prepare for Terran-R a little bit. The Aeon-R is probably the largest engine you can reasonably 3D print, although that scale keeps increasing as the tech improves and there are ways to improve the scalability of 3D printing to larger engine thrusts. SpaceX also 3D prints parts of their engines, including Raptor, I think (you can see characteristic design features of 3D printing on some parts of Raptor). And as we know, SpaceX is extremely aggressive with cost on Raptor, so they must think 3D printing is appropriate from a cost perspective for those parts.

But I do think Relativity would be better off with some other method of making rocket tanks.
Printing tanks gives them lot flexibility in early stages while perfecting RLV design. After that printing is ideal for low production rate needed.

They can scale up production for initial ELVs then later use surplus machine capacity for contract work.

This the approach Firefly want to use. Instead of scaling back production facilities when RLVs are on line they just which to contract work.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/01/2022 06:40 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1532069087718699008

Quote
Stage 1 is officially making its way to Cape Canaveral, Florida, where #Terran1 will launch! Check out these photos of Stage 1 being loaded onto the truck and headed to the #sunshinestate. ☀️🚀 #RelativitySpace #GLHF #PrepareToLaunch
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 06/06/2022 12:31 am
Terran 1's first stage has arrived at LC-16!
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1533589118864617472?s
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/08/2022 11:15 pm
The 1000kg LV class race is on. We have Relativityand and Firefly launching this summer. Not sure of ABL status, this year at least.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hug on 06/09/2022 04:48 am
Yeah it's kinda humorous that with everything that has happened all 3 companies in this category finish shipping stages for orbital attempts in a period of <1 month. Firefly in July, ABL are targeting August according to the Kodiak range schedule and Relativity probably no sooner than the ABL launch.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Fmedici on 06/09/2022 04:44 pm
Yeah it's kinda humorous that with everything that has happened all 3 companies in this category finish shipping stages for orbital attempts in a period of <1 month. Firefly in July, ABL are targeting August according to the Kodiak range schedule and Relativity probably no sooner than the ABL launch.

Looking at the schedules I think that it could also be possible to have SpaceX, ULA (with both Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy), NASA (with SLS), Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit, Astra, Northrop Grumman, Firefly, Abl and Relativity all launching or attempting a launch of their rockets in the span of one and a half month (let's say from mid-July to late August).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/09/2022 04:50 pm
Yeah it's kinda humorous that with everything that has happened all 3 companies in this category finish shipping stages for orbital attempts in a period of <1 month. Firefly in July, ABL are targeting August according to the Kodiak range schedule and Relativity probably no sooner than the ABL launch.

Looking at the schedules I think that it could also be possible to have SpaceX, ULA (with both Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy), NASA (with SLS), Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit, Astra, Northrop Grumman, Firefly, Abl and Relativity all launching or attempting a launch of their rockets in the span of one and a half month (let's say from mid-July to late August).
You might even get three different SpaceX LVs: F9, FH, and Starship.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2022 05:03 pm
I think 3D printing is still a bad tech for making rocket tanks, but it is a good tech for making smaller rocket engines, and the 3D printing tech for that is slowly getting even better, so in some ways it’s not a worse approach than SpaceX took with Falcon.

Early clustering with Terran 1 helps them prepare for Terran-R a little bit. The Aeon-R is probably the largest engine you can reasonably 3D print, although that scale keeps increasing as the tech improves and there are ways to improve the scalability of 3D printing to larger engine thrusts. SpaceX also 3D prints parts of their engines, including Raptor, I think (you can see characteristic design features of 3D printing on some parts of Raptor). And as we know, SpaceX is extremely aggressive with cost on Raptor, so they must think 3D printing is appropriate from a cost perspective for those parts.

But I do think Relativity would be better off with some other method of making rocket tanks.
Printing tanks gives them lot flexibility in early stages while perfecting RLV design. After that printing is ideal for low production rate needed.

They can scale up production for initial ELVs then later use surplus machine capacity for contract work.

This the approach Firefly want to use. Instead of scaling back production facilities when RLVs are on line they just which to contract work.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Look at how poor the surface quality is on their 3D printed tanks. That translates to lower useful strength and greater weight. And the toollessness is a bit exaggerated. You can’t just make any shape. 3D printing itself has a whole bunch of design constraints, and any change in shape means a bunch of test parts to validate it.

The industry-standard powder bed metal 3D printers they use for engines and stuff, though, COULD be used for contract work. The large-scale 3D printers? Probably not as the design and the process necessarily are highly coupled and it’s not an industry-standard process.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2022 05:07 pm
Yeah it's kinda humorous that with everything that has happened all 3 companies in this category finish shipping stages for orbital attempts in a period of <1 month. Firefly in July, ABL are targeting August according to the Kodiak range schedule and Relativity probably no sooner than the ABL launch.

Looking at the schedules I think that it could also be possible to have SpaceX, ULA (with both Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy), NASA (with SLS), Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit, Astra, Northrop Grumman, Firefly, Abl and Relativity all launching or attempting a launch of their rockets in the span of one and a half month (let's say from mid-July to late August).
We truly are in a Golden Age of new launch vehicle development. Unprecedented except for the earliest decade or two of the space race (actually we might have even more vehicles now) and probably will peter out in the next few years as the market pulls back from investing in new space launch.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 06/09/2022 05:14 pm
I think 3D printing is still a bad tech for making rocket tanks, but it is a good tech for making smaller rocket engines, and the 3D printing tech for that is slowly getting even better, so in some ways it’s not a worse approach than SpaceX took with Falcon.

Early clustering with Terran 1 helps them prepare for Terran-R a little bit. The Aeon-R is probably the largest engine you can reasonably 3D print, although that scale keeps increasing as the tech improves and there are ways to improve the scalability of 3D printing to larger engine thrusts. SpaceX also 3D prints parts of their engines, including Raptor, I think (you can see characteristic design features of 3D printing on some parts of Raptor). And as we know, SpaceX is extremely aggressive with cost on Raptor, so they must think 3D printing is appropriate from a cost perspective for those parts.

But I do think Relativity would be better off with some other method of making rocket tanks.
Printing tanks gives them lot flexibility in early stages while perfecting RLV design. After that printing is ideal for low production rate needed.

They can scale up production for initial ELVs then later use surplus machine capacity for contract work.

This the approach Firefly want to use. Instead of scaling back production facilities when RLVs are on line they just which to contract work.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Look at how poor the surface quality is on their 3D printed tanks. That translates to lower useful strength and greater weight. And the toollessness is a bit exaggerated. You can’t just make any shape. 3D printing itself has a whole bunch of design constraints, and any change in shape means a bunch of test parts to validate it.

The industry-standard powder bed metal 3D printers they use for engines and stuff, though, COULD be used for contract work. The large-scale 3D printers? Probably not as the design and the process necessarily are highly coupled and it’s not an industry-standard process.
The limitations of a additive manufactured part depend on the manufacturing mechanism. the constraints on an FDM part are not the same as an SLS/SLM part, and the constraints on a 3-axis plastic FDM part are not the same as those on a 6-axis metal FDM part.
Surface finish also does not directly correlate to part quality (or cast parts would all be junk). As long as the part itself is structurally sound - and here Relativity's print mechanism has the advantage of continuous inspection during deposition, giving you the benefits of a destructive cross-section test, but throughout the entire part - whether you utilise a post-machining op depends on whether surface quality is a necessity or not. Bearing surfaces and mating planes would need it, exterior surfaces not so much.

Anyone who has seen a robotic palletised light-out CNC shop (stock comes in, parts come out, nobody in the building) can see there is no barrier to integrating additive manufacture into unattended manufacture if there is a demand for it. For initial rapid iteration for the very first product trying to add production optimisation prematurely is just adding a rod for your own back, but none of their manufacturing steps preclude it.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2022 06:05 pm
[…
Surface finish also does not directly correlate to part quality (or cast parts would all be junk). …
It absolutely does! And yes, cast parts usually have much worse qualities than machined or forged parts, but even polishing the surface alone can improve the strength of cast parts.

The big fat paths used for large scale 3D printing cause stress concentrations between each layer. This is one big reason why FDM parts are stronger in the x-y directions than z direction. Even more than just the reduction in effective cross section.

You can directly see part strength reduce as surface roughness increases.

This sort of thing is literally part of my day job and I’ve studied this sort of thing for years.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JayWee on 06/09/2022 06:17 pm
.... even polishing the surface alone can improve the strength of cast parts.

You can directly see part strength reduce as surface roughness increases.
What is the reason for that?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 06/09/2022 06:28 pm

[snip]

The industry-standard powder bed metal 3D printers they use for engines and stuff, though, COULD be used for contract work. The large-scale 3D printers? Probably not as the design and the process necessarily are highly coupled and it’s not an industry-standard process.

For their large-scale 3D printers, I assume the "contract work"  would include Relativity working closely with the customer on design, not just "give us the .stl" or whatever format is used in industry. It would be a whole service.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2022 06:45 pm

[snip]

The industry-standard powder bed metal 3D printers they use for engines and stuff, though, COULD be used for contract work. The large-scale 3D printers? Probably not as the design and the process necessarily are highly coupled and it’s not an industry-standard process.

For their large-scale 3D printers, I assume the "contract work"  would include Relativity working closely with the customer on design, not just "give us the .stl" or whatever format is used in industry. It would be a whole service.
Right, so it’s unlikely they’d find many willing customers for that, as it’s all Relativity-proprietary stuff.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2022 06:49 pm
.... even polishing the surface alone can improve the strength of cast parts.

You can directly see part strength reduce as surface roughness increases.
What is the reason for that?
Stress concentrations.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: niwax on 06/09/2022 07:05 pm
As long as the part itself is structurally sound - and here Relativity's print mechanism has the advantage of continuous inspection during deposition, giving you the benefits of a destructive cross-section test, but throughout the entire part - whether you utilise a post-machining op depends on whether surface quality is a necessity or not.

Not much to inspect when you shred the crystal structures and everything a material scientist cares about into a fine powder. I guess it doesn't come up much anyway when you have to use an allow that can easily be melted and will be suspended in all kinds of goo so it can be extruded. The general reply among all manufacturers, quality sensing companies and engineers I've worked with so far has been "Yeah, it would be nice if someone looked into material properties at some point"
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/09/2022 07:40 pm
[…
Surface finish also does not directly correlate to part quality (or cast parts would all be junk). …
It absolutely does! And yes, cast parts usually have much worse qualities than machined or forged parts, but even polishing the surface alone can improve the strength of cast parts.

The big fat paths used for large scale 3D printing cause stress concentrations between each layer. This is one big reason why FDM parts are stronger in the x-y directions than z direction. Even more than just the reduction in effective cross section.

You can directly see part strength reduce as surface roughness increases.

This sort of thing is literally part of my day job and I’ve studied this sort of thing for years.
Extra tank mass means they trade a bit of performance for lower build cost.  Flexibility of design means less bolted parts and human welds, so they should save mass else where on vehicle construction. Still comes down to $kg to orbit.



Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2022 09:08 pm
[…
Surface finish also does not directly correlate to part quality (or cast parts would all be junk). …
It absolutely does! And yes, cast parts usually have much worse qualities than machined or forged parts, but even polishing the surface alone can improve the strength of cast parts.

The big fat paths used for large scale 3D printing cause stress concentrations between each layer. This is one big reason why FDM parts are stronger in the x-y directions than z direction. Even more than just the reduction in effective cross section.

You can directly see part strength reduce as surface roughness increases.

This sort of thing is literally part of my day job and I’ve studied this sort of thing for years.
Extra tank mass means they trade a bit of performance for lower build cost.  Flexibility of design means less bolted parts and human welds, so they should save mass else where on vehicle construction. Still comes down to $kg to orbit.



Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk
Except I’m pretty confident they have HIGHER build cost by building the tanks entirely out of welds. They’re also not making it all in one piece, but in multiple sections they have to bolt or weld together. Otherwise it’d take too long to print.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JayWee on 06/09/2022 09:14 pm
Any guesstimate how much is the material they are using per kg?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2022 09:21 pm
Any guesstimate how much is the material they are using per kg?
Dunno what they’re using for the large scale stuff, but metal powder they’re using for engines can be very expensive for the good stuff, like $500-1000/kg, plus the unused powder can only be recycled so many times and needs sifting, etc.

They may be using metal wire for the large scale printing, which should be MUCH cheaper than that, not really any different than sheet metal. But the process itself is pretty expensive. It requires, ironically, a lot of work to ensure good, strong parts. Again, they’re essentially making it entirely out of welds.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 06/09/2022 09:29 pm
Doesn’t this only matter if fatigue strength limits are reached? AFAIK, rockets aren’t the same as aircraft and other than turbopumps don’t really see as much LCF and HCF issues vs raw yield and ultimate strength which should be fine pending good elongation.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 06/09/2022 09:35 pm
The big fat paths used for large scale 3D printing cause stress concentrations between each layer. This is one big reason why FDM parts are stronger in the x-y directions than z direction. Even more than just the reduction in effective cross section.

Good thing that in a thinwalled pressure vessel under internal pressure, hoop stress is a lot higher than axial stress which is favorable to how they print their tanks.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/09/2022 10:57 pm
Any guesstimate how much is the material they are using per kg?
But the process itself is pretty expensive. It requires, ironically, a lot of work to ensure good, strong parts. Again, they’re essentially making it entirely out of welds.

They've spent lot of their R&amp;D money on automated quality control systems. Especially making sure physical properties of finished product are within specifications.

All the launch companies specialize in some fancy technology to make a point of difference then use proven technology elsewhere ie pick your battles.
With RL it was carbon Fibre and electric pump engines. For the the Neutron carbon Fibre with low tech engines and reuseability.
SpaceX F9 low cost build with initially low performance. Then reuseability and higher performing engines. Space Ship its low cost SS construction with ultra high performance Raptor engines.

Astra low tech LVs with low cost mass production being their secret sauce.

ULA speciality is high performance Centuar US. Rest LV is well proven construction methods with high performance engines from externally suppliers.





Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 06/10/2022 11:09 am
As long as the part itself is structurally sound - and here Relativity's print mechanism has the advantage of continuous inspection during deposition, giving you the benefits of a destructive cross-section test, but throughout the entire part - whether you utilise a post-machining op depends on whether surface quality is a necessity or not.

Not much to inspect when you shred the crystal structures and everything a material scientist cares about into a fine powder. I guess it doesn't come up much anyway when you have to use an allow that can easily be melted and will be suspended in all kinds of goo so it can be extruded. The general reply among all manufacturers, quality sensing companies and engineers I've worked with so far has been "Yeah, it would be nice if someone looked into material properties at some point"
The in-fab-inspection system RS have developed is basically inspecting the weld-pool in real-time as it cools and solidifies, to provide a volumetric record of conditions throughout the entire part volume. Whilst not implemented yet (AFAIK, this was a while ago) they have mentioned in the past use of laser post-heating to control local cooling rates and tune the microstructure of the deposited material.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hog on 06/10/2022 10:06 pm
Doesn’t this only matter if fatigue strength limits are reached? AFAIK, rockets aren’t the same as aircraft and other than turbopumps don’t really see as much LCF and HCF issues vs raw yield and ultimate strength which should be fine pending good elongation.
Bold emphasis mine.

LCF=Low Cycle Fatigue
HCF=High Cycle Fatigue
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/14/2022 11:33 pm
https://youtu.be/Eg-z7oQfLeQ

Quote
Check out this timelapse of our Stage 2 flight article for Terran 1, Flight 2 for NASA VCLS! #RelativitySpace
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 06/14/2022 11:38 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1536855326019817472
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 06/16/2022 08:46 pm
Check out this QD (Quick Disconnect) Separation Test recently conducted at our facilities in #LongBeach. The Stage 2 QDs allow launch operations to fill the tanks and communicate with the vehicle while on the pad, but to be successful, it must separate at launch!

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1537469541776642048
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 06/22/2022 05:53 pm
Close-up of the Aeon Vac engine at the business end of @RelativitySpace's Terran 1, stage 2..

https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1539630117361799168
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 06/22/2022 05:57 pm
We’re getting closer and closer to @relativityspace’s debut launch. Progress at Cape Canaveral has gone fairly smoothly to this point, and we will hopefully see the rocket on LC-16 for testing soon!

https://twitter.com/DerekdotSpace/status/1539610616482103296
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 06/23/2022 03:13 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1539985977862549505
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/23/2022 05:03 pm
Relativity is falling behind; ABL's first rocket has been shipped to the pad, and Firefly has already made an attempt at orbit.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 06/23/2022 05:29 pm
Relativity is falling behind; ABL's first rocket has been shipped to the pad, and Firefly has already made an attempt at orbit.

Relativity has also shipped both stages of their first Terran 1 vehicle to the pad:

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1533589118864617472

https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1539416478428147712
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/23/2022 06:19 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1540036378464882688

Quote
DREAM 🤩🤤🔥🇺🇸
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 06/23/2022 07:14 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1540043610762014720
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/23/2022 07:17 pm
Relativity is falling behind; ABL's first rocket has been shipped to the pad, and Firefly has already made an attempt at orbit.
I'd say Relativity are catching up , both Firefly and ABL should've been in orbit by now. Relativity's first launch was always scheduled a year or two behind these companies.

Firefly  would've flown 2nd and most likely 3rd mission by now if it wasn't for US government them making change owners.


Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hug on 06/24/2022 08:12 am
Relativity is falling behind; ABL's first rocket has been shipped to the pad

I thought that ABL's first stage had completed a static fire*, but as it turns out, they are still working towards it as of May, but had first stage on pad in April. Which is certainly ahead of Relativity, but we've yet to see statics for either. This might be close than I was expecting.

*
https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-raises-200-million/
"ABL is preparing for its first RS1 launch late this year from Kodiak Island, Alaska, with a launch period there that extends to Dec. 15. Both stages of the vehicle have completed acceptance testing."
https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-completes-acceptance-testing-of-rs1-upper-stage/
"Piemont said after the recent acceptance tests that the company was now targeting “early summer” for its first launch, pending completion of acceptance tests of the first stage."
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cottonwood on 06/24/2022 07:04 pm
Relativity is falling behind; ABL's first rocket has been shipped to the pad, and Firefly has already made an attempt at orbit.
I'd say Relativity are catching up , both Firefly and ABL should've been in orbit by now. Relativity's first launch was always scheduled a year or two behind these companies.

Firefly  would've flown 2nd and most likely 3rd mission by now if it wasn't for US government them making change owners.
ABL has always been more optimistic with their schedules than Relativity. They're making clear progress now (or at least it seems so after they upped their PR after the test stand failure), but it's still slow going. Tough to say whether they've lost their lead to Relativity or if they've been neck and neck all along.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 06/24/2022 07:20 pm
Relativity is falling behind; ABL's first rocket has been shipped to the pad, and Firefly has already made an attempt at orbit.
I'd say Relativity are catching up , both Firefly and ABL should've been in orbit by now. Relativity's first launch was always scheduled a year or two behind these companies.

Firefly  would've flown 2nd and most likely 3rd mission by now if it wasn't for US government them making change owners.
ABL has always been more optimistic with their schedules than Relativity. They're making clear progress now (or at least it seems so after they upped their PR after the test stand failure), but it's still slow going. Tough to say whether they've lost their lead to Relativity or if they've been neck and neck all along.

ABL was founded ~1.5-2 years after Relativity, depending on source. They've achieved roughly the same, albeit ABL has manufactured more hardware x2 S2 & x2 S1 versus Relativity' x1 S1 and x1 S2, and are currently at the same point. They've also managed that with ~550 fewer employees.

Although, It seems the engine changes ABL made post S2 failure has slowed S1 testing slightly.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 06/24/2022 08:09 pm
ABL has always been more optimistic with their schedules than Relativity.

Disagree. Both originally announced to launch in late 2020, and Relativity today is not ahead of ABL. Except for PR and show business, where Relativity is the undisputed industry leader.

No way will Terran 1 launch in summer 2022. Realistically, RS1 is NET late Q3 and Terran 1 NET  late Q4.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 06/24/2022 10:39 pm
They've achieved roughly the same, albeit ABL has manufactured more hardware x2 S2 & x2 S1 versus Relativity' x1 S1 and x1 S2, and are currently at the same point.

Relativity is at least partway through their second stage one, although ABL may be farther ahead here.

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1539985977862549505
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 06/27/2022 02:07 am
Close-up of the @RelativitySpace team at LC-16 here in Cape Canaveral removing attachments that keep Aeon Vac and the rest of Terran 1’s second stage safe during transport from the E4 Test Facility at @NASAStennis in Mississippi..

https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1541171434910896130
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 06/28/2022 01:44 pm
All 9 Aeon engines up close just before being lifted onto the stand.🤩 #GLHF #RelativitySpace ..

https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1541771697438818304
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 06/28/2022 08:23 pm
Happy #Tuesday! Check out this snap of Stage 1 being brought into the hangar at LC-16 for scale. #GLHF #RelativitySpace // captured by @TrevorMahlmann..

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1541767140046303232
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 06/29/2022 08:35 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1542222241852784641
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 07/10/2022 07:19 pm
Looking good this morning..

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1545808277254000640

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 07/10/2022 07:19 pm
Small fire at Relativity’s pad started by the methane flare stack, but sounds like nothing serious:

https://twitter.com/TGMetsFan98/status/1545770361555410945
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 07/12/2022 01:27 pm
Another step closer to Terran-1's maiden launch.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1546845208524255233
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/15/2022 04:50 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ADE-OWMc3_M
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/20/2022 09:20 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1549255144180555776
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 07/23/2022 10:29 am
It was absolutely awesome getting to walk around LC-16 and learn how they transitioned the pad to fit their requirements!
@relativityspace has an amazing team pushing them forward to their first mission, Good Luck, Have Fun! #GLHF..

https://twitter.com/RDAnglePhoto/status/1550651457761861632
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 07/24/2022 07:09 am
A rare look inside what Relativity has spent / is spending, and employee numbers yesterday, today and tomorrow, from a $30m tax credit agreement with California. This is very recent, from May 2022.

It shows investments of about $370m made or planned until 2026, and employees trebling from 769 to 2142. This is just in California, not whatever is being spent at the Cape, but perhaps there are similar applications in Florida?

The cells near the end of the table below seem to indicate that this is the second such $30m tax credit, and the company has to certify the following to be eligible:

"Taxpayer has certified in its application that absent award of the California Competes Tax Credit, its project may occur in another state; and, it may terminate all or a portion of its employees in California or relocate all or a portion of its employees in California to another state."

(https://i.imgur.com/rAynS4F.png)

src: https://static.business.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Relativity-Space-Inc.-CCTC-Agreement.pdf
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/26/2022 06:24 am
Aeon 1 test fire

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1551740345662050304

Quote
pretty sure this is where we say “ahhhh, that’s the stuff”
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 07/26/2022 04:06 pm
Our most recent spin-start test with all 9 (entirely 3D printed) Aeon 1 engines on Stage 1 As one of the few liquid oxygen/liquid natural gas fueled rockets in the industry, Terran 1 is racing to be the 1st LOX/LNG rocket to fly.

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1551673477500784640
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/27/2022 03:37 am
Or, people want Relativity to succeed because they want to see the market grow, and it puts another nail in the coffin of expendability. Whether SpaceX ends up less dominant is a tangential issue at best. A growing market that can afford to support multiple partially and fully reusable launch vehicles is good for SpaceX, too.

My point is to separate the desire from an objective assessment of the company’s prospects.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 07/28/2022 05:46 am
https://twitter.com/CHenry_QA/status/1551922286009139202

Quote
Iridium says it will launch up to five spare satellites in 2023, but not with Relativity Space. That leaves only one spare for Relativity to (maybe) launch with Terran 1. The launch provider for the other five hasn't been disclosed, only that it will be a single rocket.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hug on 08/05/2022 01:49 pm
I think the drunk guy is everyone starting a rocket company, the area under the street light is small, expendable launch vehicles, and the bushes are large, fully-reusable launch vehicles.  The light is what it's possible for a start-up company to do.

"Most of the choices we made on Terran 1 were with the view that we wanted to do a much larger fully reusable rocket. If we had had the money to do that from the very beginning of the company, we probably would've started there." Tim Ellis from the recent Payload interview.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: harrystranger on 08/05/2022 03:09 pm
Interestingly, it looks like Relativity are starting to clear a lot of land next to their launch complex. Could this be an expansion ready for Terran R operations in the future?
Full image here: https://soar.earth/maps/13046?pos=28.501863511513186%2C-80.55194175643484%2C18
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/05/2022 07:17 pm
I can see reasoning behind using Terran 1 to cut their teeth on smaller LV and use it as test bed for Terran R engines and avionics. Still isn't it cheaper to go straight to Terran R and allow for few more failures if plan is retire Terran 1.

If they can fly Terran 1 6-10  times a year then it should still be profitable and worth keeping around.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/05/2022 07:27 pm
Terran 1 development will give Relativity a smaller Vac engine that can be used for 3rd stage or space tug. In case of space tug would only need a single Terran R tanker launch to refuel it.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/07/2022 06:23 pm
NSF live in about 36 mins:

https://youtu.be/F9uNjVnLIvo

Quote
NSF Live: 3D Printing Rockets with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis

NSF Live is NASASpaceflight.com's weekly show covering the latest in spaceflight. It is broadcast live on Sundays at 3 pm Eastern. On each show, we rotate through various hosts and special guests.

Today's episode is hosted by John Galloway (Host and Producer at NASASpaceflight.com), Thomas Burghardt (News Director at NASASpaceflight.com), and special guest Tim Ellis (CEO of Relativity).

Additional coverage: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: sanman on 08/07/2022 09:05 pm
Is it true that after launching Terran 1, Relativity Space will seek to build and launch Terran R for its next flight?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cottonwood on 08/07/2022 09:47 pm
Is it true that after launching Terran 1, Relativity Space will seek to build and launch Terran R for its next flight?
Terran 1 is planned to fly many times before Terran R. The fourth Terran 1 flight is slated to use one Aeon R engine (Terran R's engine) on its first stage as a testbed, so at least that many and probably a handful more.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/07/2022 11:49 pm
Terran 1 development will give Relativity a smaller Vac engine that can be used for 3rd stage or space tug. In case of space tug would only need a single Terran R tanker launch to refuel it.
Tim said they had other plans for this engine besides Terran 1 US, so it may well endup being used in 3rd stage or spacetug.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Solarsail on 08/08/2022 12:30 am
Tim Ellis in the interview said that the Stargate printer has been able to print under Martian atmospheric conditions; Would it be a plausible jump from there to printing metallic pressure vessels in orbital space?  Would they be too dependent on (even thin) atmospheric pressure to prevent the aluminum from boiling away while they weld?  Would the 0g fluid dynamics / welding behaviour push them away from their own experience and into the subjects Made in Space or Tethers Unlimited have worked on?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 08/08/2022 01:15 am
Terran 1 development will give Relativity a smaller Vac engine that can be used for 3rd stage or space tug. In case of space tug would only need a single Terran R tanker launch to refuel it.
Tim said they had other plans for this engine besides Terran 1 US, so it may well endup being used in 3rd stage or spacetug.

Somewhere I got the idea that Aeon 1 Vac would also be used for the second stage of Terran R (not just Terran 1). Would that be completely unreasonable?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/08/2022 01:26 am
Terran 1 development will give Relativity a smaller Vac engine that can be used for 3rd stage or space tug. In case of space tug would only need a single Terran R tanker launch to refuel it.
Tim said they had other plans for this engine besides Terran 1 US, so it may well endup being used in 3rd stage or spacetug.

Somewhere I got the idea that Aeon 1 Vac would also be used for the second stage of Terran R (not just Terran 1). Would that be completely unreasonable?

Too small to be used as main engine unless clustering them. One large engine is cheaper to and probably lighter. They might use Aeon 1 SL for landing US.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/08/2022 04:38 am
Tim Ellis in the interview said that the Stargate printer has been able to print under Martian atmospheric conditions; Would it be a plausible jump from there to printing metallic pressure vessels in orbital space?  Would they be too dependent on (even thin) atmospheric pressure to prevent the aluminum from boiling away while they weld?  Would the 0g fluid dynamics / welding behaviour push them away from their own experience and into the subjects Made in Space or Tethers Unlimited have worked on?
Metal boiling away in vacuum isn't a major problem from what I understand. After all, electron beam welding works great and it requires a pretty good vacuum.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 08/08/2022 12:07 pm
Terran 1 development will give Relativity a smaller Vac engine that can be used for 3rd stage or space tug. In case of space tug would only need a single Terran R tanker launch to refuel it.
Tim said they had other plans for this engine besides Terran 1 US, so it may well endup being used in 3rd stage or spacetug.

Somewhere I got the idea that Aeon 1 Vac would also be used for the second stage of Terran R (not just Terran 1). Would that be completely unreasonable?
It's still what is listed on their website, and the Mars mission CGI showed a Terran R upper stage with a single engine.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/08/2022 01:17 pm
So what is Terran 1’s estimated price for 1250kg to LEO? That’s all that really matters to determine its business case.

This after Tim Ellis stated that they intend to continue operating Terran 1 in its own right even once Terran R is operational.

If it approaches anything around the ~$10M mark, the business case seems pretty limited.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: AU1.52 on 08/08/2022 01:45 pm
Tim Ellis in the interview said that the Stargate printer has been able to print under Martian atmospheric conditions; Would it be a plausible jump from there to printing metallic pressure vessels in orbital space?  Would they be too dependent on (even thin) atmospheric pressure to prevent the aluminum from boiling away while they weld?  Would the 0g fluid dynamics / welding behaviour push them away from their own experience and into the subjects Made in Space or Tethers Unlimited have worked on?
Metal boiling away in vacuum isn't a major problem from what I understand. After all, electron beam welding works great and it requires a pretty good vacuum.


Would that be the same as in a vacuum with very low atmospheric pressure?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: c4fusion on 08/08/2022 01:45 pm
So what is Terran 1’s estimated price for 1250kg to LEO? That’s all that really matters to determine its business case.

This after Tim Ellis stated that they intend to continue operating Terran 1 in its own right even once Terran R is operational.

If it approaches anything around the ~$10M mark, the business case seems pretty limited.

$12 million: source (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/relativitys-reusable-terran-rocket-competitor-to-spacexs-falcon-9.html)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 08/08/2022 03:08 pm
Stennis expansion underway above E4 test site

https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1556625317459988480/photo/1
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/08/2022 05:36 pm
So what is Terran 1’s estimated price for 1250kg to LEO? That’s all that really matters to determine its business case.

This after Tim Ellis stated that they intend to continue operating Terran 1 in its own right even once Terran R is operational.

If it approaches anything around the ~$10M mark, the business case seems pretty limited.

$12 million: source (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/relativitys-reusable-terran-rocket-competitor-to-spacexs-falcon-9.html)
Around $10,000kg seems to be list price for this class LV.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/08/2022 11:55 pm
So what is Terran 1’s estimated price for 1250kg to LEO? That’s all that really matters to determine its business case.

This after Tim Ellis stated that they intend to continue operating Terran 1 in its own right even once Terran R is operational.

If it approaches anything around the ~$10M mark, the business case seems pretty limited.

$12 million: source (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/relativitys-reusable-terran-rocket-competitor-to-spacexs-falcon-9.html)
Around $10,000kg seems to be list price for this class LV.

To be clear, as with Rocketlab, I’m not saying there isn’t a niche market for launches in this category, but I am saying that this niche is too small to present a viable long term business case. So until Terran R is flying in at least partially reusable format (5 years from now?), Relativity is not likely to have a profitable launch business.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/09/2022 12:40 am
I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/09/2022 12:50 am
I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.

Of course. As will RL with Neutron. As will SpaceX with Starship. They all would love to have their next generation rockets flying reusably as soon as possible. If wishes were wings and so on…

Edit

To clarify, here I mean partial reusability as reflying a booster, rather than merely recovering it.


Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/09/2022 01:55 am
I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.

Of course. As will RL with Neutron. As will SpaceX with Starship. They all would love to have their next generation rockets flying reusably as soon as possible. If wishes were wings and so on…

Edit

To clarify, here I mean partial reusability as reflying a booster, rather than merely recovering it.
If they don’t recover and reuse a booster two years after first successful orbital launch, I’ll be a little surprised. They are using a similar approach to Falcon 9 and have hired some people who’ve worked on F9.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/09/2022 02:01 am
I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.

Of course. As will RL with Neutron. As will SpaceX with Starship. They all would love to have their next generation rockets flying reusably as soon as possible. If wishes were wings and so on…

Edit

To clarify, here I mean partial reusability as reflying a booster, rather than merely recovering it.
If they don’t recover and reuse a booster two years after first successful orbital launch, I’ll be a little surprised. They are using a similar approach to Falcon 9 and have hired some people who’ve worked on F9.

Sure, that’s reasonable. Which brings us back to a roughly 5 year timeframe for Terran R partial reusability. Give or take a year.

Edit

Unless you meant 2 years after first Terran 1 orbital launch. In which case I definitely disagree. 2 years after first Terran R successful orbital launch I agree is reasonable.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 08/09/2022 11:27 am
I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.

Of course. As will RL with Neutron. As will SpaceX with Starship. They all would love to have their next generation rockets flying reusably as soon as possible. If wishes were wings and so on…

Edit

To clarify, here I mean partial reusability as reflying a booster, rather than merely recovering it.
If they don’t recover and reuse a booster two years after first successful orbital launch, I’ll be a little surprised. They are using a similar approach to Falcon 9 and have hired some people who’ve worked on F9.

Sure, that’s reasonable. Which brings us back to a roughly 5 year timeframe for Terran R partial reusability. Give or take a year.

Edit

Unless you meant 2 years after first Terran 1 orbital launch. In which case I definitely disagree. 2 years after first Terran R successful orbital launch I agree is reasonable.
I'd expect a much tighter timescale than with F9 re-use development. F9 was a pathfinder, finding a bunch of unknown-unknowns. This is no longer the case, and there is no need to duplicate a lot of work just to re-find known failure states. Relativity may not solve the problems in the same way, but they know the majority of the problems they need to solve already rather than having to find them as they go.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: heavylift on 08/13/2022 08:49 am
This hasn't aged well, has it?

I doubt Relativity has a much lower part count, if at all, than other similar launchers. The actual number of unique parts that go into the tanks are relatively low, and they're not building engines any differently than anyone else, bound to be a similar count of parts for those.

To compare their build times of "2 months" to the alternative of "24 months" is a bit too cheeky, too. Sure, if you're comparing against the build of a Saturn V, 5-6 decades ago, this might be true (I'm not actually sure what the production cadence was) but their modern day competitors are going to be churning out vehicles at the same rate as them; not to mention, having to compare your production with that of a rocket from 50 years ago with >100x the performance just to make a favorable comparison... the criticism just writes itself.

Years later, is anybody buying the 3D printing gimmick? If you asked me what the simplest, most tried-and-true, straightforward part of a rocket design was I'd tell you: tanks. What's the hardest? Propulsion, maybe avionics, depending on how you do it. Neither of which are things they are doing any differently than anybody else.

Just sounds like a great way to build the heaviest, worst mass fraction vehicle you can while spinning an optimistic story about the future of manufacturing.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2022 09:57 am
When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.   

They aren't doing anything different than competition with engine construction.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 08/13/2022 03:39 pm
When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.
It's not so simple. Flight rate determines how many launches the initial construction cost can be spread across, as well as how many launches fixed costs are spread across. e.g. build one core and fly it 10 times per year for 10 years, build 10 cores and fly them each one a year for 10 years, and build 10 cores per year and fly each one, all spread the various fixed and variable costs differently. They also have different risks (if you only have 1 core, if it experiences a failure you have no business at all), and different personnel skillset and facility needs over time (if you build 10 cores in one year and 0 cores for 9 years, do you pay your engineers to do nothing for 9 years, or let everyone go  and then rehire 9 years down the line?). And if 5 years in you find your vehicles are obsolete - or just a bad fit to the market and unprofitable - are you able to afford to produce new vehicles and take the loss of your existing ones having effectively doubled in manufacturing cost per vehicle at point of retirement (because they only flew half their design lifespan)?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2022 08:20 pm


When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.
It's not so simple. Flight rate determines how many launches the initial construction cost can be spread across, as well as how many launches fixed costs are spread across. e.g. build one core and fly it 10 times per year for 10 years, build 10 cores and fly them each one a year for 10 years, and build 10 cores per year and fly each one, all spread the various fixed and variable costs differently. They also have different risks (if you only have 1 core, if it experiences a failure you have no business at all), and different personnel skillset and facility needs over time (if you build 10 cores in one year and 0 cores for 9 years, do you pay your engineers to do nothing for 9 years, or let everyone go  and then rehire 9 years down the line?). And if 5 years in you find your vehicles are obsolete - or just a bad fit to the market and unprofitable - are you able to afford to produce new vehicles and take the loss of your existing ones having effectively doubled in manufacturing cost per vehicle at point of retirement (because they only flew half their design lifespan)?

With this class RLV I'd work off 10 flights minimum, which F9 has demonstrated repeatedly. If you aren't launching 10-20 times are year then business case for being launch industry isn't great. Retired boosters can be expended on high performance missions.

Relativity aren't going to be building their boosters that much cheaper than competition. A 20-25% build cost is going to matter that much over 10+ flights. Still need to recoup development costs which for Relativity is very high as they've spent lot of money developing their technology.
Firefly and RL are using off the shelf composite printing machines that can print lot faster. Google "continuous composites 3d printer" .
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: heavylift on 08/15/2022 02:11 am
When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.
It's not so simple. Flight rate determines how many launches the initial construction cost can be spread across, as well as how many launches fixed costs are spread across. e.g. build one core and fly it 10 times per year for 10 years, build 10 cores and fly them each one a year for 10 years, and build 10 cores per year and fly each one, all spread the various fixed and variable costs differently. They also have different risks (if you only have 1 core, if it experiences a failure you have no business at all), and different personnel skillset and facility needs over time (if you build 10 cores in one year and 0 cores for 9 years, do you pay your engineers to do nothing for 9 years, or let everyone go  and then rehire 9 years down the line?). And if 5 years in you find your vehicles are obsolete - or just a bad fit to the market and unprofitable - are you able to afford to produce new vehicles and take the loss of your existing ones having effectively doubled in manufacturing cost per vehicle at point of retirement (because they only flew half their design lifespan)?

This only makes Relativity's story worse. At least for Terran-1, without re-use, it's all in one vehicle. There's no amortization across many flights to be had.

Now, ignoring that (that there are no savings across multiple flights), you are now actually amortizing the enormous development cost of tank 3D printers across every flight you fly, for no good reason at all (since 3D printing the easiest part of a rocket for a development cost of tens to hundreds of millions is a ridiculous choice). So now, you just have a rocket with the same performance as all other rockets in the industry, with the same production speed (this is a guess, it could end up being even worse, ironically enough), and more or less the same market price. Factor in amortized development, and the overzealous size of company needed to drive that development and build (at ~1k personnel, Relativity is the largest of the 1t launcher companies) and you've created the most expensive, least economically feasible vehicle there is for the level of performance.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/15/2022 02:41 am
When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.
It's not so simple. Flight rate determines how many launches the initial construction cost can be spread across, as well as how many launches fixed costs are spread across. e.g. build one core and fly it 10 times per year for 10 years, build 10 cores and fly them each one a year for 10 years, and build 10 cores per year and fly each one, all spread the various fixed and variable costs differently. They also have different risks (if you only have 1 core, if it experiences a failure you have no business at all), and different personnel skillset and facility needs over time (if you build 10 cores in one year and 0 cores for 9 years, do you pay your engineers to do nothing for 9 years, or let everyone go  and then rehire 9 years down the line?). And if 5 years in you find your vehicles are obsolete - or just a bad fit to the market and unprofitable - are you able to afford to produce new vehicles and take the loss of your existing ones having effectively doubled in manufacturing cost per vehicle at point of retirement (because they only flew half their design lifespan)?

This only makes Relativity's story worse. At least for Terran-1, without re-use, it's all in one vehicle. There's no amortization across many flights to be had.

Now, ignoring that (that there are no savings across multiple flights), you are now actually amortizing the enormous development cost of tank 3D printers across every flight you fly, for no good reason at all (since 3D printing the easiest part of a rocket for a development cost of tens to hundreds of millions is a ridiculous choice). So now, you just have a rocket with the same performance as all other rockets in the industry, with the same production speed (this is a guess, it could end up being even worse, ironically enough), and more or less the same market price. Factor in amortized development, and the overzealous size of company needed to drive that development and build (at ~1k personnel, Relativity is the largest of the 1t launcher companies) and you've created the most expensive, least economically feasible vehicle there is for the level of performance.

And overlaying all of this is the fact that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is small.

Meaning the launch market is not a high margin prize. Given the existence of low cost, high volume providers, the days of charging huge markups on launch contracts are gone forever. In fact, even at breakeven launch prices, newcomers like Relativity will not be able to match the market leader, who has an established, super efficient operational model in place.

So all of the huge development expenditure needed to get to market with a new rocket will have to be amortized over an insane number of very, very low margin launches to be recouped.

It’s a fool’s errand. No one is going to be profitable from developing a new launch company at this point in time.

Hence Tim Ellis’s talk about taking over the aircraft manufacturing industry with the 3D printing technology trialled for their rocket business. That’s a nice dream and all, but without it, I don’t see their business model succeeding.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 08/15/2022 08:36 am
My opinion is that most small launch companies failing or struggling are crushed by fixed costs while demand isn’t there or they can‘t meet it.

Relativity with their 3D printing approach doesn‘t need to keep a standing army for printing a rocket now and then if they have a reusable rocket. They for example can print space station modules for Axiom or others on the same printers they use to print their rockets…

Their specialists know how to print aluminium structures. Compare that to personnel that know how to mill isogrid or bend those huge sheets into a rocket body and think how one company is weighed down by a highly specialised workforce wether demand for their skills is there or not, and the baked-in flexibility of Relativity.
Also, as long as your Knowhow is baked into automation, loss of your skilled workforce is not as big of a problem as if it‘s in the heads and hands of the personnel you‘re losing.

So i feel like Relativity is better positioned to weather out a crisis than most other emerging launch companies.

Another case i want to make is that 3D printed components might have a positive impact on lifetime costs on a fully reusable vehicle by reducing required maintenance. For example seals that are not needed because of higher integration of components can‘t fail… joints, rivets and welds on aircraft structures are the main sources for costly repairs, those should be a lot less on 3D printed structures…
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/15/2022 11:00 am




Hence Tim Ellis’s talk about taking over the aircraft manufacturing industry with the 3D printing technology trialled for their rocket business. That’s a nice dream and all, but without it, I don’t see their business model succeeding.

Aircraft industry is moving to composite air frames.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 08/15/2022 11:42 am
Firefly and RL are using off the shelf composite printing machines that can print lot faster. Google "continuous composites 3d printer" .
Two very different technologies: Relativity's printers are freeform fabricators: feedstock goes in, part comes out. Rocketlab and Firefly are using freeform fibre layup on fixed forms (which then needs curing, postprocessing, joining, and more postprocessing), fibre (usually pre-preg) goes in, a layup comes out which is not yet ready to actually do anything. The freeform layup allows for optimisation beyond what sheet layup can achieve and is likely (but not necessarily) faster than hand layup with sheets, but layup is only a portion of the composites production process.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/15/2022 01:06 pm
This hasn't aged well, has it?

I doubt Relativity has a much lower part count, if at all, than other similar launchers. The actual number of unique parts that go into the tanks are relatively low, and they're not building engines any differently than anyone else, bound to be a similar count of parts for those.

To compare their build times of "2 months" to the alternative of "24 months" is a bit too cheeky, too. Sure, if you're comparing against the build of a Saturn V, 5-6 decades ago, this might be true (I'm not actually sure what the production cadence was) but their modern day competitors are going to be churning out vehicles at the same rate as them; not to mention, having to compare your production with that of a rocket from 50 years ago with >100x the performance just to make a favorable comparison... the criticism just writes itself.

Years later, is anybody buying the 3D printing gimmick? If you asked me what the simplest, most tried-and-true, straightforward part of a rocket design was I'd tell you: tanks. What's the hardest? Propulsion, maybe avionics, depending on how you do it. Neither of which are things they are doing any differently than anybody else.

Just sounds like a great way to build the heaviest, worst mass fraction vehicle you can while spinning an optimistic story about the future of manufacturing.
Well I actually agree with you mostly. 3D printing works good for engines but bad for tanks.

But they can make it work anyway. The picked one of the hardest ways to do it, but they seem to have done it anyway (pressure tests and test fires). Sometimes aggressive execution is more important than other factors. And choosing reusability will mean they may not have to manufacture a lot of stages, negating the cost problems of 3D printing the tanks.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/15/2022 01:26 pm




Hence Tim Ellis’s talk about taking over the aircraft manufacturing industry with the 3D printing technology trialled for their rocket business. That’s a nice dream and all, but without it, I don’t see their business model succeeding.

Aircraft industry is moving to composite air frames.
Not for the most mass-produced models like the 737. Metal is still very competitive, both from a performance and cost standpoint.

Composites does help for really long wing spars.

They’re trying to move to high rate composites, but whether this will actually be cheaper or not is up in the air and to get to the same manufacturing speed as metal may require performance compromises. Also, ironically, composites for a lot of this are laid up using AFP, automated fiber placement, which is essentially a large scale type of 3D printing (although it generally uses tooling).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/15/2022 02:24 pm
Firefly and RL are using off the shelf composite printing machines that can print lot faster. Google "continuous composites 3d printer" .
Two very different technologies: Relativity's printers are freeform fabricators: feedstock goes in, part comes out. Rocketlab and Firefly are using freeform fibre layup on fixed forms (which then needs curing, postprocessing, joining, and more postprocessing), fibre (usually pre-preg) goes in, a layup comes out which is not yet ready to actually do anything. The freeform layup allows for optimisation beyond what sheet layup can achieve and is likely (but not necessarily) faster than hand layup with sheets, but layup is only a portion of the composites production process.
While a different technology and material it also reduces labour costs of booster build and should be lighter than 3d printed metal booster.
This is only area the three companies differ all other components and assembly should use similar technologies. Assembly is still labour intensive as production volumes just aren't large enough to justify car factory type assembly line robotics.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 08/17/2022 06:12 pm
Quote
Aeon 1 upgrade testing for Terran 1 flight 2: +16 seconds vacuum Isp, +1,200 pounds of thrust improvement, x9

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1559932554202861568

If you're gaining 16 seconds of specific impulse in an upgrade, it's not an indication that you did a great job - it's an indication that the existing baseline sucked and was underperforming. What heinous shortcomings are there in the Flight 1 engines?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Redclaws on 08/17/2022 06:37 pm
Quote
Aeon 1 upgrade testing for Terran 1 flight 2: +16 seconds vacuum Isp, +1,200 pounds of thrust improvement, x9

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1559932554202861568

If you're gaining 16 seconds of specific impulse in an upgrade, it's not an indication that you did a great job - it's an indication that the existing baseline sucked and was underperforming. What heinous shortcomings are there in the Flight 1 engines?

I mean, if they can get the thing to orbit, they’re good enough.  It’s not a flaw to be conservative in your initial attempts if you can push them forward from there.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: butters on 08/17/2022 07:14 pm
Whatever we might think of their manufacturing philosophy, Relativity has managed to raise more money than any of their small launch peers and is therefore very well positioned to invest in the development the medium RLV that everybody is finally realizing is necessary to be competitive in the commercial launch industry going forward. The elevator pitch worked on its target audience. Tim Ellis got the stack of chips to play on the medium lift table, and that's half the battle. At least he didn't drive up and down Sand Hill Road in the mid-late 2010s pitching rockets made from reclaimed wood, because that might have worked, too.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ulm_atms on 08/17/2022 08:21 pm
snip...

If you're gaining 16 seconds of specific impulse in an upgrade, it's not an indication that you did a great job - it's an indication that the existing baseline sucked and was underperforming. What heinous shortcomings are there in the Flight 1 engines?
SpaceX's Merlin 1D would like to have a talk with you then.  The number increase seems like they are just getting a better understanding of their engine and expanding it's operating envelope.  I know of another engine with that happening too that's under development....
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/17/2022 09:16 pm
snip...

If you're gaining 16 seconds of specific impulse in an upgrade, it's not an indication that you did a great job - it's an indication that the existing baseline sucked and was underperforming. What heinous shortcomings are there in the Flight 1 engines?
SpaceX's Merlin 1D would like to have a talk with you then.  The number increase seems like they are just getting a better understanding of their engine and expanding it's operating envelope.  I know of another engine with that happening too that's under development....
It's not always a case of increasing performance with each iteration just as important is making it cheaper to build. Most important thing is get a reliable engine on first LV then go from there.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/18/2022 05:59 am
When you have customers waiting to deliver their payloads, getting something out the door that works good enough is a lot better than adding another development cycle so that you can make the improvement you realised you could make near the end of the first cycle. This happens to me all the time!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/26/2022 07:07 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1563197562667933698

Quote
welcome to the future 🦾
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 09/08/2022 12:56 pm
Quote
MCLEAN, Va., Sept. 8, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Iridium Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: IRDM) today announced that it has reached an agreement with SpaceX to launch up to five of the company's remaining ground spare satellites from the Iridium® NEXT program, on its Falcon 9 rocket.  Known as Iridium-9, the launch is planned to take place at Vandenberg Space Force Base in mid-2023.  Earlier this year, Iridium celebrated the 25th anniversary of the first launch in Iridium's history, which also took place from Vandenberg on May 5, 1997. That first ever launch also carried five Iridium satellites to orbit on a Delta II rocket.

Iridium-9 will be Iridium's second rideshare with SpaceX.  Previously, SpaceX conducted eight Iridium launches between January 2017 and January 2019.  These launches delivered 75 satellites to LEO as part of the Iridium NEXT campaign, replacing the company's original satellite constellation. Since completion of the launch campaign in 2019, Iridium has 66 operational satellites, nine on-orbit spares and six additional spares on the ground.  Up to five of those six ground spares are planned for launch as part of Iridium-9.  All satellites in the upgraded Iridium constellation were built by Thales Alenia Space and carry the Aireon® hosted payload, which provides truly global, real-time surveillance of aircraft around the world.

"We have always said that when the right opportunity presented itself, we would launch many, if not all, of our remaining ground spares, and just such an opportunity came about," said Iridium CEO Matt Desch.  "Our constellation is incredibly healthy; however, the spare satellites have no utility to us on the ground.  We built extra satellites as an insurance policy, and with SpaceX's stellar track record, we look forward to another successful launch, which will position us even better to replicate the longevity of our first constellation."

Since the completion of the upgraded Iridium network in early 2019, Iridium's customer base grew by more than 730,000 subscribers in just three years and has more than 1.8 million today.  With that subscriber growth came several new Iridium products and services, including the Iridium Certus® specialty broadband platform, Iridium's Global Maritime Distress and Safety System, Iridium Global Line of Sight® service for uncrewed and autonomous systems, and over 150 new Iridium narrowband and specialty broadband products brought to market by our partner ecosystem.

Iridium remains the only commercial satellite constellation with truly global coverage, offering weather-resilient L-band service from pole-to-pole.  The constellation is divided into six polar orbiting planes that each include 11 operational crosslinked satellites.  The satellites from Iridium-9 will be launched into a parking orbit, and after initial testing will be drifted to their assigned spare orbits.

This means that the one remaining spare will most likely launch on a Terran 1 rocket.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/01/2022 08:23 am
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1575992619137519617

Quote
All clear at LC-16 🌥 Upon returning to the site, we’ve noted no major issues and plan to be back to nominal operations by Monday. Thank you to all for the behind the scenes support to ensure our launch site and hardware were secured in a timely and effective manner.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/03/2022 05:57 pm
twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1576993266972602368

Quote
Now that we’ve come to the end of our test & dev phase, let’s recap:

✅ Successful structural qualification & acceptance testing of all full-scale primary structures for Terran 1 in Long Beach

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1576993266972602368

Quote
✅ Successfully applied flight-like loads to all primary structure of Stage 1 and Stage 2

✅ Functionally tested and qualified all stage separation hardware and flight-critical mechanisms

✅ Completed qualification of all primary pressurized and unpressurized structure
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/03/2022 06:02 pm
twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1576995633403043840

Quote
Stage 1 testing recap:

☑️ 6 ignitions & 185s+ of hot fire for all 9 Aeon 1 engines on Stage 1

☑️ Throughout tests, no engine swaps needed! Engines & autogenous press performed great

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1576995741062397952

Quote
☑️ 10,900s of runtime across 191 hot fire tests throughout Aeon 1 engine qualification & acceptance testing
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/06/2022 04:28 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1578058308178567168

Quote
It's called art  🎨🖌️  Had fun with our powder bed fusion 3D printers to make our mitosis logo. A thread🔽

twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1578058432636141574

Quote
💡 Did you know our mitosis logo is a visual representation of humanity’s journey towards a multiplanetary future?

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1578058682608254976

Quote
💡The single cell at the bottom represents Earth, which is where our journey begins.

💡From there, we'll make initial contact with Mars, building an industrial base and sharing resources.

💡Ultimately, at the top, we'll co-exist on two planets, with our own unique cultures.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/12/2022 01:02 am
twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1579997239002660868

Quote
Countless examples like this from our team. Awesome to see paper -> reality. Meanwhile, we have an extraordinarily dedicated team prepping for Terran 1 #GLHF where we will use flight data collected + our dev experiences to inform Terran R designs. Rate of learning rn is high.

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1579998857336827904

Quote
We are listening to customers and the market and certainly swinging hard toward our vision. By tackling Terran 1 and R simultaneously we have gotten ahead in winning customer demand, enabling faster progress. It’s a calculated balance - SO excited to launch soon with Terran 1!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/12/2022 11:30 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1580339779253587968

Quote
1st Gen ➡️ 3rd Gen Stargate metal 3D Printers.

Pioneering our way towards a multiplanetary future. 🚀 #SpacetoberChallenge
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/18/2022 12:06 pm
https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/10/18/new-agreement-with-nasa-puts-relativity-space-on-path-to-operate-one-of-americas-largest-rocket-engine-test-facilities

Quote
NEW AGREEMENT WITH NASA PUTS RELATIVITY SPACE ON PATH TO OPERATE ONE OF AMERICA’S LARGEST ROCKET ENGINE TEST FACILITIES
Construction is Underway on New Test Complex at NASA’s Stennis Space Center to Support Aeon R Engine Testing and Terran R Stage Testing

Bay St. Louis, Mississippi (October 18, 2022) – Relativity Space, the first company to 3D print rockets and build the largest metal 3D printers in the world, today detailed its plans to operate one of the largest rocket engine test facilities in the United States. Through an agreement with NASA, Relativity is significantly expanding its facilities and infrastructure at NASA’s historic Stennis Space Center in Hancock County, Mississippi. The new facilities will support testing of Relativity’s entirely 3D printed Aeon R engines for its fully reusable 3D printed rocket, Terran R.

Relativity will utilize over 150 additional acres within the Stennis Test Complex, with testing infrastructure for its Aeon R engines being built from the ground up on previously unutilized land north of the A and E Test Complexes. Relativity has begun ground clearing work for several new engine test stands, a full scale second stage stand, office buildings, and a vehicle hangar. The company is already underway testing Aeon R components across Relativity’s E2 test complex, with plans to build the first Aeon R engine and turbopump assembly and begin thrust chamber assembly tests for its Aeon R engines in the coming months at a leased E1 test cell. Full Aeon R engine tests are tracking to occur in late 2023 at Relativity’s newly announced facility expansions.

Relativity currently occupies several operational facilities at Stennis, which include four exclusive-use test stands in the E4 area used for Terran 1 stage testing and Aeon 1 engine testing, two exclusive-use stands in the E2 area used for Aeon 1 engine and Aeon R component tests, and one cell on the E1 test stand available through a Reimbursable Space Act Agreement for Aeon R engine tests. Additionally, Relativity has expanded into several buildings that house its rapidly growing team and test control operations. These facilities have enabled more than 2,000 engine tests, multiple successful mission duty cycles, and a fully-integrated stage testing of a 3D printed orbital flight article – which is not only a first for Relativity but for the entire aerospace manufacturing industry.

Relativity’s partnership with NASA advances innovation, economic development, and job growth in the Gulf Coast, while also progressing the company’s leadership in American aerospace development. Relativity will continue to invest in regional workforce development programs, university and education outreach, and community engagement initiatives.

“We’re looking forward to writing some new history at Stennis through an incredibly large new expansion of development and test capabilities. We’re honored to partner with NASA and are grateful for their support. We look forward to growing our Stennis-based team, who will be pivotal in our success of meeting many more first-ever milestones as we scale our Terran R program.” - Relativity Space Cofounder and CEO, Tim Ellis

“The access to infrastructure in Mississippi is unparalleled. I look forward to working with NASA as the historic Stennis Space Center continues to evolve to support commercial space test programs and to attract and hire top talent as we build the future of aerospace manufacturing. We know the history of excellence at Stennis and take great pride in being able to repurpose existing infrastructure that has withstood the test of time. But we will also build brand new test stands in a place so central and vital to American aerospace innovation.”  - Relativity Space Vice President of Test and Launch, Don Kaderbek

“We welcome the growth of this valued partnership with Relativity Space,” Stennis Space Center Director Dr. Rick Gilbrech said. “NASA is committed to working with commercial companies to help them achieve their space goals, and Stennis is a proven leader in enabling such partnerships. Since their arrival in the spring of 2018, Relativity Space has continued to grow as a respected member of the Stennis federal city. We look forward to their continued development as an aerospace manufacturing and launch company.” - Stennis Space Center Director, Dr. Rick Gilbrech

“This expansion is proof that Mississippi’s future as an aerospace hub is bright. I congratulate Relativity Space on their continued growth and their effort to bring quality jobs to our state. American leadership in space starts in Mississippi, and I expect many great things to come.” - U.S. Senator, Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

“Mississippi’s Stennis Space Center precedes its reputation for excellence in rocket engine testing, and Relativity’s growing presence will only further that reputation. I look forward to seeing what new aerospace innovations are brought about from this exciting expansion and partnership, as well as what new talent it will attract.”- U.S. Senator, Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/18/2022 12:13 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1582334505565638657

Quote
🚨 Stennis expansion TL;DR

✅ 150+ acres of additional land
✅ Ground clearing started for: new engine test stands, full scale 2nd stage stand, office buildings + a vehicle hangar
✅ Full Aeon R engine tests tracking for late 2023 at new facilities
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: heavylift on 10/18/2022 09:42 pm
As usual, Relativity suggesting that the "Biggest Engine Test Site" in the US is a good thing.

Flashy, headline-grabbing, but not an intelligent use of capital. If this is the largest engine test site, that means both Rocket Lab and SpaceX are operating with smaller facilities, which begs the question - do you need a facility this large, this brand new, and this expensive for what you're doing? No, probably not.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/19/2022 02:21 am
Tim Ellis also made a pre-announcement announcement on twitter, which hyped up interest, but the actual news is kind of meh.

Add to that a recent article that pretends to discuss an accident from another company, but filled with praise to Relativity, making it a semi-PR piece, it looks to me Relativity is hungry for public attention for some reason.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Hug on 10/19/2022 04:25 am
Everyone is scaling their workforces right now and as a result it's a pretty fierce competition for getting them hands. I mean Blue has doubled in size in the past year and is still going. I think that's the reason they've been pushing PR so hard given that capital/stock price isn't an issue for them right now.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 10/19/2022 07:57 am
As usual, Relativity suggesting that the "Biggest Engine Test Site" in the US is a good thing.

Flashy, headline-grabbing, but not an intelligent use of capital. If this is the largest engine test site, that means both Rocket Lab and SpaceX are operating with smaller facilities, which begs the question - do you need a facility this large, this brand new, and this expensive for what you're doing? No, probably not.
The phrase used was "one of the largest", not "the largest". The two do not mean the same thing, and this is not the largest engine test facility in the US (trivially confirmable, as it sits inside a larger engine test facility).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: heavylift on 10/19/2022 04:14 pm
As usual, Relativity suggesting that the "Biggest Engine Test Site" in the US is a good thing.

Flashy, headline-grabbing, but not an intelligent use of capital. If this is the largest engine test site, that means both Rocket Lab and SpaceX are operating with smaller facilities, which begs the question - do you need a facility this large, this brand new, and this expensive for what you're doing? No, probably not.
The phrase used was "one of the largest", not "the largest". The two do not mean the same thing, and this is not the largest engine test facility in the US (trivially confirmable, as it sits inside a larger engine test facility).

The detail nitpick does not change the commentary. My point is clearly conveyed, even if you chose to ignore it; the fact stands that Relativity continues to be focused, as it always has been, on very large, capital-intensive, flashy efforts than creating the a financially robust, survivable, well-considered launch business.

That doesn't make it wrong, rather it is my personal, individual criticism of them as a company. Plenty folks do the same thing, and get by with it, even becoming profitable and prosperous. For me personally, the giant long beach facility, the enormous test site, and the general stride of what Relativity does comes off as excess, overindulgence, and wasteful.

Every dollar that gets spent solving one problem is a dollar that doesn't get spent solving another problem. Companies and people who take that seriously try to solve the problem with as little as possible. If Relativity "solves" the problem of launching a 1t rocket at a total expense of, say, $500mm and another company does so for, say, $200mm - then Relativity is really just solving the problem, but in a worse way.

If you suggest they are investing in scaling while others aren't, and thus it is more capital intensive -- I challenge that as well. You can compare the size and scale of investment of their LB facility with similar efforts at others and see it is just as overzealous as anything else they've done.

Lot of "cool," much less "makes sense"
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/19/2022 04:25 pm
Terran-1 is a subscale tech demo for Terran-R. Demonstrating 3D printed tanks, avionics, 9 engine clustering, and eventually Aeon-R itself (as a single engine).

IMHO, they’ll retire Terran-1 as soon as Terran-R is flying regularly. Going straight to Terran-R likely wouldn’t be advisable.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 10/19/2022 05:27 pm
As usual, Relativity suggesting that the "Biggest Engine Test Site" in the US is a good thing.

Flashy, headline-grabbing, but not an intelligent use of capital. If this is the largest engine test site, that means both Rocket Lab and SpaceX are operating with smaller facilities, which begs the question - do you need a facility this large, this brand new, and this expensive for what you're doing? No, probably not.
The phrase used was "one of the largest", not "the largest". The two do not mean the same thing, and this is not the largest engine test facility in the US (trivially confirmable, as it sits inside a larger engine test facility).

The detail nitpick does not change the commentary. My point is clearly conveyed, even if you chose to ignore it
Your 'point' was to claim that they were unnecessarily building a test facility larger than McGregor anmd therefore assume they are wasting money. Something that Relativity have not claimed to have done ('one of the largest' just means 'not small'), so a garden variety straw-man fallacy rather than a valid criticism. 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 10/19/2022 06:19 pm
As an additional point of comparison, SpaceX's McGregor facility is 4,280 acres. So acting like Relativity adding 150 acres to their test facility is a wasteful extravagance compared to SpaceX seems to be ignoring facts on the ground.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/24/2022 09:22 pm
Don't get fooled by Relativity's big show machinery. They are investing more money in producing show than any other rocket company I am aware of. And of course will find more "external factors" that cause the launch to slip.

My dude, they have a fully-tested two-stage methalox rocket that uses autogenous pressurization almost ready to go at their nearly finished launch pad. Terran 1 has more boxes checked than Starship and is maybe a few weeks behind ABL Space's RS1. Their seriousness is beyond question, even if their schedule estimates are as bad as any other rocket startup's.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 10/24/2022 09:38 pm
Why would customers who are in the business of buying rockets sign $1.2B of launch contracts with Relativity over other companies like RocketLab and Blue Origin and ULA/Arianespace? Customers are not dumb, in fact they are probably the smartest besides the talent that actually chooses to stay employee at these companies, so I’d follow the customers, talent, then investors in that order as far as assessing legitimacy apart from direct technical sight. There is usually so much going on behind the scenes and deal making happening based on test results and assessments of performance that we mortals are never privy to, but is not a joke. $1.2B of deals, 20 launches, that’s $60m/launch so it’s not even heavily discounted. They already have factory concrete poured and building launch site at existing facility, testing engine hardware already, it’s farther along.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 10/25/2022 01:53 am
And yes, this was printed *horizontally* on our prototype Stargate V4 printer, announced today!

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1584555195794526208
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/25/2022 05:03 am
Why would customers who are in the business of buying rockets sign $1.2B of launch contracts with Relativity over other companies like RocketLab and Blue Origin and ULA/Arianespace? Customers are not dumb, in fact they are probably the smartest besides the talent that actually chooses to stay employee at these companies, so I’d follow the customers, talent, then investors in that order as far as assessing legitimacy apart from direct technical sight. There is usually so much going on behind the scenes and deal making happening based on test results and assessments of performance that we mortals are never privy to, but is not a joke. $1.2B of deals, 20 launches, that’s $60m/launch so it’s not even heavily discounted. They already have factory concrete poured and building launch site at existing facility, testing engine hardware already, it’s farther along.
It would be brave customer that puts a down payment on under development LV with company thats not flown a LV before.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/25/2022 07:20 am
Crosspost:

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1584526469631717377

Quote
🚨 Surprise! Meet our newest Stargate 4th Generation metal 3D printers. Bigger. Faster. Stronger. Developed in-house. Horizontal printing, ramping up the development and rate production of Terran R. 🚀  *Human for scale*

🗞️  bit.ly/3smNAFV

#TerranR #3Dprinting

https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/10/24/relativity-space-maps-path-to-terran-r-production-at-scale-with-unveil-of-stargate-4th-generation-metal-3d-printers

Quote
RELATIVITY SPACE MAPS PATH TO TERRAN R PRODUCTION AT SCALE WITH UNVEIL OF STARGATE 4TH GENERATION METAL 3D PRINTERS
Now Operating World’s Largest Metal 3D Printers at Company's 1MM+ Sq. Ft. Factory

Long Beach, CA (October 24, 2022) – Relativity Space, the first company to 3D print rockets and build the largest metal 3D printers in the world, today unveiled the latest iteration of its first-of-its-kind proprietary manufacturing platform, Stargate 4th Generation metal 3D printers. These printers will underpin both the development and rate production of Terran R, Relativity’s fully reusable, 3D printed rocket that will be capable of launching 20,000 kg to low Earth orbit (LEO).

The newest Stargate printer technology defies traditional printing constraints by moving horizontally as it feeds multiple wires into a single print head to print orbital rockets. Relativity is developing customized software and machine learning techniques to allow these printers to print more complex and significantly larger metal products, with improved print speed and reliability. Stargate 4th Generation printers also radically simplify manufacturing supply chains, as they are capable of printing a rocket with 100x fewer parts in a matter of months.

With faster iteration cycles, Stargate printers are capable of accelerating progress and innovation within the aerospace industry. Most immediately, Stargate 4th Generation printers will serve as the primary manufacturing infrastructure for Terran R production. Longer-term, Stargate 4th Generation printers offer tremendous value-generating potential for other end-product use cases within the $1T+ aerospace, aviation, energy, and defense industries as the core of a new tech stack for aerospace products. To date, Relativity has secured five customers across $1.2B+ in customer contracts for Terran R, including a multi-launch agreement with OneWeb and a commercial mission to Mars with Impulse Space.

Key features and benefits of Stargate 4th Generation printer technology: 

Significant improvements in print speed: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Generation Stargate printers already operate at print speeds well beyond industry standards. 4th Generation Stargate printers improve on their predecessors and offer 7x faster than earlier generation Stargate printers and even achieve up to 12x faster printing over Relativity’s already industry-leading performance.

Entirely new print orientation and environment:
Increased print size capacity through use of a horizontal print orientation. Stargate 4thgeneration printers remove ceiling height constraints which impact vertical 3D printers. Through horizontal printing, these printers are capable of printing objects up to 120 feet long and 24 feet wide, resulting in an increased volume capacity of 55x its 3rd generation predecessor.

Reduced print start time and cost is supported by an integrated approach to build setup and print plate preparation.

Reduced entropy, for more consistent, reliable manufacturing can be realized through a configuration which centralizes work centers around Stargate’s robotic automation platform.

Improved print quality and work center efficiency is achieved through powerful perception technology for in-process monitoring, which fuses together computer vision, advanced sensors and real-time telemetry.

Radical part count reduction as well as rapid design iterations as Stargate printers are not beholden to long-lead, high capital expenditure fixed tooling.
Lighter, more cost-effective aerospace product production through rapid iteration is generated by leveraging Stargate printers and material science advancements developed in Relativity’s in-house metallurgical laboratory. Relativity has proprietary, high-performance next generation materials which will be used for products printed with Stargate 4th Generation printers. Most immediately, Terran R will be the first product in a series of products to benefit from use of lighter materials and a faster production time, creating significant cost reductions for customers downstream.

“Large-scale products that are designed to fly will inevitably be 3D printed,” said Tim Ellis, cofounder and CEO of Relativity Space. “The lighter a product is, the better it performs, and when 3D printing that product, it’s also faster and more cost-effective to produce with each successive improvement. The compounding rate of progress is high, and we are still in the early days of what printing can achieve. We see 3D printing as an automation technology that has the power to change the pace of innovation in manufacturing, which is why we’ve invested in building our own proprietary tech stack from day one. Stargate printers are designed to unlock rapid iteration, which opens up opportunities for innovation in large-scale manufacturing products. What would take traditional aerospace and space manufacturers years to develop and build, will be reduced down to months due to a highly adaptable, scalable, and automated process, made possible through software-driven manufacturing.”

“Iteration empowers innovation not only in our rocket design, but also in our own Stargate printers,” said Scott Van Vliet, SVP of Software Engineering. “In its short history, Relativity has made great strides in evolving its core 3D printing technology, but Stargate 4th Generation printers are our most innovative leap yet. We’re fundamentally changing the way our factories are designed and operating, and by flipping the script and going horizontal, we’re radically increasing our capacity for scale. Being a software-driven manufacturing company allows us to achieve unique product features, such as integrated pad-ups and domes, with radical flexibility.”

The majority of Terran R components will be printed inside Relativity’s new 1MM+ square foot headquarters in Long Beach, named The Wormhole. Aeon R engines, for Terran R, will continue to be produced at the company’s other Long Beach factory, The Portal. The Wormhole, a former Boeing C-17 manufacturing plant, was secured by Relativity to be its new headquarters in 2021. Currently 33% operational, the factory has several Stargate 4th Generation printers online with more than a dozen printers planned to be producing Terran R components in the coming months. At full capacity forecasted run rate, each Stargate 4th Generation printer is capable of producing 4 Terran R rockets per year. The remainder of The Wormhole will continue to be built out in phases, bringing more printers online and moving more teams into the company’s headquarters as production for Terran R scales.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/25/2022 02:19 pm
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1584911622644064256

Quote
Relativity Space's new giant 3D printer could allow the company to build things other than the rockets it plans to launch - CEO Tim Ellis said they're working with a company to use the printer for building parts of a nuclear fusion reactor
https://www.reuters.com/technology/rocket-startup-relativity-eyes-new-products-with-enlarged-3d-printer-2022-10-24/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 10/25/2022 03:23 pm
Every now and then I'm impressed with what Relativity has done, but man this culture around their Stargate printer gets exhausting. Printing was supposed to save them work and time and what is their next generational leap in printing technology? Eliminating the constraints of roofs.  ::)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 10/25/2022 04:27 pm
Every now and then I'm impressed with what Relativity has done, but man this culture around their Stargate printer gets exhausting. Printing was supposed to save them work and time and what is their next generational leap in printing technology? Eliminating the constraints of roofs.  ::)
Only if you ignore the 7x-12x deposition speedup and the multi-filament feed (which would allow for dynamic alloy mixing, not just increased feedrate). Yep, totally just avoiding tall roofs, no other changes.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 10/25/2022 10:53 pm
Every now and then I'm impressed with what Relativity has done, but man this culture around their Stargate printer gets exhausting. Printing was supposed to save them work and time and what is their next generational leap in printing technology? Eliminating the constraints of roofs.  ::)

Eh, you can't really hate on them. They just wanted to get on the conveyor belt 3D printer bandwagon after RealSexyCyborg popularized them...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 10/26/2022 06:11 pm
A Q+A with Relativity Boss Tim Ellis on First Launch, Terran R, and More - Payload

https://payloadspace.com/interview-relativity-tim-ellis/
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: raspera on 10/28/2022 12:35 am
A Q+A with Relativity Boss Tim Ellis on First Launch, Terran R, and More - Payload

https://payloadspace.com/interview-relativity-tim-ellis/

In this interview Tim says their new printer can make 4 Terran R's per a year and they are building 12 of them. Implied production capacity is 48 Terran-R rockets per year.

He also says Terran-R will be 'fully reusable'.

Why do you need to invest millions in this printer that can make rockets like pancakes if they are all 'fully reusable'? 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FishInferno on 10/28/2022 01:01 am
Why do you need to invest millions in this printer that can make rockets like pancakes if they are all 'fully reusable'?

They'll likely follow in SpaceX's footprints: Get the rocket launching to orbit first, then use customer flights as "free" landing tests until it works.

I believe they've also said that the upper stage will be flat-out expendable at first, so they'll still need a high production rate for that especially once reusable first stages increase the flight rate.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/23/2022 10:04 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1595524126466134018

Quote
Currently, at The Wormhole, our Long Beach HQ, a star is at work.

👋 Stargate 4th Generation printers.

#TerranR
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/21/2022 04:19 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1605610041788096512

Quote
It’s happening…
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 12/21/2022 07:32 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1605610041788096512

Quote
It’s happening…

Oh damn, they're painting their name on the building! That's the most important step in launching an orbital rocket! It really is happening!

I'm sorry, I shouldn't do that, but some of these hype tweets make it too easy.

Though if Relativity really does think of itself as more of a industrial company than a launch company, then in that context the factory name painting is slightly more significant.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/22/2022 07:34 am
twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1605748284470964224

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1605791506664525825

Quote
Heh! The engines have people names!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Cheapchips on 12/22/2022 08:01 am
For those who didn't click through to Chris's tweet, those names are from the fighting game Mortal Kombat.  There's been 70 or so characters over the years, so they have a few more engines to go before they need to switch naming schemes.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 12/23/2022 04:15 am
Oh damn, they're painting their name on the building! That's the most important step in launching an orbital rocket! It really is happening!

I'm sorry, I shouldn't do that, but some of these hype tweets make it too easy.

AIUI, they've been stuck waiting for the FAA AST to finish their launch license review for several months now. I visited their shop almost exactly two months ago, and they had already been waiting for over a month at that point. There are probably only a tiny sliver of their staff that can do anything to impact when they get their launch license at this point. I'm sure they'd rather be showing off pictures and videos of a successful Terran-1 launch, but rather than sit on their thumbs waiting for their license, they're showing off other things going on, rather than just go radio silent while they wait their turn with the FAA.

I'd suggest cutting them some slack. If they had permission to fly, but still weren't flying and were showing off other stuff, the criticism might be more valid. But right now they're waiting on an agency that's dealing with a record number of new launch vehicles needing licenses, but that is understaffed because Congress has cut their budget requests most years in recent memory.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/23/2022 04:46 am
Oh damn, they're painting their name on the building! That's the most important step in launching an orbital rocket! It really is happening!

I'm sorry, I shouldn't do that, but some of these hype tweets make it too easy.

AIUI, they've been stuck waiting for the FAA AST to finish their launch license review for several months now. I visited their shop almost exactly two months ago, and they had already been waiting for over a month at that point. There are probably only a tiny sliver of their staff that can do anything to impact when they get their launch license at this point. I'm sure they'd rather be showing off pictures and videos of a successful Terran-1 launch, but rather than sit on their thumbs waiting for their license, they're showing off other things going on, rather than just go radio silent while they wait their turn with the FAA.

I'd suggest cutting them some slack. If they had permission to fly, but still weren't flying and were showing off other stuff, the criticism might be more valid. But right now they're waiting on an agency that's dealing with a record number of new launch vehicles needing licenses, but that is understaffed because Congress has cut their budget requests most years in recent memory.

~Jon
Still plenty to work on in mean time eg Terran R.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 12/23/2022 05:46 am
Oh damn, they're painting their name on the building! That's the most important step in launching an orbital rocket! It really is happening!

I'm sorry, I shouldn't do that, but some of these hype tweets make it too easy.

AIUI, they've been stuck waiting for the FAA AST to finish their launch license review for several months now. I visited their shop almost exactly two months ago, and they had already been waiting for over a month at that point. There are probably only a tiny sliver of their staff that can do anything to impact when they get their launch license at this point. I'm sure they'd rather be showing off pictures and videos of a successful Terran-1 launch, but rather than sit on their thumbs waiting for their license, they're showing off other things going on, rather than just go radio silent while they wait their turn with the FAA.

I'd suggest cutting them some slack. If they had permission to fly, but still weren't flying and were showing off other stuff, the criticism might be more valid. But right now they're waiting on an agency that's dealing with a record number of new launch vehicles needing licenses, but that is understaffed because Congress has cut their budget requests most years in recent memory.

~Jon

The issue isn't the lack of progress; that I understand perfectly and don't begrudge them. The issue is captioning a tweet of little importance "It's happening...", as though it somehow is important. That's what I was mocking.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 12/23/2022 03:44 pm
The issue isn't the lack of progress; that I understand perfectly and don't begrudge them. The issue is captioning a tweet of little importance "It's happening...", as though it somehow is important. That's what I was mocking.

Ok, fair.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/23/2022 03:52 pm
The issue isn't the lack of progress; that I understand perfectly and don't begrudge them. The issue is captioning a tweet of little importance "It's happening...", as though it somehow is important. That's what I was mocking.

Ok, fair.

~Jon
Tim is guilty of blowing Relativity's trumpet a bit to much given they've not flown anything yet, let alone reach space.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 12/23/2022 04:31 pm
Tim is guilty of blowing Relativity's trumpet a bit to much given they've not flown anything yet, let alone reach space.

As he always did. Relativity is a show business company, which also owns huge 3D printers and builds rockets. I suspect that they are most competent in the show segment. That's why they collected the most inverstor money of all space startups.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/23/2022 04:35 pm
I don’t see the reason to complain about this sort of thing. Tim is easily excited about stuff. Good for him. You’re not under any obligation to also be excited, and that’s okay. But complaining about someone being excited about something is lame. Especially as they have moved relatively (heh) fast.

I’m happy for Tim and the rest of the Relativity team.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Airlocks on 12/23/2022 06:05 pm
Quote
But right now they're waiting on an agency that's dealing with a record number of new launch vehicles needing licenses, but that is understaffed because Congress has cut their budget requests most years in recent memory.

(facepalm) Meanwhile Congress is funding SLS like crazy. Oh well...  >:(
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/29/2022 04:39 am
twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1608262228654043136

Quote
Sliding into home plate on end of year milestones… this time, a long duration hotfire of our upgraded Aeon 1 engine 🥶

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1608262449664516097

Quote
Higher thrust, higher efficiency than v1 Aeon 1
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/29/2022 04:54 am
twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1608262228654043136

Quote
Sliding into home plate on end of year milestones… this time, a long duration hotfire of our upgraded Aeon 1 engine 🥶

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1608262449664516097

Quote
Higher thrust, higher efficiency than v1 Aeon 1
Looks like a CRT's Moray beam pattern.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: tyrred on 12/29/2022 06:15 am
twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1608262228654043136

Quote
Sliding into home plate on end of year milestones… this time, a long duration hotfire of our upgraded Aeon 1 engine 🥶

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1608262449664516097

Quote
Higher thrust, higher efficiency than v1 Aeon 1
Looks like a CRT's Moray beam pattern.

That's a moiré
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/29/2022 06:27 am
twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1608262228654043136

Quote
Sliding into home plate on end of year milestones… this time, a long duration hotfire of our upgraded Aeon 1 engine 🥶

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1608262449664516097

Quote
Higher thrust, higher efficiency than v1 Aeon 1
Looks like a CRT's Moray beam pattern.

That's a moiré
Darn autocorrect.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: xyv on 12/29/2022 11:36 pm
When the moon hits your eye, like a big pizza pie...that's amore...

I'll let myself out...
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 12/30/2022 02:02 am
Quote
But right now they're waiting on an agency that's dealing with a record number of new launch vehicles needing licenses, but that is understaffed because Congress has cut their budget requests most years in recent memory.

(facepalm) Meanwhile Congress is funding SLS like crazy. Oh well...  >:(

I know right? I wish the dot product of useful progress and congressional priorities was better...

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Daniels30 on 02/04/2023 02:55 pm
Inside the ‘Wormhole,’ Relativity Space’s monster factory 3D-printing reusable rockets

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/04/inside-relativity-spaces-monster-factory-3d-printing-reusable-rockets.html
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/05/2023 12:00 am
The printers are so slow they are building four of them? Why don’t they 3D print the 3D printers?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Bob Shaw on 02/05/2023 12:05 am
These guys certainly look impressive - space, however, remains hard. I wish them well!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 02/05/2023 03:16 am
The printers are so slow they are building four of them? Why don’t they 3D print the 3D printers?

That that one step further; 3-D print the plant that 3-D prints the 3-D printers that 3-D prints the 3-D printed Tanks
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/05/2023 05:42 pm
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1622299881359507458

Quote
A more personal telling of our origins before first launch. Fwiw, I care less about competition, more about cooperation and inspiring dozens to hundreds of other companies to make Mars + 🌎 multiplanetary society happen in our immediate lifetime.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90836716/relativity-space-tim-ellis-terran-launch-mars-elon-musk-spacex
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/06/2023 08:48 am
Good article except click bait title.

How Tim Ellis went from wannabe screenwriter to Elon Musk’s biggest space competitor

As far launch competition goes they very long way down chain given not launch a rocket let alone reached orbit.
In order for USA companies
1) SpaceX
2) ULA
3) Rocket Lab which is very distant 3rd by mass to orbit.
4) Virgin Orbital
5) Astra one or 2 successful missions
6) Firefly reached orbit just.
7) ABL one failed launch attempt.

NG with Antares should be 3rd but its end of life.

When Terran R has few successful flights then  Relativity is serious competition until then they are just another startup but very well funded one.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: PM3 on 02/06/2023 09:33 am
When Terran R has few successful flights then  Relativity is serious competition until then they are just another startup but very well funded one.

It is unpopular to write anything negative here about Relativiy; the replies to this post will get lots of likes. But still, just for the records:

Relativity has a mind-boggling cashburn. Their current money reserves will be exhausted years before Terran R could actually launch to orbit. And I can't imagine that they will be able to raise the next billion bucks needed to become cashflow positive. Hard economic times ahead.

I will refer to this post when Relativity is bankrupt and Terran is history. Don't say noone warned you that something was wrong about this "printed rockets" story. It simply doesn't work.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 02/06/2023 11:25 am
When Terran R has few successful flights then  Relativity is serious competition until then they are just another startup but very well funded one.

It is unpopular to write anything negative here about Relativiy; the replies to this post will get lots of likes. But still, just for the records:

Relativity has a mind-boggling cashburn. Their current money reserves will be exhausted years before Terran R could actually launch to orbit. And I can't imagine that they will be able to raise the next billion bucks needed to become cashflow positive. Hard economic times ahead.

I will refer to this post when Relativity is bankrupt and Terran is history. Don't say noone warned you that something was wrong about this "printed rockets" story. It simply doesn't work.
It's not so much 'unpopular' but simply that others do not share your opinion.
Nor do they imagine 'billions' required for moving from a small launcher to a medium lift launcher using the same manufacturing technology, propellants, and engines (Terran 1 is switching to a single Aeon R for the first stage). And there are certainly parallels with another launch company that transitioned from a single-engine small launch vehicles to a clustered engine medium launch vehicle, for well under 'billions' (and Relativity don't to develop an ISS capable capsule at the same time).

They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle. The graveyard of small launch companies is instead mostly made up of those who never manage to get to the building-a-flight-vehicle stage in the first place (e.g. Vector).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/06/2023 01:34 pm
When Terran R has few successful flights then  Relativity is serious competition until then they are just another startup but very well funded one.

It is unpopular to write anything negative here about Relativiy; the replies to this post will get lots of likes. But still, just for the records:

Relativity has a mind-boggling cashburn. Their current money reserves will be exhausted years before Terran R could actually launch to orbit. And I can't imagine that they will be able to raise the next billion bucks needed to become cashflow positive. Hard economic times ahead.

I will refer to this post when Relativity is bankrupt and Terran is history. Don't say noone warned you that something was wrong about this "printed rockets" story. It simply doesn't work.
It's not so much 'unpopular' but simply that others do not share your opinion.
Nor do they imagine 'billions' required for moving from a small launcher to a medium lift launcher using the same manufacturing technology, propellants, and engines (Terran 1 is switching to a single Aeon R for the first stage). And there are certainly parallels with another launch company that transitioned from a single-engine small launch vehicles to a clustered engine medium launch vehicle, for well under 'billions' (and Relativity don't to develop an ISS capable capsule at the same time).

They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle. The graveyard of small launch companies is instead mostly made up of those who never manage to get to the building-a-flight-vehicle stage in the first place (e.g. Vector).

Difference is the proverbial air has been sucked out of the room by the dominant player compared to 2008 when said player first entered the ring.

There’s no free lunch to be had against stale, stodgy, slothful incumbents like there was back then.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 02/06/2023 03:15 pm
When Terran R has few successful flights then  Relativity is serious competition until then they are just another startup but very well funded one.

It is unpopular to write anything negative here about Relativiy; the replies to this post will get lots of likes. But still, just for the records:

Relativity has a mind-boggling cashburn. Their current money reserves will be exhausted years before Terran R could actually launch to orbit. And I can't imagine that they will be able to raise the next billion bucks needed to become cashflow positive. Hard economic times ahead.

I will refer to this post when Relativity is bankrupt and Terran is history. Don't say noone warned you that something was wrong about this "printed rockets" story. It simply doesn't work.
It's not so much 'unpopular' but simply that others do not share your opinion.
Nor do they imagine 'billions' required for moving from a small launcher to a medium lift launcher using the same manufacturing technology, propellants, and engines (Terran 1 is switching to a single Aeon R for the first stage). And there are certainly parallels with another launch company that transitioned from a single-engine small launch vehicles to a clustered engine medium launch vehicle, for well under 'billions' (and Relativity don't to develop an ISS capable capsule at the same time).

They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle. The graveyard of small launch companies is instead mostly made up of those who never manage to get to the building-a-flight-vehicle stage in the first place (e.g. Vector).

Difference is the proverbial air has been sucked out of the room by the dominant player compared to 2008 when said player first entered the ring.

There’s no free lunch to be had against stale, stodgy, slothful incumbents like there was back then.
Yet there remain multiple new companies still in operation despite the presence of the 800lb gorilla. The 'proverbial air' has clearly yet to run out.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/06/2023 04:49 pm
There is room for at least one other reusable launch provider. Blue Origin is the obvious contender but they’re effectively OldSpace in pace, so the others still have a chance.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/07/2023 01:05 am
There is room for at least one other reusable launch provider. Blue Origin is the obvious contender but they’re effectively OldSpace in pace, so the others still have a chance.

Yes. A 2nd competitive, reusable launcher that arrives today will likely get sufficient business to be sustainable.

However, F1 reached orbit in 2008 and SpaceX only managed to reuse a booster in 2017. Operational cadence with reusable boosters really only started in 2018. That’s a decade to get from first flight to operational reuse.

Terran 1 is Relativity’s Falcon 1. Even if they cut the time from first flight to hypothetical, reusable Terran R in half, that’s 5 years to achieving competitive (and hopefully sustainable) operations.

5 years of expensive development and scaling that need to be funded. And that’s assuming everything goes really, really well between now and then.



 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: su27k on 02/07/2023 01:29 am
There is room for at least one other reusable launch provider. Blue Origin is the obvious contender but they’re effectively OldSpace in pace, so the others still have a chance.

There's room for a 2nd launch provider due to USAF's policy of keeping 2 US medium/heavy launch providers at all times, but there's no guarantee this 2nd provider would be a startup flying a fully reusable vehicle, in fact there're probably in-built incentives to award this 2nd contract to old space company.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 02/07/2023 10:35 am
There is room for at least one other reusable launch provider. Blue Origin is the obvious contender but they’re effectively OldSpace in pace, so the others still have a chance.

Yes. A 2nd competitive, reusable launcher that arrives today will likely get sufficient business to be sustainable.

However, F1 reached orbit in 2008 and SpaceX only managed to reuse a booster in 2017. Operational cadence with reusable boosters really only started in 2018. That’s a decade to get from first flight to operational reuse.

Terran 1 is Relativity’s Falcon 1. Even if they cut the time from first flight to hypothetical, reusable Terran R in half, that’s 5 years to achieving competitive (and hopefully sustainable) operations.

5 years of expensive development and scaling that need to be funded. And that’s assuming everything goes really, really well between now and then.
The difference is SpaceX were facing the uphill battle of no booster ever having been recovered or reused, and exploring the problem space from scratch and identifying a lot of unknown unknowns.
Today, booster reuse is not a "maybe it might be possible" research project but a known quantity with multiple demonstrated working solutions. Likewise, SpaceX were doing a lot of internal training to get the staff needed to work on re-use, whereas Relativity (among others) have a large pool of experienced talent to draw from. e.g. the situation has gone from "so, how do we make a grid-fin that can survive re-entry?" to "hire one of the people who have worked on designing and operating re-enterable grid-fins".
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: jongoff on 02/08/2023 01:43 am
There is room for at least one other reusable launch provider. Blue Origin is the obvious contender but they’re effectively OldSpace in pace, so the others still have a chance.

Yes. A 2nd competitive, reusable launcher that arrives today will likely get sufficient business to be sustainable.

However, F1 reached orbit in 2008 and SpaceX only managed to reuse a booster in 2017. Operational cadence with reusable boosters really only started in 2018. That’s a decade to get from first flight to operational reuse.

Terran 1 is Relativity’s Falcon 1. Even if they cut the time from first flight to hypothetical, reusable Terran R in half, that’s 5 years to achieving competitive (and hopefully sustainable) operations.

5 years of expensive development and scaling that need to be funded. And that’s assuming everything goes really, really well between now and then.
The difference is SpaceX were facing the uphill battle of no booster ever having been recovered or reused, and exploring the problem space from scratch and identifying a lot of unknown unknowns.
Today, booster reuse is not a "maybe it might be possible" research project but a known quantity with multiple demonstrated working solutions. Likewise, SpaceX were doing a lot of internal training to get the staff needed to work on re-use, whereas Relativity (among others) have a large pool of experienced talent to draw from. e.g. the situation has gone from "so, how do we make a grid-fin that can survive re-entry?" to "hire one of the people who have worked on designing and operating re-enterable grid-fins".

Yeah. In 2008, SpaceX was still thinking of using parachutes for recovering Falcon 9 first stage. They didn't even switch to powered landing as their plan until mid-2010. They had to pioneer the field, with nobody in industry having experience. Ten years later, there are tons of ex-SpaceX, ex-Masten, and/or ex-Blue Origin folks with experience with VTVL powered landing. Acting like that doesn't make a difference in how fast a second-mover can get there is just silly.

That said, Relativity does still need to prove that it has what it takes to successfully build and fly a rocket. But if they can, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they couldn't duplicate at least first stage reuse faster than SpaceX did the first time around.

~Jon
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/08/2023 01:55 am
There is room for at least one other reusable launch provider. Blue Origin is the obvious contender but they’re effectively OldSpace in pace, so the others still have a chance.

Yes. A 2nd competitive, reusable launcher that arrives today will likely get sufficient business to be sustainable.

However, F1 reached orbit in 2008 and SpaceX only managed to reuse a booster in 2017. Operational cadence with reusable boosters really only started in 2018. That’s a decade to get from first flight to operational reuse.

Terran 1 is Relativity’s Falcon 1. Even if they cut the time from first flight to hypothetical, reusable Terran R in half, that’s 5 years to achieving competitive (and hopefully sustainable) operations.

5 years of expensive development and scaling that need to be funded. And that’s assuming everything goes really, really well between now and then.
The difference is SpaceX were facing the uphill battle of no booster ever having been recovered or reused, and exploring the problem space from scratch and identifying a lot of unknown unknowns.
Today, booster reuse is not a "maybe it might be possible" research project but a known quantity with multiple demonstrated working solutions. Likewise, SpaceX were doing a lot of internal training to get the staff needed to work on re-use, whereas Relativity (among others) have a large pool of experienced talent to draw from. e.g. the situation has gone from "so, how do we make a grid-fin that can survive re-entry?" to "hire one of the people who have worked on designing and operating re-enterable grid-fins".

Yeah. In 2008, SpaceX was still thinking of using parachutes for recovering Falcon 9 first stage. They didn't even switch to powered landing as their plan until mid-2010. They had to pioneer the field, with nobody in industry having experience. Ten years later, there are tons of ex-SpaceX, ex-Masten, and/or ex-Blue Origin folks with experience with VTVL powered landing. Acting like that doesn't make a difference in how fast a second-mover can get there is just silly.

That said, Relativity does still need to prove that it has what it takes to successfully build and fly a rocket. But if they can, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they couldn't duplicate at least first stage reuse faster than SpaceX did the first time around.

~Jon

Hence my supposition that the path from Terran 1 first flight to Terran R operational cadence will be 5 years instead of 10 - which is half the time it took SpaceX.

Note Rocketlab Electron’s first flight was in 2017, and Neutron is now realistically tracking to, what, 2025 for first flight, so probably NET 2026 for anything approaching reuse at an operational cadence.

Seems to me that estimating 5 years from Terran 1 first flight to reused, operationalized Terran R is being fairly generous.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/07/2023 04:11 pm
Part of a twitter thread on tomorrow’s launch that makes explicit that Terran-1 is very much a stepping stone to get to Terran-R and, depending on customer input, could be abandoned before getting to orbit:

Quote
All that said, as a customer-focused launch services company, we aren’t truly in charge of defining success for this launch. Our customers will really be our deciding jury. They may view this launch as a success once we prove the vehicle’s structural integrity at Max-Q, but they may also be looking to later stages of flight, like stage separation, and then 2nd stage engine ignition. The goal is to provide our customers with confidence in us and our abilities, especially with $1.65 billion in customer launch contracts already signed overwhelmingly for our larger reusable rocket Terran R, and billions more in our pipeline. Medium-heavy lift is clearly where the biggest market opportunity is for the remaining decade, with a massive launch shortage in this payload class underway.

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1633148588137017359

Quote
If on our inaugural Terran 1 launch we encounter issues that are more commonplace with rocket launches – rocket science problems and not additive-related problems – we’ll ask those customers for input. Do they want us to continue down the path of producing more Terran 1’s to solve for those issues on this vehicle? Or, would like us to solve the remaining rocket science problems on the vehicle they are actually most interested in, Terran R?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Kryten on 03/07/2023 05:03 pm
They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle.
None of those companies are close to making any money either, most are in a similar throwing-cash-into-a-pit situation to Relativity. You missed VO, who are at that stage and from public information have no more than a couple months, absent some miracle, before going defunct.

 A 'resilient' company is one that has a workable base for the future, not just one that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/07/2023 06:25 pm
Relativity has large cash reserves for now. Probably burning through it at fair rate, especially with Terran R development. No revenue as of present that I know of.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 03/07/2023 11:39 pm
Relativity has large cash reserves for now. Probably burning through it at fair rate, especially with Terran R development. No revenue as of present that I know of.

Last I heard, the company has about 1,200 people on staff. I compiled their funding round and employee ramp rate (citations needed) on a simple $150/hour rate for comp and overhead. Even with their extensive funding in 2020 and 2021, they should be looking for more money very soon. Of course, this doesn't cover the 1MM sqft facility in Long Beach, the new facilities at Stennis, and of course the vehicle hardware itself.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40975.0;attach=2167335;image)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/08/2023 05:57 pm
We joke a lot about "Elon time." Are there reasons to believe that "Relativity time" will be more accurate? I guess one reason is that Relativity has looked at SpaceX' history and learned from it, but comparing Relativity's schedule to SpaceX makes me doubtful. From a project standpoint, if Terran 1 is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 1, and Terran R is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 9, then numbers don't match up, so there must be some secret sauce in there for Relativity.

SpaceX launched F1 in March 2006. They launched F9 in June 2010, and they achieved the first F9 booster landing in October 2015. Terran 1 will (we all hope) launch successfully today, March 2023. If they can go as fast as SpaceX, we would expect to see Terran R launch in June 2027 and first recovery in October 2031, but they seem to be aiming for actual Terran R launch in 2024 and operations to start in 2025.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: AllenB on 03/08/2023 07:15 pm
Earlier in today's launch attempt, Relativity had to hold for quite a while due to "propellant conditioning" issues. Do we have any insight into what that could mean? It would seem to make sense in reference to subcooled propellants, but to my knowledge that is not the case here. With gasses at their boiling point wouldn't the only question be how full is each tank?

Clearly missing something here but not sure what it is. Thanks!
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/08/2023 07:26 pm
Earlier in today's launch attempt, Relativity had to hold for quite a while due to "propellant conditioning" issues. Do we have any insight into what that could mean? It would seem to make sense in reference to subcooled propellants, but to my knowledge that is not the case here. With gasses at their boiling point wouldn't the only question be how full is each tank?

Clearly missing something here but not sure what it is. Thanks!

Most likely, the liquid oxygen was too cold. So they hold the countdown to let it warm up while still in the rocket's tanks.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DeimosDream on 03/08/2023 07:32 pm
We joke a lot about "Elon time." Are there reasons to believe that "Relativity time" will be more accurate? I guess one reason is that Relativity has looked at SpaceX' history and learned from it, but comparing Relativity's schedule to SpaceX makes me doubtful. From a project standpoint, if Terran 1 is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 1, and Terran R is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 9, then numbers don't match up, so there must be some secret sauce in there for Relativity.

SpaceX launched F1 in March 2006. They launched F9 in June 2010, and they achieved the first F9 booster landing in October 2015. Terran 1 will (we all hope) launch successfully today, March 2023. If they can go as fast as SpaceX, we would expect to see Terran R launch in June 2027 and first recovery in October 2031, but they seem to be aiming for actual Terran R launch in 2024 and operations to start in 2025.

Falcon 9 was announced just one year before F1's launch (2005 vs 2006). Relativity announced Terran-R -two- years before Terran-1's launch which will save them a year.  ::)
Add in 3D printing magic to save another year off retooling and 2025 isn't unrealistic. 2024 as announced... we'll see.

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: brussell on 03/08/2023 07:44 pm
Relativity has large cash reserves for now. Probably burning through it at fair rate, especially with Terran R development. No revenue as of present that I know of.

Last I heard, the company has about 1,200 people on staff. I compiled their funding round and employee ramp rate (citations needed) on a simple $150/hour rate for comp and overhead. Even with their extensive funding in 2020 and 2021, they should be looking for more money very soon. Of course, this doesn't cover the 1MM sqft facility in Long Beach, the new facilities at Stennis, and of course the vehicle hardware itself.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40975.0;attach=2167335;image)

Is it really that high, ~300k/employee? I've always used $200k but maybe I ought to update those numbers. Still, it shouldn't be far off. This is a great chart and very eye opening.

(edit to add: Having seen how the sausage gets made, I can believe they are scrambling to push this one off the pad to go on another funding round)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/08/2023 07:46 pm
We joke a lot about "Elon time." Are there reasons to believe that "Relativity time" will be more accurate? I guess one reason is that Relativity has looked at SpaceX' history and learned from it, but comparing Relativity's schedule to SpaceX makes me doubtful. From a project standpoint, if Terran 1 is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 1, and Terran R is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 9, then numbers don't match up, so there must be some secret sauce in there for Relativity.

SpaceX launched F1 in March 2006. They launched F9 in June 2010, and they achieved the first F9 booster landing in October 2015. Terran 1 will (we all hope) launch successfully today, March 2023. If they can go as fast as SpaceX, we would expect to see Terran R launch in June 2027 and first recovery in October 2031, but they seem to be aiming for actual Terran R launch in 2024 and operations to start in 2025.

Falcon 9 was announced just one year before F1's launch (2005 vs 2006). Relativity announced Terran-R -two- years before Terran-1's launch which will save them a year.  ::)
Add in 3D printing magic to save another year off retooling and 2025 isn't unrealistic. 2024 as announced... we'll see.

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?

Falcon 9's first attempt at recovery of a first stage was on January 10, 2015, during the CRS-5 launch the grid fins successfully targeted the ASDS but with a hard impact.

The first successful landing was on December 22, 2015, during the Orbcomm OG2 launch. This was after a six month hold on launches after CRS-7 failed in flight. There was only one launch with an attempted recovery (during CRS-6) between the two.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: brussell on 03/08/2023 07:52 pm
They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle.
None of those companies are close to making any money either, most are in a similar throwing-cash-into-a-pit situation to Relativity. You missed VO, who are at that stage and from public information have no more than a couple months, absent some miracle, before going defunct.

 A 'resilient' company is one that has a workable base for the future, not just one that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.

Is Rocketlab also burning money? I thought they were at least breaking even but I haven't really followed too closely.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/08/2023 09:26 pm
They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle.
None of those companies are close to making any money either, most are in a similar throwing-cash-into-a-pit situation to Relativity. You missed VO, who are at that stage and from public information have no more than a couple months, absent some miracle, before going defunct.

 A 'resilient' company is one that has a workable base for the future, not just one that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.

Is Rocketlab also burning money? I thought they were at least breaking even but I haven't really followed too closely.

From their 2022Q4 earnings report (https://investors.rocketlabusa.com/news/news-details/2023/Rocket-Lab-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2022-Financial-Results-Issues-Guidance-for-the-First-Quarter-2023/default.aspx), they had a $14.5M EBITDA loss in the fourth quarter, with $472M in cash and marketable securities on hand. Which isn't necessarily "burning money," but their projections for 2023Q1 include an EBITDA loss of $28-30M, so it may accelerate a bit.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/08/2023 11:28 pm
They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle.
None of those companies are close to making any money either, most are in a similar throwing-cash-into-a-pit situation to Relativity. You missed VO, who are at that stage and from public information have no more than a couple months, absent some miracle, before going defunct.

 A 'resilient' company is one that has a workable base for the future, not just one that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.

Is Rocketlab also burning money? I thought they were at least breaking even but I haven't really followed too closely.

From their 2022Q4 earnings report (https://investors.rocketlabusa.com/news/news-details/2023/Rocket-Lab-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2022-Financial-Results-Issues-Guidance-for-the-First-Quarter-2023/default.aspx), they had a $14.5M EBITDA loss in the fourth quarter, with $472M in cash and marketable securities on hand. Which isn't necessarily "burning money," but their projections for 2023Q1 include an EBITDA loss of $28-30M, so it may accelerate a bit.
Revenues are climbing, not enough to cover Neutron R&amp;D spend but should help stretch out cash reserves.

While Relativity has plenty of cash reserves they really do need Terran 1 to start paying its way. There is potential to make some money from their 3D printing technology but not heard if they are.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/08/2023 11:41 pm
While Relativity has plenty of cash reserves they really do need Terran 1 to start paying its way. There is potential to make some money from their 3D printing technology but not heard if they are.

For reference, both Rocket Lab and Virgin Orbit took around eight months from their first (failed) launch attempts to their second (successful) attempts, and the time delta for Astra and Firefly was over a year (if we discount all the other failed launches between the first attempt and the first success, in Astra's case). If Terran 1's first launch isn't successful (which even Relativity is trying to set expectations to), it'll at most launch one more time in 2023, and that may or may not be a commercial launch. Plus with Relativity already talking about how Terran 1 is just a testbed for Terran R, I'm almost wondering whether it will fly any commercial launches before it's cancelled.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/09/2023 12:07 am
While Relativity has plenty of cash reserves they really do need Terran 1 to start paying its way. There is potential to make some money from their 3D printing technology but not heard if they are.

For reference, both Rocket Lab and Virgin Orbit took around eight months from their first (failed) launch attempts to their second (successful) attempts, and the time delta for Astra and Firefly was over a year (if we discount all the other failed launches between the first attempt and the first success, in Astra's case). If Terran 1's first launch isn't successful (which even Relativity is trying to set expectations to), it'll at most launch one more time in 2023, and that may or may not be a commercial launch. Plus with Relativity already talking about how Terran 1 is just a testbed for Terran R, I'm almost wondering whether it will fly any commercial launches before it's cancelled.
For further reference, the first three Falcon 1 launches failed. It was 2.5 years form the first try until the first successful launch.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Kryten on 03/09/2023 06:14 am
They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle.
None of those companies are close to making any money either, most are in a similar throwing-cash-into-a-pit situation to Relativity. You missed VO, who are at that stage and from public information have no more than a couple months, absent some miracle, before going defunct.

 A 'resilient' company is one that has a workable base for the future, not just one that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.

Is Rocketlab also burning money? I thought they were at least breaking even but I haven't really followed too closely.
They're the one I count as not just throwing cash into a deep pit, though they're still not making money. Last time they split out losses from launch services they still lost some money per launch: last earnings report they didn't include that, so I suspect they still are.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 03/09/2023 06:35 am
Relativity has large cash reserves for now. Probably burning through it at fair rate, especially with Terran R development. No revenue as of present that I know of.

Last I heard, the company has about 1,200 people on staff. I compiled their funding round and employee ramp rate (citations needed) on a simple $150/hour rate for comp and overhead. Even with their extensive funding in 2020 and 2021, they should be looking for more money very soon. Of course, this doesn't cover the 1MM sqft facility in Long Beach, the new facilities at Stennis, and of course the vehicle hardware itself.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40975.0;attach=2167335;image)
That does assume they will receive absolutely no further revenue or investment, which has not been the case thus far. Even SpaceX performed a funding round within the last quarter, and have been doing so regularly (IIRC to the tune of around $10bn invested thus far). This is no surprise, that's just the way many businesses operate.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/09/2023 12:18 pm
They're the one I count as not just throwing cash into a deep pit, though they're still not making money. Last time they split out losses from launch services they still lost some money per launch: last earnings report they didn't include that, so I suspect they still are.

I think during the Q3 report, they said they'd make money on launch if they had three full-price launches in a given quarter. That certainly wasn't the case in Q4, and isn't going to be the case in Q1 either (since their first launch from Wallops wasn't full-price). So pretty clear they've yet to have a quarter where launch was net profitable.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/09/2023 03:43 pm

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?
I'm fairly sure SpaceX had the same optimistic expectations for F9 v1.0 that Relativity has for the first Terran R. Are you saying that SpaceX' experience with F9 somehow increases Relativity's  chance of success with the first Terran R?

I suspect (without any inside insight) that the fully-reusable Terran R will be a bigger challenge than the partially-reusable F9. I think that without additional data points, the best guess is that Relativity will need about the same 3 years to get from their v1.0 to their first mature version. I hope I'm wrong, because I would like to see them succeed.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/09/2023 04:36 pm

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?
I'm fairly sure SpaceX had the same optimistic expectations for F9 v1.0 that Relativity has for the first Terran R. Are you saying that SpaceX' experience with F9 somehow increases Relativity's  chance of success with the first Terran R?

I suspect (without any inside insight) that the fully-reusable Terran R will be a bigger challenge than the partially-reusable F9. I think that without additional data points, the best guess is that Relativity will need about the same 3 years to get from their v1.0 to their first mature version. I hope I'm wrong, because I would like to see them succeed.
Will Terran R be flown with reuseable US from its first flight?.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: RDMM2081 on 03/09/2023 04:38 pm

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?
I'm fairly sure SpaceX had the same optimistic expectations for F9 v1.0 that Relativity has for the first Terran R. Are you saying that SpaceX' experience with F9 somehow increases Relativity's  chance of success with the first Terran R?

I suspect (without any inside insight) that the fully-reusable Terran R will be a bigger challenge than the partially-reusable F9. I think that without additional data points, the best guess is that Relativity will need about the same 3 years to get from their v1.0 to their first mature version. I hope I'm wrong, because I would like to see them succeed.

Isn't the logical progression for Terran R though to start with booster reuse first, exactly like F9?  They can then proceed to reap those benefits against the rest of the non-reusable market (RocketLab, ULA) while they continue the SpaceX progression of working on second stage full reuse on paid customer launches, all while doing it on "someone elses lunch" due to the booster reuse.

I think it is much more likely that Relativity succeeds with booster recovery and reuse in their first handful of launches than SpaceX was able to achieve, exactly because SpaceX has already achieved it, proved it is possible, profitable, and that they have demonstrated both methods which do and do not work as well as shared details about recovery and reuse which a smart business would carefully examine and implement relevant features early in the development cycle.  I also have to say that I think RocketLab's Neutron is much more likely to succeed in its initial recovery efforts for the same reasons.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/09/2023 04:47 pm
Will Terran R be flown with reuseable US from its first flight?.
I have no idea. The usual difference is that an expendable second stage is designed to minimize cost and mass, while a reusable second stage is designed for EDL, so two different designs. But Relativity needs to test their reusable design. My completely uninformed guess: they will not do a separate expendable design, but will produce and fly the reusable design from the very first flight, even if they do not attempt to actually land it.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/09/2023 05:05 pm
Will Terran R be flown with reuseable US from its first flight?.
I have no idea. The usual difference is that an expendable second stage is designed to minimize cost and mass, while a reusable second stage is designed for EDL, so two different designs. But Relativity needs to test their reusable design. My completely uninformed guess: they will not do a separate expendable design, but will produce and fly the reusable design from the very first flight, even if they do not attempt to actually land it.

This does seem likely, but they'll almost certainly prioritize refining first-stage reuse, with the second stage basically their "first draft" reusable version without any refinements (or successful reuses) until they've worked out the first stage.

I guess they could do both in parallel, but I don't know if they'd have the resources to attempt that, and it's clear what's most important to work on first.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: tssp_art on 03/09/2023 06:02 pm
Will Terran R be flown with reuseable US from its first flight?.
I have no idea. The usual difference is that an expendable second stage is designed to minimize cost and mass, while a reusable second stage is designed for EDL, so two different designs. But Relativity needs to test their reusable design. My completely uninformed guess: they will not do a separate expendable design, but will produce and fly the reusable design from the very first flight, even if they do not attempt to actually land it.

I have a slightly different (but equally uninformed!) opinion. I think they will follow SpaceX's approach to an expendable and/or reusable second stage. But i don't think we know what that approach is just yet. The steady stream of Starship prototypes have included successively more features of reusability which, if Relativity follows SpaceX, would support your speculation. But I keep looking at Ship 26 and 27 and see prototypes of an expendable upper stage that would allow the Starship launch system to start earning its keep as a Starlink launcher.

Terran R with an expendable (and easy/cheap to manufacture) upper stage could be (1) earning revenue, (2) exercising payload processing, (3) establishing Relativity in the launch business and stabilizing their business model, and (4) maybe start building up their credibility and launch cadence all while the bugs are worked out with Terran R Stage 1 reusability and reliability. Then they can move on to the development, test and refinement of the features needed for a reusable stage 2.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/09/2023 06:17 pm
I’m pretty sure that the first launch they said would have at least an expendable upper stage. It’s a high energy mission to Mars, single launch, so basically no chance of upper stage recovery anyway.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/09/2023 08:31 pm
They don't need reuseable US to be competitive initially. F9, Neutron and Firefly MLV will only have expendable US, that may change with time. Reuse of US has quite a payload hit so $kg may not change much.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: brussell on 03/10/2023 05:25 pm
Relativity has large cash reserves for now. Probably burning through it at fair rate, especially with Terran R development. No revenue as of present that I know of.

Last I heard, the company has about 1,200 people on staff. I compiled their funding round and employee ramp rate (citations needed) on a simple $150/hour rate for comp and overhead. Even with their extensive funding in 2020 and 2021, they should be looking for more money very soon. Of course, this doesn't cover the 1MM sqft facility in Long Beach, the new facilities at Stennis, and of course the vehicle hardware itself.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40975.0;attach=2167335;image)
That does assume they will receive absolutely no further revenue or investment, which has not been the case thus far. Even SpaceX performed a funding round within the last quarter, and have been doing so regularly (IIRC to the tune of around $10bn invested thus far). This is no surprise, that's just the way many businesses operate.

This is true. They'll just get more funding but they *have* to, and soon. They are executing well so that shouldn't be a problem but darn, what a burn rate.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ringsider on 03/10/2023 06:10 pm
With the implosion at Silicon Valley Bank, was/is Relativity an SVB customer?

This blog by their "Frontier Tech" team seems to indicate a relationship:-

https://www.svb.com/blogs/ann-kim/what-weve-been-building
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: brussell on 03/10/2023 09:33 pm
With the implosion at Silicon Valley Bank, was/is Relativity an SVB customer?

This blog by their "Frontier Tech" team seems to indicate a relationship:-

https://www.svb.com/blogs/ann-kim/what-weve-been-building

It's quite possible. However they'd be a customer of their loans, not an investor. How does this affect customers? Maybe then can't get more loans or refinance? No idea.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Action on 03/10/2023 10:42 pm
With the implosion at Silicon Valley Bank, was/is Relativity an SVB customer?

This blog by their "Frontier Tech" team seems to indicate a relationship:-

https://www.svb.com/blogs/ann-kim/what-weve-been-building

It's quite possible. However they'd be a customer of their loans, not an investor. How does this affect customers? Maybe then can't get more loans or refinance? No idea.

The issue is people or companies who were depositors and now find their funds at risk.  If you were a middle-sized startup who kept $30 million of your payroll deposited at SVB, you may have a problem getting access to your cash or even getting it all back.

FDIC insurance covers small accounts.  Big firms have better things to do with their cash.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 03/10/2023 11:19 pm
With the implosion at Silicon Valley Bank, was/is Relativity an SVB customer?

This blog by their "Frontier Tech" team seems to indicate a relationship:-

https://www.svb.com/blogs/ann-kim/what-weve-been-building

It's quite possible. However they'd be a customer of their loans, not an investor. How does this affect customers? Maybe then can't get more loans or refinance? No idea.

The issue is people or companies who were depositors and now find their funds at risk.  If you were a middle-sized startup who kept $30 million of your payroll deposited at SVB, you may have a problem getting access to your cash or even getting it all back.

FDIC insurance covers small accounts.  Big firms have better things to do with their cash.

Case in point, Rocket Lab had $38M deposited with SVB. Although that's out of $472M in cash and marketable securities they had on-hand as of the end of 2022 (and a quarterly EBITDA loss of under $40M), so it's not "can't make payroll"-levels of concerning.

https://twitter.com/SpaceInvestor_/status/1634331128566882304

How much Relativity may have had deposited with SVB, and how that compares to their total cash and marketable securities on-hand, is unknown due to their status as a private company.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/27/2023 05:02 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1651630410047135744

Quote
Newsletter: A special @MorganLBrennan edition

Her thoughts from the "Manifest Space" podcast interview with Relativity's @thetimellis, reflecting on his move to go all-in on Terran R:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/27/investing-in-space-relativity-ceo-bets-on-bigger-rockets-ai.html

Podcast link:

https://cnbc-manifest-space-with-morgan-brennan.simplecast.com/episodes/disruption-theory-with-relativity-space-ceo-tim-ellis-4-21-23-im5Wi7je
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/06/2023 07:45 am
twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1654629268339703808

Quote
Over at our Long Beach headquarters, the Wormhole, Terran R's production base covers 1 million sq. ft. of possibilities coming to life with a buzzin' factory.   🚀 #TerranR

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1654629497843634176

Quote
A lot can happen in just under a year same place Circa 2022 👀
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/09/2023 01:58 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1655921377994756103

Quote
Just in! We're thrilled to be on @CNBCdisruptors 2023 list of companies transforming industries for the 2nd year in a row!  🚀

Find us at #4: https://cnb.cx/3NPk8Vd #Disruptor50
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DeimosDream on 05/09/2023 08:56 pm
Anyone else curious how a company that hasn't yet delivered a working product (reach orbit for a launch service provider) managed to make top-10?

Quote
Quantitative metrics included company-submitted data on workforce size and diversity, scalability, and sales and user growth. Some of this information has been kept off the record and was used for scoring purposes only. CNBC also brought in data from a pair of outside partners — PitchBook, which provided data on fundraising, implied valuations and investor quality; and IBISWorld, whose database of industry reports we use to compare the companies based on the industries they are attempting to disrupt.

CNBC’s Disruptor 50 Advisory Council — a group of 51 leading thinkers in the field of innovation and entrepreneurship from around the world (see list of members below) — then ranked the quantitative criteria by importance and ability to disrupt established industries and public companies. This year the council again found that scalability and user growth were the most important criteria
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/09/the-2023-cnbc-disruptor-50-how-we-chose-the-companies.html

I wish Relativity well and congratulations on having one of the most successful maiden flights of late, but a top-10 ranking based on scaling up factory space and employee head count (after VirginOrbit's failure), fundraising quality, and future potential (when the next flight isn't expected until 2026) seems at best premature.


Also this is their 3rd year in a row. They two previous appearances were as #36 in 2022 and #23 in 2021. Maybe they aren't paying much attention to those rankings either?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 05/10/2023 01:58 pm
Anyone else curious how a company that hasn't yet delivered a working product (reach orbit for a launch service provider) managed to make top-10?
Because as your own link explains, that's not one of the priorities for their listing. Take it up with CNBC if you disagree.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 05/18/2023 05:37 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1659237702380802049
Quote
The integrated Cruise Vehicle, Entry Capsule, and Mars Lander developed by Impulse Space will launch in 2026 on the Relativity Terran R launch vehicle. After traveling through interplanetary space for over half a year, the Cruise Vehicle will inject the Entry Capsule into the correct landing trajectory and detach. The Entry Capsule will use the proven combination of heatshield and parachute to slow down enough to safely deploy the Mars Lander into freefall. The lander will then perform a propulsive landing using purpose-built engines developed in-house at Impulse Space, completing the first commercial payload delivery to the surface of another planet.
https://www.impulsespace.com/mars
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/21/2023 06:26 pm
So... I've lost all faith. I mean, Relativity has never managed to inspire a lot of confidence in me, but this whole thing is a couple bridges too far.

Hey, let's get 99% of the way to putting a rocket into orbit... then abandon the rocket, and the pad and other ground infrastructure, and throw all our effort behind our next-gen vehicle. And while we're at it, lets pair-back our next-gen vehicle to be the equivalent of existing vehicles, ensuring that we will, even in the absolute best possible scenario, just be 2nd to an existing market. And in the worst case scenario, we are competing with Starship, AND Falcon 9, AND New Glenn, AND Neutron, AND Firefly's MLV...

...well, good luck with that Relativity, but I don't think that's gonna work.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 05/22/2023 03:51 pm
So... I've lost all faith. I mean, Relativity has never managed to inspire a lot of confidence in me, but this whole thing is a couple bridges too far.

Hey, let's get 99% of the way to putting a rocket into orbit... then abandon the rocket, and the pad and other ground infrastructure, and throw all our effort behind our next-gen vehicle. And while we're at it, lets pair-back our next-gen vehicle to be the equivalent of existing vehicles, ensuring that we will, even in the absolute best possible scenario, just be 2nd to an existing market. And in the worst case scenario, we are competing with Starship, AND Falcon 9, AND New Glenn, AND Neutron, AND Firefly's MLV...

...well, good luck with that Relativity, but I don't think that's gonna work.

And to add to that, they're going to have burned almost $3B by that point to make it all happen (~$1.3B to date, +3 more years burn rate at $400-600MM/year). Remember the Twitter boondoggle where Musk and Beck were shocked that VO spent $1B on their initial program?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 04:27 pm
So... I've lost all faith. I mean, Relativity has never managed to inspire a lot of confidence in me, but this whole thing is a couple bridges too far.

Hey, let's get 99% of the way to putting a rocket into orbit... then abandon the rocket, and the pad and other ground infrastructure, and throw all our effort behind our next-gen vehicle. And while we're at it, lets pair-back our next-gen vehicle to be the equivalent of existing vehicles, ensuring that we will, even in the absolute best possible scenario, just be 2nd to an existing market. And in the worst case scenario, we are competing with Starship, AND Falcon 9, AND New Glenn, AND Neutron, AND Firefly's MLV...

...well, good luck with that Relativity, but I don't think that's gonna work.
Nah, the change in direction is bullish for those paying attention… it shows they aren’t infected by the Sunk cost fallacy.

Smallsat launch is just not profitable even when operational. RocketLab is doing the best they can, but Electron is kind of a loss leader to enable them to sell Photon, develop Neutron, etc.

Terran-1 accomplished its goal as a pathfinder for a larger rocket. Mission accomplished.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 04:28 pm
So... I've lost all faith. I mean, Relativity has never managed to inspire a lot of confidence in me, but this whole thing is a couple bridges too far.

Hey, let's get 99% of the way to putting a rocket into orbit... then abandon the rocket, and the pad and other ground infrastructure, and throw all our effort behind our next-gen vehicle. And while we're at it, lets pair-back our next-gen vehicle to be the equivalent of existing vehicles, ensuring that we will, even in the absolute best possible scenario, just be 2nd to an existing market. And in the worst case scenario, we are competing with Starship, AND Falcon 9, AND New Glenn, AND Neutron, AND Firefly's MLV...

...well, good luck with that Relativity, but I don't think that's gonna work.

And to add to that, they're going to have burned almost $3B by that point to make it all happen (~$1.3B to date, +3 more years burn rate at $400-600MM/year). Remember the Twitter boondoggle where Musk and Beck were shocked that VO spent $1B on their initial program?
Unlike VO, Relativity has already test fired the engine for their heavy lift vehicle. VO’s entire business plan depended on a particularly expensive approach to smallsat launch. Relativity has always (and yes, always… sorry for short-sellers coming on here claiming otherwise) intended to move fairly quickly to the heavy lift Terran-R, not rely solely on being a smallsat launch provider. Terran-1 was a stepping stone to test their technology and engines and maybe make a little revenue on the way.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/22/2023 04:41 pm
As I’ve been saying for a couple of years, the term “New Space” is a bit of a misnomer. If we look at actual results, there is no “New Space”. There is only SpaceX -  and a large number of would-be followers with dubious prospects. So far…

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: lightleviathan on 05/22/2023 04:47 pm
As I’ve been saying for a couple of years, the term “New Space” is a bit of a misnomer. If we look at actual results, there is no “New Space”. There is only SpaceX -  and a large number of would-be followers with dubious prospects. So far…

Rocket Lab?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/22/2023 04:57 pm
As I’ve been saying for a couple of years, the term “New Space” is a bit of a misnomer. If we look at actual results, there is no “New Space”. There is only SpaceX -  and a large number of would-be followers with dubious prospects. So far…

Rocket Lab?

They fall in the “dubious prospects” category.

But back to Relativity, $3B cumulative spend before first orbital launch will be some hole to fill.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/22/2023 05:55 pm
So... I've lost all faith. I mean, Relativity has never managed to inspire a lot of confidence in me, but this whole thing is a couple bridges too far.

Hey, let's get 99% of the way to putting a rocket into orbit... then abandon the rocket, and the pad and other ground infrastructure, and throw all our effort behind our next-gen vehicle. And while we're at it, lets pair-back our next-gen vehicle to be the equivalent of existing vehicles, ensuring that we will, even in the absolute best possible scenario, just be 2nd to an existing market. And in the worst case scenario, we are competing with Starship, AND Falcon 9, AND New Glenn, AND Neutron, AND Firefly's MLV...

...well, good luck with that Relativity, but I don't think that's gonna work.
Nah, the change in direction is bullish for those paying attention… it shows they aren’t infected by the Sunk cost fallacy.

Smallsat launch is just not profitable even when operational. RocketLab is doing the best they can, but Electron is kind of a loss leader to enable them to sell Photon, develop Neutron, etc.

Terran-1 accomplished its goal as a pathfinder for a larger rocket. Mission accomplished.

Not falling for sunk cost fallacy is fine. I just think they could have gotten some more value out of Terran 1 relatively cheaply. It probably wouldn't have cost that much to fly Terran 1 a second time, that flight almost certainly would've made it to orbit, and then they could go to investors and say that they'd launched to orbit successfully.

But the much much much bigger issue for me, is that there is no way I can be convinced that building what is essentially just the Falcon 9 again, a decade after the original, is a business model that will work.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 05:59 pm
So... I've lost all faith. I mean, Relativity has never managed to inspire a lot of confidence in me, but this whole thing is a couple bridges too far.

Hey, let's get 99% of the way to putting a rocket into orbit... then abandon the rocket, and the pad and other ground infrastructure, and throw all our effort behind our next-gen vehicle. And while we're at it, lets pair-back our next-gen vehicle to be the equivalent of existing vehicles, ensuring that we will, even in the absolute best possible scenario, just be 2nd to an existing market. And in the worst case scenario, we are competing with Starship, AND Falcon 9, AND New Glenn, AND Neutron, AND Firefly's MLV...

...well, good luck with that Relativity, but I don't think that's gonna work.
Nah, the change in direction is bullish for those paying attention… it shows they aren’t infected by the Sunk cost fallacy.

Smallsat launch is just not profitable even when operational. RocketLab is doing the best they can, but Electron is kind of a loss leader to enable them to sell Photon, develop Neutron, etc.

Terran-1 accomplished its goal as a pathfinder for a larger rocket. Mission accomplished.

Not falling for sunk cost fallacy is fine. I just think they could have gotten some more value out of Terran 1 relatively cheaply. It probably wouldn't have cost that much to fly Terran 1 a second time, that flight almost certainly would've made it to orbit, and then they could go to investors and say that they'd launched to orbit successfully.

But my real issue here is that there is no way I can be convinced that building what is essentially just a Falcon 9, a decade after the original, is a business model that will work.
Falcon 9 is the most in-demand rocket on the planet, maybe in history. Terran-R has about 50% more payload capacity to LEO, making it solidly heavy lift (maybe even reusably).

I think there’s a market. New Glenn and Vulcan show a real market and ULA has been able to make a living on just a few launches per year. Medium and heavy lift is a totally different ballgame. It’s actually possible to make money at it, and there’s lots of demand.

The crumbs that fall from SPaceX’s table are now larger than the entire industry once was. There’s plenty of room for Terran-R to compete.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 05/22/2023 06:21 pm
I think there’s a market. New Glenn and Vulcan show a real market and ULA has been able to make a living on just a few launches per year. Medium and heavy lift is a totally different ballgame. It’s actually possible to make money at it, and there’s lots of demand.

I’m not so sure New Glenn and Vulcan show a “real market.” Having the richest guy on the planet pay double because pride or spite or whatever is not a real market.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: joek on 05/22/2023 06:21 pm
...
I think there’s a market. New Glenn and Vulcan show a real market and ULA has been able to make a living on just a few launches per year. Medium and heavy lift is a totally different ballgame. It’s actually possible to make money at it, and there’s lots of demand.

Certainly there is a market, but demand compared to what? Whether that is a sustainable-growing market is another discussion. Reminds me of IBM crowing about their YoY growth in mainframe (390 et. al.) MIPS-revenue in the 90's. What they did not show was their ever decreasing slice of the IT revenue pie. That business is now relegated to a niche with few-none opportunities for growth.

Same fate awaits some launch providers if they are not careful. "We have defended our ground to that last square foot." Unfortunately for them, while that "last square foot" was most of the market years ago, it is a now a small (and shrinking part) of the market.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/22/2023 06:23 pm
Most of  RL and SpaceX profits are coming from their space business not launch. In SpaceX case its Starlink and Dragon which rely on F9. F9 is definitely profitable but big money is in Starlink and Dragon.

RL is sarellite components and satellites. Electron should finally be profitable this year.

At moment both companies losses are coming from their large RLV development projects.
ULA maybe the exception in that it is profitable launched company thanks to government launch. There is but though as ULA was formed because both LM and Boeing launch businesses struggled.

Relativity doesn't have any projected revenue business except launch which is tough business to make money in. VO has already gone under and it had operational LV.
Astra is dead man walk.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 06:34 pm
I think there’s a market. New Glenn and Vulcan show a real market and ULA has been able to make a living on just a few launches per year. Medium and heavy lift is a totally different ballgame. It’s actually possible to make money at it, and there’s lots of demand.

I’m not so sure New Glenn and Vulcan show a “real market.” Having the richest guy on the planet pay double because pride or spite or whatever is not a real market.
I just mean number of customers who are willing to book a launch vehicle that is not Falcon 9. It only takes like 5-6 launches of Terran-R’s class per year to break even in cash flow. Smallsat requires like an order of magnitude more, probably.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/22/2023 06:44 pm
Not falling for sunk cost fallacy is fine. I just think they could have gotten some more value out of Terran 1 relatively cheaply. It probably wouldn't have cost that much to fly Terran 1 a second time, that flight almost certainly would've made it to orbit, and then they could go to investors and say that they'd launched to orbit successfully.

But my real issue here is that there is no way I can be convinced that building what is essentially just a Falcon 9, a decade after the original, is a business model that will work.
Falcon 9 is the most in-demand rocket on the planet, maybe in history. Terran-R has about 50% more payload capacity to LEO, making it solidly heavy lift (maybe even reusably).

I think there’s a market. New Glenn and Vulcan show a real market and ULA has been able to make a living on just a few launches per year. Medium and heavy lift is a totally different ballgame. It’s actually possible to make money at it, and there’s lots of demand.

The crumbs that fall from SPaceX’s table are now larger than the entire industry once was. There’s plenty of room for Terran-R to compete.

See, but it's not just SpaceX's crumbs. SpaceX takes the first bite, then the other SpaceX rocket takes a bite, then ULA has a go, then Blue Origin, then Rocket Lab, then Firefly/NG, and then whatever's left after all of that, Relativity can have. Because all of those companies have launched to orbit before and/or have an industry record to point to, and Relativity has neither.

Now, they may still be able to make it work anyway. After all, most of ULA and Blue's launches for the next several years have already been accounted for, so assuming Terran R can fly before their manifest opens up, they're mostly off the table for a while. And Neutron and the Firefly MLV are not as big as Terran R, and so there will be some launches that they can't do. It might work. Might. I wouldn't bet my company on it. And longer term? What happens when ULA and Blue have cleared their manifest? I just don't see it.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: joek on 05/22/2023 07:00 pm
I just mean number of customers who are willing to book a launch vehicle that is not Falcon 9. It only takes like 5-6 launches of Terran-R’s class per year to break even in cash flow. Smallsat requires like an order of magnitude more, probably.

Sez who? You can't make those types of statements without cites, or at least without showing your work... "It only takes like 5-6 launches..."? Your numbers must be very different than what I can find (on record).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 05/22/2023 07:39 pm
I just mean number of customers who are willing to book a launch vehicle that is not Falcon 9. It only takes like 5-6 launches of Terran-R’s class per year to break even in cash flow. Smallsat requires like an order of magnitude more, probably.

Sez who? You can't make those types of statements without cites, or at least without showing your work... "It only takes like 5-6 launches..."? Your numbers must be very different than what I can find (on record).

Especially since Rocket Lab seems poised to demonstrate that the break-even point for small launch is somewhere around 12-16 launches per year, which certainly isn't an order of magnitude more than 5-6. Now, standard caveat about "the break-even point just means you've stopped losing money, it doesn't mean you've made back any of the money you spent getting to the break-even point," but I'd be curious what numbers we have for break-even point on medium or heavy-lift vehicles.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/22/2023 07:44 pm
I just mean number of customers who are willing to book a launch vehicle that is not Falcon 9. It only takes like 5-6 launches of Terran-R’s class per year to break even in cash flow. Smallsat requires like an order of magnitude more, probably.

Sez who? You can't make those types of statements without cites, or at least without showing your work... "It only takes like 5-6 launches..."? Your numbers must be very different than what I can find (on record).

Especially since Rocket Lab seems poised to demonstrate that the break-even point for small launch is somewhere around 12-16 launches per year, which certainly isn't an order of magnitude more than 5-6. Now, standard caveat about "the break-even point just means you've stopped losing money, it doesn't mean you've made back any of the money you spent getting to the break-even point," but I'd be curious what numbers we have for break-even point on medium or heavy-lift vehicles.

OATK used to say they could make OmegA profitable for 5-6 launches per year. Make of that what you will.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 07:45 pm
Not falling for sunk cost fallacy is fine. I just think they could have gotten some more value out of Terran 1 relatively cheaply. It probably wouldn't have cost that much to fly Terran 1 a second time, that flight almost certainly would've made it to orbit, and then they could go to investors and say that they'd launched to orbit successfully.

But my real issue here is that there is no way I can be convinced that building what is essentially just a Falcon 9, a decade after the original, is a business model that will work.
Falcon 9 is the most in-demand rocket on the planet, maybe in history. Terran-R has about 50% more payload capacity to LEO, making it solidly heavy lift (maybe even reusably).

I think there’s a market. New Glenn and Vulcan show a real market and ULA has been able to make a living on just a few launches per year. Medium and heavy lift is a totally different ballgame. It’s actually possible to make money at it, and there’s lots of demand.

The crumbs that fall from SPaceX’s table are now larger than the entire industry once was. There’s plenty of room for Terran-R to compete.

See, but it's not just SpaceX's crumbs. SpaceX takes the first bite, then the other SpaceX rocket takes a bite, then ULA has a go, then Blue Origin, then Rocket Lab, then Firefly/NG, and then whatever's left after all of that, Relativity can have. Because all of those companies have launched to orbit before and/or have an industry record to point to, and Relativity has neither.

Now, they may still be able to make it work anyway. After all, most of ULA and Blue's launches for the next several years have already been accounted for, so assuming Terran R can fly before their manifest opens up, they're mostly off the table for a while. And Neutron and the Firefly MLV are not as big as Terran R, and so there will be some launches that they can't do. It might work. Might. I wouldn't bet my company on it. And longer term? What happens when ULA and Blue have cleared their manifest? I just don't see it.
I don’t think ULA’s approach is long for this world. Relativity is ahead of Neutron in engine development. Blue is too slow, even if they get first flight in 2024 or 2025.

Relativity‘s rocket is the most relevant to a post-starship world.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 07:49 pm
I just mean number of customers who are willing to book a launch vehicle that is not Falcon 9. It only takes like 5-6 launches of Terran-R’s class per year to break even in cash flow. Smallsat requires like an order of magnitude more, probably.

Sez who? You can't make those types of statements without cites, or at least without showing your work... "It only takes like 5-6 launches..."? Your numbers must be very different than what I can find (on record).
ULA, OATK, others. That’s about what they need for cash flow breakeven.

There’s just a minimum cost to have a rocket company (look at VO’s spending, about $250M/year). That’s probably about $250 million per year in smallsat, say about $500 million for heavy lift. That translates to dozens of $10 million smallsat launches per year and half a dozen $100m heavy lift launches per year.

(Note that RocketLab cost shares Electron with Photon, which helps break even slightly earlier, but not much.)

Terran-R should be able to launch dozens of times per year, but even with the few launches they have signed up with OneWeb and some others, they may be able to do okay.

People talk about space industry as if it’s SpaceX just eating up the whole industry. But… The whole market is actually bigger, so even the non-SpaceX portion is bigger than it once was.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/22/2023 08:39 pm
Electron break even is more like 8, would be less if they only had one pad. Thoses extra pads mean lot more overheads.

Cancelling Terran 1 doesn't remove costs of supporting its launch facilities unless they want to dismantle them and cancel lease. There is also factory infrastructure, like Terran 1 tool along with its engines and test stands. That is lot sunk costs to just walk away from and not try to make return on.

For large LVs 6 government launches a year is enough pay bills and some. Probably not enough to cover development costs.

I can't see Terran R taking any high value government missions from SpaceX and ULA.
That leaves lower cost missions which Neutron is better sized for. When comes to constellation its launch cost per satellite not how many RLV can carry. For smaller constellations a medium LV may work out cheaper if customer only wants to place 10 satellites in particular orbit. Larger LV would endup flying half full.

RL sized Neutron so it wasn't going head to head with F9R for every payload and to make it cheaper for 8-13t payloads while still competitive in constellation market.  Terran R will be going head to head with F9R and Vulcan, good luck take large share of their market.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Nomadd on 05/22/2023 09:01 pm
 A lot of people don't seem to see a problem with the assumption that a company who spends six times as much as it's competition developing a rocket can magically match them in operational costs.
 The basic corporate structure and philosophy differences that make one vehicle come to light for $1/2 billion and another much smaller vehicle for $3 billion don't just go away when they go from R&D to regular service.

 And that's compared to the F9. They only spent about $90 million getting the more comparable F1 to orbit. I'm not sure how much of that budget was for the Terran 1, but you're talking about twenty to thirty times as much as the F1.

 Simplistic and not real accurate, I know, but ballpark enough to make it hard to see the competition.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 09:15 pm
Electron break even is more like 8, would be less if they only had one pad. Thoses extra pads mean lot more overheads.

Cancelling Terran 1 doesn't remove costs of supporting its launch facilities unless they want to dismantle them and cancel lease. There is also factory infrastructure, like Terran 1 tool along with its engines and test stands. That is lot sunk costs to just walk away from and not try to make return on.

For large LVs 6 government launches a year is enough pay bills and some. Probably not enough to cover development costs.

I can't see Terran R taking any high value government missions from SpaceX and ULA.
That leaves lower cost missions which Neutron is better sized for. When comes to constellation its launch cost per satellite not how many RLV can carry. For smaller constellations a medium LV may work out cheaper if customer only wants to place 10 satellites in particular orbit. Larger LV would endup flying half full.

RL sized Neutron so it wasn't going head to head with F9R for every payload and to make it cheaper for 8-13t payloads while still competitive in constellation market.  Terran R will be going head to head with F9R and Vulcan, good luck take large share of their market.
you are just repeating the song cost fallacy with more steps. They wouldn’t make any profit by continuing the saturated small set market that was never big enough to begin with
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 05/22/2023 09:54 pm
Electron break even is more like 8, would be less if they only had one pad. Thoses extra pads mean lot more overheads.

Cancelling Terran 1 doesn't remove costs of supporting its launch facilities unless they want to dismantle them and cancel lease. There is also factory infrastructure, like Terran 1 tool along with its engines and test stands. That is lot sunk costs to just walk away from and not try to make return on.

For large LVs 6 government launches a year is enough pay bills and some. Probably not enough to cover development costs.

I can't see Terran R taking any high value government missions from SpaceX and ULA.
That leaves lower cost missions which Neutron is better sized for. When comes to constellation its launch cost per satellite not how many RLV can carry. For smaller constellations a medium LV may work out cheaper if customer only wants to place 10 satellites in particular orbit. Larger LV would endup flying half full.

RL sized Neutron so it wasn't going head to head with F9R for every payload and to make it cheaper for 8-13t payloads while still competitive in constellation market.  Terran R will be going head to head with F9R and Vulcan, good luck take large share of their market.
you are just repeating the song cost fallacy with more steps. They wouldn’t make any profit by continuing the saturated small set market that was never big enough to begin with
There's maybe an argument that what Relativity would learn from a second Terran 1 launch would be worth the costs of flying it. However, the returns of additional knowledge would diminish much faster than the reduction in cost per launch, so there's definitely a fixed upper bound of how many Terran 1s it made sense to launch. And I can't argue with any confidence that this bound wasn't "one."
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 10:13 pm
A lot of people don't seem to see a problem with the assumption that a company who spends five times as much as it's competition developing a rocket can magically match them in operational costs.
 The basic corporate structure and philosophy that makes one vehicle come to light for $.5 billion and another much smaller vehicle for $3 billion doesn't just go away when they go from R&D to regular service.

 And that's compared to the F9. They only spent about $90 million getting the more comparable F1 to orbit. I'm not sure how much of that budget was for the Terran 1, but you're talking about twenty to thirty times as much as the F1.

 Simplistic and not real accurate, I know, but ballpark enough to make it hard to see the competition.
that is the rub. Can relativity make the transition from venture capital sweetheart in a zero interest rate environment to a lean rocket company in time to not run out of money before they get enough revenue to pay for their operating costs?

Nobody knows the answer to that yet but I’m pretty sure that cutting unnecessary and unprofitable programs is probably part of that.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/23/2023 11:03 pm
Moderator:
Remember to delete the Tapatalk tag when you post. Thanks.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/23/2023 11:15 pm
Moderator:
Remember to delete the Tapatalk tag when you post. Thanks.
I've disable the signature in past on Tapatalk but can't remember how.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: joek on 05/24/2023 10:35 pm
ULA, OATK, others. That’s about what they need for cash flow breakeven.
...
No. Granted there is a high degree of variance, but your statements fly in the face of facts. Facts please; "about what they need for cash flow positive" is at best a generic punt. You can do better, and you should do better.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2023 12:03 am
ULA, OATK, others. That’s about what they need for cash flow breakeven.
...
No. Granted there is a high degree of variance, but your statements fly in the face of facts. Facts please; "about what they need for cash flow positive" is at best a generic punt. You can do better, and you should do better.
What "facts" does it "fly in the face of"? Provide better estimates.

We're doing order of magnitude estimates, here. These are reasonable estimates. High variance is just a fact of this kind of estimation, and it's fine. [deleted]
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/25/2023 02:30 am
Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2023 02:57 am
Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.
This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/25/2023 03:14 am
Are all of these five remaining Terran-1 launches canceled?

If so, what is the fate of the payloads?

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
NET June - VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: cubesat (x3) - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

October - "Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

TBD - TriSept launch - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16 / Vandenberg SLC-7

TBD - Iridium-NEXT 182 - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

Rideshare:
TBD - Spaceflight mission - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/25/2023 03:35 am
Moderator:
Civil discussion is fundamental. ⚠️

Perhaps there is not enough sufficiently accurate information externally to draw conclusive conclusions?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 05/25/2023 03:35 am
Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.
This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.
They could be hoping that the markets improve in a year or two and make it possible to secure additional investment funds. Although realistically, an earlier launch date would probably have helped encourage outside investment, so pushing the initial launch out to 2026 does show some amount of confidence that they won't need it.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/25/2023 03:48 am
Are all of these five remaining Terran-1 launches canceled?

If so, what is the fate of the payloads?

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
NET June - VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: cubesat (x3) - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

October - "Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

TBD - TriSept launch - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16 / Vandenberg SLC-7

TBD - Iridium-NEXT 182 - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

Rideshare:
TBD - Spaceflight mission - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16
The payloads will likely transfer over to a SpaceX Transporter ride. Since the only real alternative is the RocketLab Electron that doesn't seem to have much excess launch capacity.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 05/25/2023 04:04 am
Are all of these five remaining Terran-1 launches canceled?

If so, what is the fate of the payloads?

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
NET June - VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: cubesat (x3) - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

October - "Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

TBD - TriSept launch - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16 / Vandenberg SLC-7

TBD - Iridium-NEXT 182 - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

Rideshare:
TBD - Spaceflight mission - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16
The payloads will likely transfer over to a SpaceX Transporter ride. Since the only real alternative is the RocketLab Electron that doesn't seem to have much excess launch capacity.
Peter Beck has talked frequently about how the limiting factor on his launch cadence is customer/payload readiness, so if we take him at his word then Rocket Lab does have excess launch capacity. However, only some of these payloads would fit on Electron. And others, like VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42, were basically "you're a fledgling launch provider so we want to give you an easy contract to get things going" contracts; NASA would probably just provision those cubesats on Transporter or Cargo Dragon (to be deployed from the ISS) if they're not going to be on a new provider.

Edit: Going through them one by one:

VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: A demo mission from NASA, won't be remanifested as a whole because the point was to demonstrate a new provider; they'll just fly these cubesats along with something else

"Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin: Probably too heavy for Electron; notably, since this is likely related to Lockheed Martin's refueling vehicle as part of Blue Moon, I could see this going on a rideshare with New Glenn's ESCAPADE launch (we always knew that launch had lots of excess capacity)

TriSept launch: They're a rideshare aggregator, and so could easily go on Transporter (especially if they were planning on aggregating more payloads than would fit on Electron)

Iridium-NEXT 182: One source I found lists the Iridium NEXT satellites as weighing 860kg, which is well over Electron's limit (and probably Firefly Alpha's, too); I guess ABL will have a customer

Spaceflight mission: Same as TriSept
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/25/2023 04:33 am
"Cryogenic Fluid Management Demonstration" (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/cryogenic-fluid-management-demonstration.htm)

"Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin: Probably too heavy for Electron; notably, since this is likely related to Lockheed Martin's refueling vehicle as part of Blue Moon, I could see this going on a rideshare with New Glenn's ESCAPADE launch (we always knew that launch had lots of excess capacity).


Iridium-NEXT (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/iridium-next.htm)
860 kg

Iridium-NEXT 182: One source I found lists the Iridium NEXT satellites as weighing 860kg, which is well over Electron's limit (and probably Firefly Alpha's, too); I guess ABL will have a customer.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: lightleviathan on 05/25/2023 11:41 am
"Cryogenic Fluid Management Demonstration" (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/cryogenic-fluid-management-demonstration.htm)

"Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin: Probably too heavy for Electron; notably, since this is likely related to Lockheed Martin's refueling vehicle as part of Blue Moon, I could see this going on a rideshare with New Glenn's ESCAPADE launch (we always knew that launch had lots of excess capacity).
IIRC Lockheed already has some contracts with ABL, so that would make a lot of sense


Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/25/2023 12:48 pm
Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.
This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.

They may also take a small amount of cash as a deposit in exchange for a discount* on early flights, so their revenue is not necessarily zero until 2026. A lot depends how they want to structure their finances. They may choose not to take any payments in order to secure a more valuable tax writeoff. et cetera

*eg they probably didn't do this for those 5 manifested flights because they planned not to go through with them
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: the_big_boot on 05/25/2023 01:24 pm
Are all of these five remaining Terran-1 launches canceled?

If so, what is the fate of the payloads?

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
NET June - VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: cubesat (x3) - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

October - "Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

TBD - TriSept launch - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16 / Vandenberg SLC-7

TBD - Iridium-NEXT 182 - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

Rideshare:
TBD - Spaceflight mission - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

well, the tipping point contract was actually moved to abl's rs-1 quite a long while ago

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/abl-space-selected-for-nasa-cryogenic-demonstration-mission-301378851.html
Quote
EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Sept. 16, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- ABL Space Systems announced that is has been selected as the launch provider for the NASA Cryogenic Demonstration Mission. Developed under a NASA Tipping Point contract awarded in 2020, the Cryogenic Demonstration Mission will launch in 2023...

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
TBD - Cryogenic Fluid Management Demonstration - RS1 (ABL space system) - TBD

[edit zubenelgenubi]
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 05/25/2023 01:49 pm
Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.
This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.

They may also take a small amount of cash as a deposit in exchange for a discount* on early flights, so their revenue is not necessarily zero until 2026. A lot depends how they want to structure their finances. They may choose not to take any payments in order to secure a more valuable tax writeoff. et cetera

*eg they probably didn't do this for those 5 manifested flights because they planned not to go through with them

Has the notion that Relativity planned to scrap the first rocket design after one launch become a tenet in a new religion? If true, they signed those contracts in bad faith, communicated the signings to stock holders in bad faith, etc

I think incompetence is the more likely explanation. If so, Relativity can learn from mistakes and move on. If they have been signing contracts as a dog and pony show, they are much worse off.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 05/25/2023 02:47 pm
Or they negotiated with those holding contracts to either exit the contracts or move them to the new vehicle, as happened with a certain other company that accelerated their transition from a small launch vehicle to a larger one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Canceled_launches).

Seems more likely than "bad faith" or "incompetence".
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 05/25/2023 02:51 pm
Or they negotiated with those holding contracts to either exit the contracts or move them to the new vehicle, as happened with a certain other company that accelerated their transition from a small launch vehicle to a larger one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Canceled_launches).

Seems more likely than "bad faith" or "incompetence".

Or they were actually planning on successful launches?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/25/2023 03:45 pm
Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.
This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.
They could be hoping that the markets improve in a year or two and make it possible to secure additional investment funds. Although realistically, an earlier launch date would probably have helped encourage outside investment, so pushing the initial launch out to 2026 does show some amount of confidence that they won't need it.

Oh, and here I was thinking that they set the launch date in 2026 because the idea that you can develop a brand new heavy-lift launch vehicle, with a brand new engine, in like 3 years, is entirely insane, while about 4 years is only very bold. Silly me, it was of course clearly just a financial and confidence-based decision!

I think you guys have gotten a bit too wrapped up in the finances and lost sight of the engineering.

EDIT: Sorry for the snark.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2023 05:10 pm
Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.
This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.

They may also take a small amount of cash as a deposit in exchange for a discount* on early flights, so their revenue is not necessarily zero until 2026. A lot depends how they want to structure their finances. They may choose not to take any payments in order to secure a more valuable tax writeoff. et cetera

*eg they probably didn't do this for those 5 manifested flights because they planned not to go through with them

Has the notion that Relativity planned to scrap the first rocket design after one launch become a tenet in a new religion? If true, they signed those contracts in bad faith, communicated the signings to stock holders in bad faith, etc


No, of course not. They planned to use Terran-1 as a pathfinder for Terran-R. They were going to quickly replace the Aeon-1 engines with a single Aeon-R, which would be clustered for Terran-R.

But Terran-1 was never, since the announcement of Terran-R, supposed to be a big revenue source. They were and are big believers in reuse, and it’s fairly clear Terran-1 didn’t have a path to cost effective reuse. They likely expected that they could transition the payloads to reusable Terran-R flights, just like SpaceX transitioned the Falcon 1 payloads to Falcon 9 (think Orbcomm, etc) if necessary.

Not sure why the tone is so aggressive and negative here.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 05/25/2023 05:52 pm
Oh, and here I was thinking that they set the launch date in 2026 because the idea that you can develop a brand new heavy-lift launch vehicle, with a brand new engine, in like 3 years, is entirely insane, while about 4 years is only very bold. Silly me, it was of course clearly just a financial and confidence-based decision!

I think you guys have gotten a bit too wrapped up in the finances and lost sight of the engineering.

EDIT: Sorry for the snark.
Let's just say that the scheduled inaugural launch of Terran R moving two years later when Relativity announced that they were dropping Terran 1 to focus full-time on Terran R didn't give me great feelings on the extent to which their timelines are based 100% on engineering necessities and nothing else.

At the very least, at some point they thought they could do it by 2024, then after further analysis they concluded that actually, they couldn't do it until 2026. Which raises the question of whether they're any more accurate about their estimates this time.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2023 07:10 pm
Who hits their earliest milestone NET dates? Who in this industry?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 05/25/2023 07:18 pm
Who hits their earliest milestone NET dates? Who in this industry?
I'm not saying that 2024 was a realistic date for them. I'm saying that either they were optimistic about 2024 and could be just as optimistic now when they say 2026, or some factor other than engineering + optimism has been driving their announced dates. In other words, "if your estimates were wrong before (even if "estimates being wrong" is standard in this industry), why should I think they're correct now?"
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2023 07:30 pm
I would say they have a far more realistic approach to tank fabrication (hybrid sheet metal and additive instead of pure additive) and they have shown ability to get an orbit class rocket flight with the first stage fully successful, which validates their overall organization, including manufacturing, QA, engines, GSE, avionics, operations, etc.


That, and focusing all their resources on Terran-R instead of splitting with the money-losing smallsat business give me much more confidence.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2023 07:45 pm
Falcon 9 is essentially the most successful launch vehicle of all time, with possible exception of Soyuz/R7 depending on how you count it.

If Terran-R is “merely” a copy of that, it’d beat Vulcan as far as viability.

Terran-R is starting out 50% greater capability than Falcon 9 is today (and likely will eventually go full reusable), and has 82% greater cross section, so for the same fineness ratio should be able to get about twice the performance eventually. When combined with eventual full reuse, it’s the closest thing to a Starship competitor as there is in development right now (other than perhaps New Glenn/Jarvis, but Blue is slow as molasses and it’s not at all clear they’ll beat Relativity to full reuse).
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2023 07:58 pm
Also, Terran 1’s first stage performed phenomenally for an inaugural flight.

We take it for granted because falcon nine makes it routine but nine engines is a lot of engines. It is pretty remarkable they didn’t lose any engines on the first stage. This is better than Falcon 1 did on early flights, which only had one engine. It shows the team has significant capability and their overall processes are working.

Compare to Starship. Starship had several engines out on the first stage. Which is fine, SpaceX is taking a valid approach to this (and Raptor is an insane engine), but that Relativity did so well with the first flight of Terran-1 should still be pretty bullish.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/25/2023 10:18 pm
If they launch before Jan 1st 2027, I'll go full Peter Beck and eat a hat. You can hold me to that.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/25/2023 10:59 pm
2026 does seem long way out compared 2024 that Neutron is targetting (date yet to slip). Maybe they are being realistic with their times unlike most aerospace projects which always slip to right. SS and Elon time comes to mind.

Going take time build up factory with machinery to make tanks from sheet metal. Then get their processes right.
Still have launch pad to build which is launch complex 16 where terran1 is. Not starting totally from scratch as flame diverts are left over from Titan days. That is assuming they can handle extra thrust as this is considerably bigger LV ie 33t expendable.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 05/26/2023 01:14 am
If they launch before Jan 1st 2027, I'll go full Peter Beck and eat a hat. You can hold me to that.

So Terran-R flying before 2027, should this go into the NSF beerbet tracker thread then?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/26/2023 02:13 am
If they launch before Jan 1st 2027, I'll go full Peter Beck and eat a hat. You can hold me to that.

So Terran-R flying before 2027, should this go into the NSF beerbet tracker thread then?
Yeah, sure. Weird to make a bet where I'm hoping to lose, but I don't think I will.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/26/2023 02:35 am
I feel too much emphasis is placed on first flight, which is merely proving out that the design actually works.

Astra achieved first flight. Virgin Orbit achieved first flight.

As Elon says, design is comparatively easy, production is hard, and production at scale an order of magnitude harder.

People tend to handwave the cadence and capability improvements of F9 over time, to imply that competitors will automatically duplicate these improvements. But it should be noted that F9’s current service offering is the end result of a long series of production refinements, incremental performance improvements and innovations.

It took from first flight in 2008 to ~200th flight in 2023 to get to the current juggernaut launch system. That’s 15 years.

Even if we accept the often made claim that all these newcomers are going to do so much better than F9’s timeline by freeloading on the hard lessons learned by SpaceX along the way, let’s cut the 15 years to 5-10 years, to be generous.

That still means we are looking at 2030-2035 before Terran R reaches the level of maturity that F9 has in 2023. And that’s ignoring the many possible eventualities that might prevent Relativity from even making it to 2030.

In short, making it to first flight does not mean scaling up to profitable, high cadence is a mere formality. The real challenges seem to start AFTER first flight.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 05/26/2023 03:15 am
I feel too much emphasis is placed on first flight, which is merely proving out that the design actually works.

Astra achieved first flight. Virgin Orbit achieved first flight.

As Elon says, design is comparatively easy, production is hard, and production at scale an order of magnitude harder.

People tend to handwave the cadence and capability improvements of F9 over time, to imply that competitors will automatically duplicate these improvements. But it should be noted that F9’s current service offering is the end result of a long series of production refinements, incremental performance improvements and innovations.

It took from first flight in 2008 to ~200th flight in 2023 to get to the current juggernaut launch system. That’s 15 years.

Even if we accept the often made claim that all these newcomers are going to do so much better than F9’s timeline by freeloading on the hard lessons learned by SpaceX along the way, let’s cut the 15 years to 5-10 years, to be generous.

That still means we are looking at 2030-2035 before Terran R reaches the level of maturity that F9’s has in 2023. And that’s ignoring the many possible eventualities that might prevent Relativity from even making it to 2030.

In short, making it to first flight does not mean scaling up to profitable mass cadence is a mere formality. The real challenges seem to start AFTER first flight.
It depends a little what you mean by "production at scale." Articles were already being written about "SpaceX unlocks “steamroller” achievement (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/spacex-is-about-to-double-its-launch-output-for-any-previous-year/)" in 2017, when Falcon 9 launched 18 times (when that article was written, it was expected that SpaceX would reach 19 launches that year). While that rose to 31 by 2021 (not counting the unusual decline in 2019), things didn't get really nuts until 2022, with 61 launches.

And yes, obviously that "nuts" Falcon 9 is what everyone else is competing against. Or really, whatever Falcon 9 or Starship are doing in five years, which are likely to be significantly crazier. But I think hitting even SpaceX-in-2017 levels of success would be a pretty massive win, and that only took seven years from first launch. If we're granting a "freeloading on the hard lessons learned by SpaceX" bonus, competitors should take less time.

Although having said all that, I don't know if I can honestly convince myself that any vehicle other than Starship will launch more than ten times in its first four years of operation. I guess it depends for how long the ramp-up grows seemingly exponentially before hitting a plateau.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/26/2023 03:44 am
I feel too much emphasis is placed on first flight, which is merely proving out that the design actually works.

Astra achieved first flight. Virgin Orbit achieved first flight.

As Elon says, design is comparatively easy, production is hard, and production at scale an order of magnitude harder.

People tend to handwave the cadence and capability improvements of F9 over time, to imply that competitors will automatically duplicate these improvements. But it should be noted that F9’s current service offering is the end result of a long series of production refinements, incremental performance improvements and innovations.

It took from first flight in 2008 to ~200th flight in 2023 to get to the current juggernaut launch system. That’s 15 years.

Even if we accept the often made claim that all these newcomers are going to do so much better than F9’s timeline by freeloading on the hard lessons learned by SpaceX along the way, let’s cut the 15 years to 5-10 years, to be generous.

That still means we are looking at 2030-2035 before Terran R reaches the level of maturity that F9’s has in 2023. And that’s ignoring the many possible eventualities that might prevent Relativity from even making it to 2030.

In short, making it to first flight does not mean scaling up to profitable mass cadence is a mere formality. The real challenges seem to start AFTER first flight.
It depends a little what you mean by "production at scale." Articles were already being written about "SpaceX unlocks “steamroller” achievement (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/spacex-is-about-to-double-its-launch-output-for-any-previous-year/)" in 2017, when Falcon 9 launched 18 times (when that article was written, it was expected that SpaceX would reach 19 launches that year). While that rose to 31 by 2021 (not counting the unusual decline in 2019), things didn't get really nuts until 2022, with 61 launches.

And yes, obviously that "nuts" Falcon 9 is what everyone else is competing against. Or really, whatever Falcon 9 or Starship are doing in five years, which are likely to be significantly crazier. But I think hitting even SpaceX-in-2017 levels of success would be a pretty massive win, and that only took seven years from first launch. If we're granting a "freeloading on the hard lessons learned by SpaceX" bonus, competitors should take less time.

Although having said all that, I don't know if I can honestly convince myself that any vehicle other than Starship will launch more than ten times in its first four years of operation. I guess it depends for how long the ramp-up grows seemingly exponentially before hitting a plateau.

Haha. Well picked up on the disdain I put into the “freeloading” term. Itself edited down from the “stealing” I originally intended to use. I know a bunch of people here like the idea of fast followers.

Anyway, my argument is that the “steamroller” operation is not a nice to have benefit anymore. It has become integral to the competitiveness of the product - enabling economies of scale and the ability to incrementally iterate at an unprecedented pace.

Launching 18 times a year is not going to allow you to compete with a provider with a similar sized vehicle launching 100 times a year. And before that, to even get to 18 launches a year after your first successful launch will take years of non-profitable ramping up.

So we aren’t looking at 2026 for profitability here. We are looking at 2030-35 - IF all goes well.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Blackjax on 05/27/2023 01:37 pm
I feel too much emphasis is placed on first flight, which is merely proving out that the design actually works.

Astra achieved first flight. Virgin Orbit achieved first flight.

As Elon says, design is comparatively easy, production is hard, and production at scale an order of magnitude harder.

People tend to handwave the cadence and capability improvements of F9 over time, to imply that competitors will automatically duplicate these improvements. But it should be noted that F9’s current service offering is the end result of a long series of production refinements, incremental performance improvements and innovations.

It took from first flight in 2008 to ~200th flight in 2023 to get to the current juggernaut launch system. That’s 15 years.

Even if we accept the often made claim that all these newcomers are going to do so much better than F9’s timeline by freeloading on the hard lessons learned by SpaceX along the way, let’s cut the 15 years to 5-10 years, to be generous.

That still means we are looking at 2030-2035 before Terran R reaches the level of maturity that F9 has in 2023. And that’s ignoring the many possible eventualities that might prevent Relativity from even making it to 2030.

In short, making it to first flight does not mean scaling up to profitable, high cadence is a mere formality. The real challenges seem to start AFTER first flight.

I agree with the points you're making...for expendable rockets and potentially rockets with only partial reusability.  I do wonder if reusable vehicles change the equation enough that 'scaling manufacturing' becomes a much more moderate problem since you don't need to produce on a massive scale to fly heavily.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/13/2023 06:28 am
https://youtu.be/3XXRwdCOjbA
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/10/2023 06:05 am
https://youtu.be/cSJySe4zcYU
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 08/10/2023 09:57 am
https://youtu.be/cSJySe4zcYU
From the video description:
Quote
On a scale from mild to spicy, we choose spicyyy. 🌶️ Playfully dubbed the “spicy macaroni” this flame diverter enabled our component test team to execute a turbine nozzle test campaign from build to tear-down within a week. Alternative test options included lengthy and expensive stand modifications. The “spicy macaroni” is just one example of how our test team:   

✔️ Doesn’t overcomplicate our systems 
✔️ Doesn’t over-spend 
✔️ Doesn’t over-engineer 
✔️ Does remain focused on the task at hand: collecting the data we need to build a 3D-printed reusable rocket engine 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/06/2023 05:46 pm
https://youtu.be/FiZ-wzX3NmA
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/07/2023 01:12 pm
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230907155639/en/Relativity-Space-Signs-Lease-on-Historic-NASA-Test-Stand

Quote
Relativity Space Signs Lease on Historic NASA Test Stand
New vertical test stand will enable rapid product iteration

Company continues to expand their presence at Stennis Space Center


September 07, 2023 09:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Relativity Space, the preeminent 3D printed rocket company, has signed an enhanced use lease agreement (EULA) on the vertical test stand at the A-2 complex within NASA’s historic Stennis Space Center in Hancock County, Mississippi. The agreement marks the first time a commercial tenant has modernized an underutilized legacy test stand at NASA Stennis, signifying the strength of the public-private partnership between the two entities. The expansion brings Relativity’s total footprint at NASA Stennis to nearly 300 acres – the largest commercial presence on the site.

“Our state is a leader in innovation and research, and this announcement is a testament to the work that occurs here. I appreciate the partnership of companies like Relativity Space who are helping Mississippi stay at the leading edge.”

Established in the 1960s, NASA Stennis is the nation’s largest and most prestigious propulsion test center. The A-2 Test Stand was constructed in 1966 to test and flight-certify the second stage of the Saturn V, the launch vehicle for the Apollo Program. It was then used for engine testing for the Space Shuttle Program until 2009. Briefly used for the Constellation Program before its cancellation, the A-2 stand has sat unused for nearly a decade. Relativity is spurring its rejuvenation, bringing state-of-the-art testing back to the stand. The company has plans to invest $267 million into Stennis and create hundreds of new jobs in the region by 2027 to support the Terran R program development and launch ramp rate.

“New history is being written at Stennis Space Center as we breathe life into the historic A-2 Test Stand with our Terran R program,” said Tim Ellis, Co-Founder and CEO of Relativity Space. “We appreciate the support from NASA and the state of Mississippi and look forward to continuing to build out our team and testing infrastructure here in the Gulf Coast. The scale of Terran R as a medium-heavy lift reusable launch vehicle is substantial. Exclusive access to these rare, national-asset facilities through partnership with NASA uniquely enables Relativity to develop a world-class launch vehicle. Together with our significant private capital commitments to reinvigorate these facilities, we are building innovative capabilities to solidify America’s leadership in space.”

Building on the legacy of the A-2 stand, Relativity’s new infrastructure will support advanced vertical first stage testing for their medium-to-heavy lift reusable 3D printed rocket, Terran R. With a new stand, the company will be able to uplevel their cadence of testing, increasing the speed of iterative learning cycles and shortening time to market. The existing presence of commodities and convenient canal access further aid in rapid development, solidifying NASA Stennis as an ideal testing location.

“We applaud Relativity Space in announcing this expanded agreement. Since arriving on site in 2016, the company has grown into a valued member of the NASA Stennis community,” said Dr. Rick Gilbrech, Director of NASA’s Stennis Space Center. “This increased footprint is a testament to Relativity’s continued progress in the commercial space arena. It also is a testament to the value of NASA Stennis and our test complex infrastructure in supporting commercial space endeavors. We look forward to an ongoing relationship with Relativity team members as they work to achieve their space goals.”

Originally designed to withstand maximum thrust of 1.5 million pounds, the A-2 Test Stand is currently configured to endure thrust up to only 650,000 pounds. With Relativity's upgrades, the stand will be able to accommodate thrust of over 3.3 million pounds – bringing A-2 back to the forefront of America’s commercial space program.

In addition to developing the A-2 site, Relativity holds ten-year exclusive-use leases with the option for 10-year extensions on the E-2 and E-4 stands, has a commercial use agreement for the E-1 site, and is building out new engine and stage test infrastructure in the R Complex at NASA Stennis – with an ever-growing permanent team leading test operations. The company is actively hiring in the region, looking to increase their Gulf Coast presence.

“Mississippi’s economy is growing stronger every day thanks to Stennis Space Center and companies like Relativity,” said Governor Tate Reeves. “Our state is at the forefront of innovation, and we are helping to lead the way in commercial space technology. Congratulations to Relativity on this historic groundbreaking.”

“This investment in Stennis Space Center shows that the road to space still goes through Hancock County, Mississippi,” said Senator Roger Wicker. “Our state is a leader in innovation and research, and this announcement is a testament to the work that occurs here. I appreciate the partnership of companies like Relativity Space who are helping Mississippi stay at the leading edge.”

“The A-2 test stand at Stennis Space Center has a long and storied history as part of the U.S. space program, and the agreement with Relativity Space will extend that record,” said Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith. “I look forward to seeing how this lease with NASA will build on Mississippi’s reputation as being home to cutting edge rocket and engine development.”

“The partnership between Relativity and Stennis Space Center has brought great jobs to our state while continuing South Mississippi’s legacy of spaceflight innovation,” said Congressman Mike Ezell. “I congratulate both Relativity and Stennis on the expansion of the partnership, and I’m excited to see what the future holds.”

Image caption:

Quote
A rendering of Terran R's first stage on the A-2 Test Stand at NASA's Stennis Space Center (Graphic: Business Wire)
 
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: imprezive on 09/07/2023 02:43 pm
I feel too much emphasis is placed on first flight, which is merely proving out that the design actually works.

Astra achieved first flight. Virgin Orbit achieved first flight.

As Elon says, design is comparatively easy, production is hard, and production at scale an order of magnitude harder.

People tend to handwave the cadence and capability improvements of F9 over time, to imply that competitors will automatically duplicate these improvements. But it should be noted that F9’s current service offering is the end result of a long series of production refinements, incremental performance improvements and innovations.

It took from first flight in 2008 to ~200th flight in 2023 to get to the current juggernaut launch system. That’s 15 years.

Even if we accept the often made claim that all these newcomers are going to do so much better than F9’s timeline by freeloading on the hard lessons learned by SpaceX along the way, let’s cut the 15 years to 5-10 years, to be generous.

That still means we are looking at 2030-2035 before Terran R reaches the level of maturity that F9 has in 2023. And that’s ignoring the many possible eventualities that might prevent Relativity from even making it to 2030.

In short, making it to first flight does not mean scaling up to profitable, high cadence is a mere formality. The real challenges seem to start AFTER first flight.


I also think people assume that scaling is just a production problem but it’s also a demand problem. Even 15 launches of a Terran R is a lot of upmass, who are they launching? Terran R and Neutron don’t have much in the way of customers right now. To hit that cadence they have to bank on rocket success AND a LEO megaconstellation buying a bunch of launches.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 09/07/2023 09:13 pm
I also think people assume that scaling is just a production problem but it’s also a demand problem. Even 15 launches of a Terran R is a lot of upmass, who are they launching? Terran R and Neutron don’t have much in the way of customers right now. To hit that cadence they have to bank on rocket success AND a LEO megaconstellation buying a bunch of launches.
Terran R has OneWeb, at least. Now, whether you think OneWeb will actually be able to afford (and build all the satellites for) all those launches is another question, but at least Relativity has an answer to "who's paying for your high launch cadence?"
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: imprezive on 09/08/2023 05:32 am
We’ll see how real that contract is if they get flying. Virgin Orbit had an anchor deal with OneWeb too and we all know how that worked out.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/08/2023 07:10 pm
twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1700223492124442657

Quote
Welcome to our crib. Nearly 300 acres of Relativity at @NASAStennis. 🧵

📍 A-2 Test Stand advanced vertical first stage testing for #TerranR. 🚀

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1700223661209432308

Quote
📍 R Complex, A new dual-bay vertical engine test stand 🔥

twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1700223884132495643

Quote
📍E2 Development, qualification, and acceptance testing of our #AeonR engine components

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1700224224554791006

Quote
📍E4, dual-bay test stands previously used for Terran 1 stage testing and Aeon 1 engine testing.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/11/2023 03:47 pm
Quote
Brost: Terran 1 launch "made it very clear to us where 3D-printing is much better than traditional manufacturing and where it's not."

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1701260613089890619

Quote
[Tory] Bruno compliments Relativity "on what you guys have done, it's absolutely amazing." Fully agree that the most complex parts that take the longest to fabricate by traditional means "are absolutely outstanding" when fabricated with 3D-printing.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/02/2023 05:16 pm
twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1708885588378836998

Quote
💫 Unlock the capabilities of Dual Plasma with our additive manufacturing team. 🧵

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1708885731102675332

Quote
💡What’s Dual Plasma? This advanced manufacturing method allows two distinct plasma sources to create precise and high-quality surface modifications on materials, enhancing their performance and functionality for various industrial applications.

Quote
💡 With Terran R nearly six times the total printed content by mass compared to Terran 1, our Stargate metal 3D printers are advancing with the early benefits of Dual Plasma 👇

✔️ Enhanced control over penetration profile and melt-off rates
✔️ Higher deposition rate while maintaining stability and print quality
✔️ Extended run times due to minimal spatter and fume generation

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1708886258532110750

Quote
🧠 Starting with a blank sheet design, we've developed in-house hardware, system configurations, and integration methods to incorporate the new tech.

🚀 https://www.relativityspace.com/careers
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2023 03:01 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1712108984138911970

Quote
✍️ We’ve inked a multi-year, multi-launch agreement for #TerranR with @INTELSAT , operator of the largest integrated space and terrestrial network in the world! 🛰️

Get the full scoop:

https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2023/10/9/relativity-space-and-intelsat-sign-multi-launch-agreement-for-terran-r

Quote
RELATIVITY SPACE AND INTELSAT SIGN MULTI-LAUNCH AGREEMENT FOR TERRAN R
Deal marks the latest announcement of Relativity’s Terran R launch contracts, totaling $1.8 billion in backlog across nine customers.

October 11, 2023 – Long Beach, CA and McLean, VA – Relativity Space, the preeminent 3D printed rocket company, announced today that it has signed a multi-year, multi-launch Launch Services Agreement (LSA) with Intelsat, operator of the largest integrated space and terrestrial network in the world. Under the agreement, Relativity will launch Intelsat satellites on Terran R as early as 2026. 

As a medium-to-heavy-lift, reusable launch vehicle made for growing satellite launch demand and eventually multiplanetary transport, Terran R provides both government and commercial customers affordable access to space, in LEO, MEO, GEO and beyond. Relativity has a total of nine signed customers for Terran R, including multiple launches and totaling more than $1.8 billion in backlog.   

“We are honored to be working with Intelsat to launch future spacecraft into their industry leading satellite fleet,” said Tim Ellis, Co-Founder and CEO of Relativity Space. “They have an incredible company and team as a world leader in content connectivity with nearly 60 satellites already in orbit. The space industry clearly requires more commercially competitive, diversified, and disruptive launch capacity. Relativity is developing Terran R as a customer-focused reusable launch vehicle to solve this need. We look forward to planning, executing, and successfully launching these missions together with Intelsat.”   

“After 60 years of commercial satellite launches, Intelsat and our customers have come to expect reliability, efficiency and flexibility from our launch providers,” said Jean-Luc Froeliger, Intelsat Senior Vice President of Space Systems. “Relativity has developed an innovative design and production process for the Terran R, which will deliver benefits to Intelsat for years to come.” 

Terran R was developed to accommodate the growing demand for large constellation launch services. With a payload fairing that offers the right market fit to meet a variety of needs, Terran R supports use cases from dedicated payload deployments of constellation customers or single geosynchronous satellites to rideshare configurations for multiple customers per launch. Putting customers first, Relativity is designing and manufacturing rockets that offer high performance and reliability, while costing less to produce and fly.  

Terran R is designed and manufactured at Relativity’s headquarters in Long Beach, CA, which is home to its fourth generation Stargate metal 3D printers. Stage and engine testing is conducted at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi and Terran R will launch Intelsat missions from Space Launch Complex 16, Relativity’s orbital launch site at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. 

For more information about Terran R, please visit: https://www.relativityspace.com/terran-r.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/19/2023 05:06 am
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1714729493179625520

Quote
From a swamp to a built-up dual-bay vertical engine test stand in <12 months.

✔️Test stand activation
✔ First #AeonR powerpack installed
🔜 Powerpack testing

Starting point: October 2022👇

Quote
Early 2023 propellant farm and stand foundation begin to take shape!

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1714730519848714473

Quote
By summer of 2023

✔️ Water tower
✔️ Propellant farm
✔️ Engine stand infrastructure

Quote
✔️Flame diverter arrival and install

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1714731127204966481

Quote
September 2023. The R Complex first dual-bay vertical engine test stand is ready for its first test article. Hello #AeonR powerpack.

Quote
October 2023. The stand is alive. ⚡Standard feedline flushes ensure the cleanliness and proper functioning of the feedlines that deliver propellants to various components of the test stand.

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1714732106025496656

Quote
Testing out the sprinklers. 🚿 Stand testing FireX (fire extinguishing system) to ensure that we have full coverage of critical hardware in the event of a fire.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/20/2023 06:25 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1715429919566819651

Quote
🧵800+ tests. <24 months. 2 states. Multiple test cells. Break down our 4 testing buckets with us.👇

Quote
Thrust Chamber Assembly testing @NASAStennis  packs a punch at the E1 and E2 test cells, capturing data from:

🔥 TCA
🔥 TCA Sub-scale
🔥 TCA Igniters

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1715430548594946393

Quote
📍E2 test cell, The GG category (Gas Generator) data encompasses

⚡ Gas Generator testing
⚡ Gas Generator Igniter
⚡ Heat Exchangers

Quote
📍Factory Test Yard, Long Beach, CA. Turbomachinery testing includes:

⛽ Fuel Turbopump
⛽ Lox Turbopump

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1715431273236496555

Quote
Valve testing across Long Beach and Stennis facilities totals more than 200+ tests, covering:

🔩 Main valve
🔩 Throttle valve
🔩 GG isolation valve
🔩 Cyro iso valve
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/24/2023 07:42 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1716894976918110352

Quote
One year ago today, our 4th Generation Stargate 3D metal printers were unveiled. Introducing horizontal printing for bigger and faster prints. Each round of innovation and design built on our printer's predecessors. Take a look back at Stargate's printing evolution. 👇

Quote
Gen 1: Discovery. From an idea to reality. Exploring and developing our printing capabilities.
Stargate 1st generation metal 3d printer

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1716895342590083490

Quote
Gen 2: Feasibility. The realm of possibilities. Refining and enhancing our printers.
Stargate 2nd generation metal 3d printer

Quote
Gen 3: Size: #Terran1 production. 🚀
Stargate 3rd generation metal 3d printer

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1716895937917055406

Quote
Gen 4: Size & Speed 👉 further developing our large-scale printing capabilities. Currently printing: #TerranR development domes.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 11/29/2023 07:59 pm
Interview with Tim Ellis (https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/29/relativity-space-ceo-building-a-backlog-isnt-worthless-its-the-path-to-product-market-fit/) on the topic of building backlog (that is, signing launch contracts) for unflown rockets. As one might expect, he strongly disagrees with Peter Beck's perspective (https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/09/launch-contracts-are-worthless-until-a-rocket-is-proven-and-flying-rocket-lab-ceo-says/), saying that "Deciding not to build a backlog is taking a business strategy that has failed pretty epically in history across other products, which is, ‘build it and they will come,’ without actually validating that your pricing and your product capabilities are something that solves the customer problem such that they’re willing to put up material cash up front."

Although I did find this part telling:
Quote
Ellis said that signing these LSAs also gives a greater look into a customer’s technical plans and what their requirements are. Relativity was able to see the need for a second launch provider for all the forthcoming telecom constellations — such as OneWeb’s, a company that announced a launch agreement with Relativity in June 2022 — because it was in conversation with prospective customers, Ellis said.

“There was this need and we saw that early,” he said. “Why we were able to see that early is because we were actually talking with customers, and we were actually working to sign launch deals with them.”

It doesn't seem to me like signing contracts was necessary to understand that there would be demand for a non-SpaceX launch provider among the companies directly competing with Starlink.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/29/2023 08:09 pm

It doesn't seem to me like signing contracts was necessary to understand that there would be demand for a non-SpaceX launch provider among the companies directly competing with Starlink.
I don't understand. If SpaceX provides the lowest price to orbit and meets all my technical and schedule requirements, why would I pick another launch provider? They'll take my money and launch my satellites. My money is very unlikely to affect their bottom line much, because if I don't use them then someone else will.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 11/29/2023 08:36 pm

It doesn't seem to me like signing contracts was necessary to understand that there would be demand for a non-SpaceX launch provider among the companies directly competing with Starlink.
I don't understand. If SpaceX provides the lowest price to orbit and meets all my technical and schedule requirements, why would I pick another launch provider? They'll take my money and launch my satellites. My money is very unlikely to affect their bottom line much, because if I don't use them then someone else will.
The number of people in this forum who argue "the world has room for exactly one launch provider, there is no need whatsoever for more than one organization to manage all of space"...maybe this is less obvious than I thought.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/29/2023 08:49 pm

It doesn't seem to me like signing contracts was necessary to understand that there would be demand for a non-SpaceX launch provider among the companies directly competing with Starlink.
I don't understand. If SpaceX provides the lowest price to orbit and meets all my technical and schedule requirements, why would I pick another launch provider? They'll take my money and launch my satellites. My money is very unlikely to affect their bottom line much, because if I don't use them then someone else will.
The number of people in this forum who argue "the world has room for exactly one launch provider, there is no need whatsoever for more than one organization to manage all of space"...maybe this is less obvious than I thought.

I'm not claiming there is only room for one. I'm observing that there is currently no competition based on objective metrics. Eventually, someone will be able to compete on price or on some other metric and I may choose to use them. Until they can compete, I will let someone else choose to use an alternate provider.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/29/2023 09:00 pm

It doesn't seem to me like signing contracts was necessary to understand that there would be demand for a non-SpaceX launch provider among the companies directly competing with Starlink.
I don't understand. If SpaceX provides the lowest price to orbit and meets all my technical and schedule requirements, why would I pick another launch provider? They'll take my money and launch my satellites. My money is very unlikely to affect their bottom line much, because if I don't use them then someone else will.

This is like asking why, if Toyota makes the cheapest cars, does anyone else buy a vehicle from any other manufacturer. The price of something isn't the only consideration for most people for most products. This is also true of the rocket launch market. Sometimes cost is a minor consideration.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/29/2023 09:35 pm

It doesn't seem to me like signing contracts was necessary to understand that there would be demand for a non-SpaceX launch provider among the companies directly competing with Starlink.
I don't understand. If SpaceX provides the lowest price to orbit and meets all my technical and schedule requirements, why would I pick another launch provider? They'll take my money and launch my satellites. My money is very unlikely to affect their bottom line much, because if I don't use them then someone else will.

This is like asking why, if Toyota makes the cheapest cars, does anyone else buy a vehicle from any other manufacturer. The price of something isn't the only consideration for most people for most products. This is also true of the rocket launch market. Sometimes cost is a minor consideration.
Sure, customers can have multiple metrics. I thought that these would be covered in "technical requirements" in this industry, but maybe there are others I can think of one or two, such as corporate viability and freedom from geopolitical issues. The RD-180 was the very best engine for Atlas V based on cost, schedule, and reliability, but ULA ended up in a bind because of Russian geopolitics. I'm still not seeing any metrics that are analogous to the Toyota decision.

What other metrics or decision criteria do you have in mind?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/29/2023 11:15 pm

It doesn't seem to me like signing contracts was necessary to understand that there would be demand for a non-SpaceX launch provider among the companies directly competing with Starlink.
I don't understand. If SpaceX provides the lowest price to orbit and meets all my technical and schedule requirements, why would I pick another launch provider? They'll take my money and launch my satellites. My money is very unlikely to affect their bottom line much, because if I don't use them then someone else will.

This is like asking why, if Toyota makes the cheapest cars, does anyone else buy a vehicle from any other manufacturer. The price of something isn't the only consideration for most people for most products. This is also true of the rocket launch market. Sometimes cost is a minor consideration.
Sure, customers can have multiple metrics. I thought that these would be covered in "technical requirements" in this industry, but maybe there are others I can think of one or two, such as corporate viability and freedom from geopolitical issues. The RD-180 was the very best engine for Atlas V based on cost, schedule, and reliability, but ULA ended up in a bind because of Russian geopolitics. I'm still not seeing any metrics that are analogous to the Toyota decision.

What other metrics or decision criteria do you have in mind?

Same reasons why people buy anything that's more expensive than a cheaper alternative. A good sales pitch, brand loyalty, better quality / reliability - or the perception of it, availability, customer service, options available for customization. Probably a lot more things like that as well.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: xyv on 11/30/2023 12:48 am
What is this blind spot that people have about business entities being run by logical robots.  Companies are run by people and they don't check their rationality at the door.  As my friend who taught me so much about program management explained "...people buy from people..."   So yea, Relativiity found out about an opportunity because they were there already talking about other business. 

Companies don't just share future plans and needs with other companies unless they have something to contribute to the business case.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/30/2023 03:46 am
Buying from multiple providers gives you better bargaining power. Basically, if Relativity’s price is $20M for your payload, SpaceX doesn’t get to charge $50M.

The second provider determines the price SpaceX can charge.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/30/2023 03:59 am
Buying from multiple providers gives you better bargaining power. Basically, if Relativity’s price is $20/kg, SpaceX doesn’t get to charge $100/kg.
You don't need to buy from multiple providers for this to be true. You just need to get multiple bids. The market as a whole needs multiple credible providers for this to work, but ensuring the existence of multiple credible providers is not the responsibility of any one customer. In a hypothetical market that has one crushingly superior vendor, the remaining vendors exit the market and the one vendor reverts to monopoly pricing. Eventually, a new credible competitor emerges.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/30/2023 04:12 am
Sounds like a huge business risk. Seems like if you’re doing a ton of flights, it would be worth buying a few launches from all the lower cost launch providers if you can.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/30/2023 04:50 am
Sounds like a huge business risk. Seems like if you’re doing a ton of flights, it would be worth buying a few launches from all the lower cost launch providers if you can.
Sure, but how many customers are that big ("a ton of flights")? I know of two other than SpaceX: USSF (NSSL) and Amazon (Kuiper). Those two customers may sustain a credible competitive market for the rest of us. But I don't think even those two can continue to pay much more than twice the price of SpaceX service for very many launches.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/30/2023 08:58 am


Interview with Tim Ellis (https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/29/relativity-space-ceo-building-a-backlog-isnt-worthless-its-the-path-to-product-market-fit/) on the topic of building backlog (that is, signing launch contracts) for unflown rockets. As one might expect, he strongly disagrees with Peter Beck's perspective (https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/09/launch-contracts-are-worthless-until-a-rocket-is-proven-and-flying-rocket-lab-ceo-says/), saying that "Deciding not to build a backlog is taking a business strategy that has failed pretty epically in history across other products, which is, ‘build it and they will come,’ without actually validating that your pricing and your product capabilities are something that solves the customer problem such that they’re willing to put up material cash up front."

Although I did find this part telling:
Quote
Ellis said that signing these LSAs also gives a greater look into a customer’s technical plans and what their requirements are. Relativity was able to see the need for a second launch provider for all the forthcoming telecom constellations — such as OneWeb’s, a company that announced a launch agreement with Relativity in June 2022 — because it was in conversation with prospective customers, Ellis said.

“There was this need and we saw that early,” he said. “Why we were able to see that early is because we were actually talking with customers, and we were actually working to sign launch deals with them.”

It doesn't seem to me like signing contracts was necessary to understand that there would be demand for a non-SpaceX launch provider among the companies directly competing with Starlink.

Interesting interviews with two different prespectives. In end it comes down to execution, both companies need to launch reliably and on schedule. Neither RLV is likely to hit flight rates constellation companies require for 2-3 years after maiden launch, which maybe reasoning behind Becks remarks. Once RLV has demonstrated a few reliable launches and recoveries then both launch company and customer has confidence that launch expectations will be meet.

RL can currently sell Electron and be reasonably confident on meet launch schedules, unexpected failures aside. SpaceX even more so with F9R. With Terran R Relativity is selling powerpoint RLV with some HW in development, it would be a brave customer to hitch their wagon to that horse without an alternative.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 11/30/2023 01:01 pm

It doesn't seem to me like signing contracts was necessary to understand that there would be demand for a non-SpaceX launch provider among the companies directly competing with Starlink.
I don't understand. If SpaceX provides the lowest price to orbit and meets all my technical and schedule requirements, why would I pick another launch provider? They'll take my money and launch my satellites. My money is very unlikely to affect their bottom line much, because if I don't use them then someone else will.
The same reason every business buys from multiple providers: redundancy. Supplier goes out of business, supplier has capacity constraint issues, supplier is bought out by another entity and slams pricing up, supplier is situated in a nation that is now subject to new export controls, supplier gets in a spat with a customer, supplier suspends product/service for any reason, supplier has longer lead times than another supplier, etc. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, even if one basket may be a bit cheaper than the others.
Plus all the aforementioned issues of bargaining power, different services available, etc.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/30/2023 02:42 pm
Sounds like a huge business risk. Seems like if you’re doing a ton of flights, it would be worth buying a few launches from all the lower cost launch providers if you can.
Sure, but how many customers are that big ("a ton of flights")? I know of two other than SpaceX: USSF (NSSL) and Amazon (Kuiper). Those two customers may sustain a credible competitive market for the rest of us. But I don't think even those two can continue to pay much more than twice the price of SpaceX service for very many launches.

There are a dozen or so other planned megaconstellations. The ones from China are likely to only use Chinese launch providers, but the rest are up for grabs.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/30/2023 03:01 pm
Sounds like a huge business risk. Seems like if you’re doing a ton of flights, it would be worth buying a few launches from all the lower cost launch providers if you can.
Sure, but how many customers are that big ("a ton of flights")? I know of two other than SpaceX: USSF (NSSL) and Amazon (Kuiper). Those two customers may sustain a credible competitive market for the rest of us. But I don't think even those two can continue to pay much more than twice the price of SpaceX service for very many launches.

There are a dozen or so other planned megaconstellations. The ones from China are likely to only use Chinese launch providers, but the rest are up for grabs.
The only currently-viable megaconstellation is Starlink. It uses a single launch provider.  OneWeb has used multiple providers, but it has also gone bankrupt and gone through other financial contortions, so I feel its viability is questionable. It's not clear to me how many megaconstellations will actually launch. The largest of the "planned" constellations appears to be another Greg Wyler special.

Starlink is of course a unique case, SpaceX being both the launch provider and the constellation operator, with the synergy apparently being crucial to each of these two components. Maybe this is the only viable model? We don't know as much about the Chinese plans, but I suspect the structure will be functionally equivalent.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/30/2023 04:24 pm


Sounds like a huge business risk. Seems like if you’re doing a ton of flights, it would be worth buying a few launches from all the lower cost launch providers if you can.
Sure, but how many customers are that big ("a ton of flights")? I know of two other than SpaceX: USSF (NSSL) and Amazon (Kuiper). Those two customers may sustain a credible competitive market for the rest of us. But I don't think even those two can continue to pay much more than twice the price of SpaceX service for very many launches.

There are a dozen or so other planned megaconstellations. The ones from China are likely to only use Chinese launch providers, but the rest are up for grabs.
The only currently-viable megaconstellation is Starlink. It uses a single launch provider.  OneWeb has used multiple providers, but it has also gone bankrupt and gone through other financial contortions, so I feel its viability is questionable. It's not clear to me how many megaconstellations will actually launch. The largest of the "planned" constellations appears to be another Greg Wyler special.



These constellations really need more RLV launch options. Without at least two RLVs customers aren't going to get competitive pricing. F9R is still sold at its ELV price because it doesn't have any direct competition.






Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/30/2023 06:14 pm


Sounds like a huge business risk. Seems like if you’re doing a ton of flights, it would be worth buying a few launches from all the lower cost launch providers if you can.
Sure, but how many customers are that big ("a ton of flights")? I know of two other than SpaceX: USSF (NSSL) and Amazon (Kuiper). Those two customers may sustain a credible competitive market for the rest of us. But I don't think even those two can continue to pay much more than twice the price of SpaceX service for very many launches.

There are a dozen or so other planned megaconstellations. The ones from China are likely to only use Chinese launch providers, but the rest are up for grabs.
The only currently-viable megaconstellation is Starlink. It uses a single launch provider.  OneWeb has used multiple providers, but it has also gone bankrupt and gone through other financial contortions, so I feel its viability is questionable. It's not clear to me how many megaconstellations will actually launch. The largest of the "planned" constellations appears to be another Greg Wyler special.



These constellations really need more RLV launch options. Without at least two RLVs customers aren't going to get competitive pricing. F9R is still sold at its ELV price because it doesn't have any direct competition.
OK, upcoming LVs that might compete on $/kg with F9 appear to be Starship, New Glenn, and Terran-R (this thread!) with projected first launches in 2024, 2024, and 2026. Anyone else?  How close to the current F9R price will they need to be? How low can SpaceX drop the F9R price and still be profitable?  The F9R business model seems to depend on using Starlink to fill the manifest with high-volume deferrable launches. Will the competitors need an equivalent customer? These are not intended to be snarky or rhetorical. I'm genuinely interested in your responses, especially as they relate to Terran-R.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/30/2023 06:57 pm
Neutron or Firefly MLV could as well compete with F9R $/kg; it all comes down to flightrate for the most part.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 11/30/2023 09:30 pm
I vaguely remember from some other thread the estimated marginal cost of F9R is $15 million? That's probably the price floor for semi-reusable rockets, even if SpaceX itself won't go there.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: xyv on 12/01/2023 01:21 am
Assuming $15M is the marginal cost (and I have no reason to agree or disagree with that) that is the equivalent of "COGS" - cost of goods sold.  That is the incremental cost to make another widget and the price has to cover everything else.  A decent margin product can be priced at 50 points - 2X COGS.  When your back is against the wall you can accept lower margins but saying that $15M is the price floor is nowhere near the case.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/01/2023 05:01 pm
Assuming $15M is the marginal cost (and I have no reason to agree or disagree with that) that is the equivalent of "COGS" - cost of goods sold.  That is the incremental cost to make another widget and the price has to cover everything else.  A decent margin product can be priced at 50 points - 2X COGS.  When your back is against the wall you can accept lower margins but saying that $15M is the price floor is nowhere near the case.
The prior post explicitly said "marginal cost", not "price". As you quite properly infer, we should all be careful to use the same metric when making comparisons. If SpaceX can hit $15 M marginal cost, then other companies will need to hit a number close to this to get the same margins if competing on price. The challenge for the competition is that SpaceX is now a big company with a major revenue stream, they have economies of scale, and F9 is a mature product. This means they can afford to reduce their margins.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/01/2023 05:03 pm
“Haha, gotcha! Oh, wait, you already said cost, not price.” —people who usually don’t acknowledge that they just didn’t read very closely.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Paul451 on 12/01/2023 08:49 pm
“Haha, gotcha! Oh, wait, you already said cost, not price.” —people who usually don’t acknowledge that they just didn’t read very closely.

Pot/kettle. If you had read what xyv actually wrote, they were saying that marginal cost is not "the price floor for semi-reusable rockets", as Asteroza claimed.

Marginal cost is the simple additional cost of production of a unit, without factoring in other costs. Hence the gap between that $15m figure and the launch price therefore isn't SpaceX's actual profit-margin. The figure of merit is "average total cost", aka "unit cost".
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2023 02:33 pm
It is the price floor. If they sell more even at just above that marginal price, they make more money. Otherwise it’s not the actual marginal price.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Paul451 on 12/02/2023 03:15 pm
It is the price floor. If they sell more even at just above that marginal price, they make more money. Otherwise it’s not the actual marginal price.

Again, that's not what "marginal cost" refers to. That's "unit cost". They are different things.

Which was the point xyv was trying to make, which you didn't read properly. Hence my amusement at your snarky comment.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2023 03:34 pm
Yes, it is what marginal cost means. It means how much an additional launch costs. Unit costs includes fixed costs and is a function of number of launches even without any learning effects. You can still make more money (or lose less money) by selling ADDITIONAL launches above the marginal cost.


It’s kind of silly to use unit costs alone because for a launch company with one launch per year, the unit cost is equal to all the fixed costs plus marginal costs for one rocket. If your fixed costs are $250 million and marginal is $15 million, your unit costs are $265 million. No one will buy at that *price*, and by offering services there, your company will die. If you’re launching 144 times per year, your unit cost is just $16.7 million, however.

So every starting commercial launch company has to look at marginal costs plus addressable market size. Offering at unit costs WHEN YOURE STARTING is a quick way to never get any business.

Therefore marginal cost is a much more appropriate figure for price floor. If you argue “marginal cost + (fixed costs divided by total possible addressable market size in launches) = unit cost”, then sure, unit costs would work there, too, but that’s a very uncommon definition of unit costs and would anyway be very close to marginal cost. In the case with growing launch companies and a growing launch market, marginal cost is a better proxy for the price floor than what is typically meant by unit cost.

(And marginal cost includes things like additional manufacturing capacity if that’s required for another launch.)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Paul451 on 12/02/2023 04:31 pm
Chris! Please listen to my words.

I have no interest arguing business economics with you.

You made a snarky, insulting comment at xyv's expense, based on YOU misreading & misunderstanding THEIR comment.

You owe THEM an apology. Or at least an acknowledgement.

That is all I am saying.

(The irony of you accusing THEM of doing what YOU did, and continue to do, is just personally amusing.)
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/03/2023 02:48 am
Thread is Relativity General Discussion. Nothing in title about F9R costs. If you want to discuss Terran R costs vs F9R, use or create a different thread.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/10/2024 05:12 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1745136045732344233

Quote
📚We wrote a book! Add it to this month’s book club: “Good Luck, Have Fun: The Journey to Launch the First 3D Printed Rocket.” A story paying homage to the first chapter of our story: Launching Terran 1.

✔️Highs.
✔️Lows.
✔️Everything in between from 2016 to our 2023 space journey.

Join us on memory lane as we reflect on our first 7 years — from an idea first scribbled on a receipt to a team that's pushing the bounds of what is possible in aerospace.

💫https://store.relativityspace.com/products/good-luck-have-fun-the-book

Sneak peek #1. 👀 Aeon 1 x 9

Sneak peek #2. 👀 Blue. Flame. Rocket. Club.

Thank you, #Terran1, for giving us the muscle, grit, and perseverance to enter the next chapter in our story: Launching #TerranR. 🫡

From store.relativityspace.com

P.S. 👀
*Only 500 copies available for purchase
*Available in the U.S. only
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 01/10/2024 09:43 pm
ITAR restricted book?
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: lightleviathan on 01/10/2024 11:17 pm
Looks like an awesome book!
I hope I'll be able to snag a copy before they're all sold out haha
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: deltaV on 01/10/2024 11:47 pm
ITAR restricted book?

I'm pretty sure ITAR bans communicating information to foreigners (without green cards?) even if they're present in the US. There appears to be a similar rule for EAR ("deemed exports"). So restricting shipping to US addresses seems insufficient to comply with ITAR or EAR if there's any restricted info. IIUC ITAR and EAR have exceptions for published information sometimes - they might be relying on that? The restriction to US might simply be because selling the book in lots of countries would require spending a lot of money on lawyers to verify compliance with the equivalent of ITAR and other applicable laws for every country. No point spending thousands of dollars on lawyers for a few sales at $50 each.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: trimeta on 01/11/2024 06:21 am
I just ordered the book, and it came with free shipping. Maybe they didn't want to figure out shipping outside the US, and so restricted sales to US addresses.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: ParabolicSnark on 01/11/2024 03:37 pm
I just ordered the book, and it came with free shipping. Maybe they didn't want to figure out shipping outside the US, and so restricted sales to US addresses.

I think it's just the headaches of global distribution and maybe even publisher limitations. There's no way any of that content is ITAR-sensitive.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: playadelmars on 01/11/2024 10:17 pm
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/relativity-space-closes-in-on-new-funding-for-its-3d-printed-rockets
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/11/2024 11:13 pm
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/relativity-space-closes-in-on-new-funding-for-its-3d-printed-rockets
Behind paywall.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 01/31/2024 07:50 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1752784233578504333
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/01/2024 07:33 am
I just ordered the book, and it came with free shipping. Maybe they didn't want to figure out shipping outside the US, and so restricted sales to US addresses.

I think it's just the headaches of global distribution and maybe even publisher limitations. There's no way any of that content is ITAR-sensitive.

Yeah, they probably don't want to do the paperwork or pay for global distribution this time for a print on demand book with a limited print run.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 02/01/2024 08:25 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1753162249953534187
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 02/12/2024 11:00 am
Post contains a GIF

https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1757011087311114259

Quote
@relativityspace
 has been kicking renovations at Launch Complex 16 into overdrive in the past two weeks.

Satellite images show large amounts of land clearing around the site in preparation to support upgrades for its Terran R rocket.

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 02/13/2024 07:49 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1757502714144309316

Quote
It was an honor hosting @SpaceForceCSO at our Long Beach headquarters to see firsthand our iterative approach and rapid progress on #TerranR development. 🚀

Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 02/13/2024 10:34 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1757548324423684230

Quote
It was an honor hosting @SpaceForceCSO at our Long Beach headquarters to see firsthand our iterative approach and rapid progress on #TerranR development. 🚀
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 02/20/2024 07:43 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1760041456331616403

Quote
📍 Terran R, Stage 1 Test Facilities.
@NASAStennis
. New history in the making.

✅ Stand demolition complete.
➡️ Up next: Blasting & coating, stay tuned.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 02/23/2024 07:21 pm
The following post contains a video:

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1761120070640792045

Quote
📍 Welcome to the Wormhole, home of #TerranR, designed and built in #SpaceBeach, Ca. Formerly housing the historic Boeing C-17 factory, now it's where you'll see Terran R exit the building.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/24/2024 01:38 am
Big LV to be shipping from long Beach. Being interesting to see logistics involved.
Shouldn't need to ship too many boosters but will require US for each launch until reuseable one is operational.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/24/2024 02:13 am
Big LV to be shipping from long Beach. Being interesting to see logistics involved.
Shouldn't need to ship too many boosters but will require US for each launch until reuseable one is operational.
The company said that it would ship rockets from Long Beach to Mississippi (for testing) via. the Panama Canal.  Hope the canal is open when needed!

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 02/29/2024 06:24 pm
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1763253202013884427

Quote
Our February newsletter has launched into your inbox. 🚀

Get caught up:

Article:  https://mailchi.mp/relativityspace/newsletter-february2024
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: edzieba on 02/29/2024 08:31 pm
The GLHF book now appears to ship internationally.
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 03/01/2024 05:39 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXIOxR5ImjQ

Quote
Feb 27, 2024  #engineering #engine #space
💡 We're taking a deep dive into Aeon R's turbopumps, the heart of Aeon R. With additive manufacturing, we're refining our turbopump design, reducing parts and enhancing efficiency. Hear directly from the team on our approach to design, testing, and iteration.

0:00 – 0:27 Turbopumps explained
0:28: -1:14 Dual Shaft system explained
1:15 – 1:29 What makes our turbopump unique
1:30 – 2:16 Long Beach Component Test Yard
2:17 – 2:42 Testing turbopumps
2:43 –3:01 Benefits of testing in our backyard
3:02 – 3:50 Collaborative teams
Title: Re: Relativity Space: General Thread
Post by: catdlr on 03/27/2024 07:30 pm
https://twitter.com/LastCallCNBC/status/1772414072295743847

Quote
Meet the former Blue Origin intern building a multibillion-dollar aerospace start-up that could rival
@elonmusk's @SpaceX. @CNBCMakeIt #makeitmondays