They maybe able do demo LV for lot less than $100-150m. The factory etc to build 10-20 a year will need rest of $100-150m. To be successful need to build production line at same time as demo LV. Customers won't wait a year or two after demo mission while production facilities are built.
Quote from: ringsider on 12/15/2019 06:56 pmQuote from: Blackjax on 12/13/2019 08:42 pmThe fact that they seem to have secured enough funding to get them through most or all of their developmentNo. $17m is not enough for "most or all of their development" of a 1,000kg launcher, not even close.More like $100m-$150m. This is seed stage money.Quote...Isar Aerospace’s $17 million Series A will fund the 30-person company through to a full-duration engine hot-fire, Metzler said...I'm curious to know how their government and organizations like ESA will view them. I think that could have a substantial impact on the likeliihood of resources being available.
Quote from: Blackjax on 12/13/2019 08:42 pmThe fact that they seem to have secured enough funding to get them through most or all of their developmentNo. $17m is not enough for "most or all of their development" of a 1,000kg launcher, not even close.More like $100m-$150m. This is seed stage money.
The fact that they seem to have secured enough funding to get them through most or all of their development
...Isar Aerospace’s $17 million Series A will fund the 30-person company through to a full-duration engine hot-fire, Metzler said...
Quote from: Blackjax on 12/15/2019 11:02 pmQuote from: ringsider on 12/15/2019 06:56 pmQuote from: Blackjax on 12/13/2019 08:42 pmThe fact that they seem to have secured enough funding to get them through most or all of their developmentNo. $17m is not enough for "most or all of their development" of a 1,000kg launcher, not even close.More like $100m-$150m. This is seed stage money.Quote...Isar Aerospace’s $17 million Series A will fund the 30-person company through to a full-duration engine hot-fire, Metzler said...I'm curious to know how their government and organizations like ESA will view them. I think that could have a substantial impact on the likeliihood of resources being available.The European Vega rocket cost 710 million Euros, plus another 400 million for development flights - so more than 1.1 billion Euros, for a launcher capable of 1400kg. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_(rocket)#CostsA direct compariable is Relativity, with a 1250kg launcher. They have raised $185m so far, and are probably 1-2 years ahead of this company. I am sure they will raise another $200m-$250m before long, so circa $400m in total. Even Rocket Lab needed about $60m for the first small 150kg launcher, and then another $70m to scale the factory, and then another $140m for more scale. $270m.This one may be able to do it cheaper, but 98% cheaper than Vega, or 90% cheaper than Relativity? No. A full duration engine burn for $17m? I direct you to Peter Beck's excellent quote "if they are showing engine tests you know they are miles away".So for sure they will need a lot more money. Some of it may come from ESA or German govt, but that is exactly the real game here - this is Airbus spoiling the German landscape for OHB's ambitions, diluting their potential resources. I honestly don't think Airbus cares if this company is successful or not as long as it slows down OHB...
So for sure they will need a lot more money. Some of it may come from ESA or German govt, but that is exactly the real game here - this is Airbus spoiling the German landscape for OHB's ambitions, diluting their potential resources. I honestly don't think Airbus cares if this company is successful or not as long as it slows down OHB...
OHB is committed to self funding the rocket. “You lose control” of creating the rocket when government funds get involved, he said.
The 1000kg class LV busoness is going to be hotty contested, expect list prices to drop. My guess is around $10m. RL will need to bring Electron back under $5m to compete, currently $7.5m which includes free gold medal. Reusing booster should help. I suspect RL are milking market while they can , with no direct competition and excellent record to boot.
It's the 2nd decade of the 21st century and the level of "innovation" I keep seeing in this stuff is massively underwhelming. One imagines fine minds with expensive engineering educations yet all they come up with is so much more of the same. It's like the last time the Germans actually did something truly innovative was OTRAG in the 70's.
And then we are surprised developing rocket technology in Europe is difficult. ...
More machines!Our team is ramping up in-house production at an incredible pace, giving our engineers freedom to iterate and optimize quickly while ramping up towards serial production capabilities.#newspace #rocketproduction
We like to push the limits on our systems, especially our rocket engine. Check out the turbine tests of our turbopack we did earlier this year to ensure high perfomance and safety while validating our software design tools, moving closer to integrated tests and first launch.#rocketengine #testing #highperformance
That's a lot of employees for their stage in development and establishes a high burn rate. 100 people is probably in the neighborhood of $25-30M/year. Assuming a linear ramp during that year, you can cut that in half for Dec-2019 through Dec-2020 which matches well with their goal for another funding round this year.I think they're going to be in and out of funding rounds and hope they can produce enough results to keep those investors interested.A 2021 launch is also a lot to ask for a company that's only done a gas generator and a turbine test. They need to complete their turbopump, hotfire a chamber, integrate those two, and then run the complete engine with the stage. On top of that, there's permitting issues they need to resolve. Perhaps someone more familiar with European launch regulations can chime in on how they compare to NASA/AF/FAA/range qualification.
