-
#1040
by
su27k
on 17 Jun, 2017 05:12
-
New article from Peter B. de Selding
Arianespace valuation, $500 million. Rocket Lab, $1 billion: New Space thinking
This comparison is not apple to apple, Arianespace is just a front for ESA and contractors like Airbus, it doesn't design or manufacture the hardware. Rocket Lab is hardware designer + manufacturer + launch operator rolled into one, covers much more ground than Arianespace.
Forget to mention, Rocket Lab has their own private launch site. I assume Arianespace doesn't own Guiana Space Centre.
-
#1041
by
saliva_sweet
on 17 Jun, 2017 06:52
-
Yes, a $1 billion valuation is clearly laughable at this point.
Yes, these newspace investors are just being crazy again amirite.
Or, just maybe, CNES, being a government entity just got TOTALLY shafted by Airbus. I don't know.
-
#1042
by
Lars-J
on 17 Jun, 2017 08:44
-
I don't know of any of the technology of RL that is wishful, it all works. Gremlins are not show stoppers.
The technology is not wishful, it is the idea that they will have a massive success in capturing the world smallsat market (partially to being KIWI!) that is wishful thinking.
Yes, a $1 billion valuation is clearly laughable at this point.
Yes, these newspace investors are just being crazy again amirite.
Yep, because all investments always make sense and pay off, am I right?
No, investors know there is risk. The problem is when other people (i.e. us) see investments and assume a foolproof plan.
-
#1043
by
saliva_sweet
on 17 Jun, 2017 09:24
-
Yes, a $1 billion valuation is clearly laughable at this point.
Yes, these newspace investors are just being crazy again amirite.
Yep, because all investments always make sense and pay off, am I right? No, investors know there is risk. The problem is when other people (i.e. us) see investments and assume a foolproof plan.
I thought that was my point. Rocketlab valuation is not laughable, or "new space thinking" as the article calls it. It is in line with market valuations of other companies with similar ambitions and prospects.
Arianespace valuation on the other hand is "not a standard valuation event" to quote the article. That's an understatement in my opinion. It paints a grim picture of the state and outlook of Arianespace.
-
#1044
by
Zingpc
on 17 Jun, 2017 20:58
-
The technology is not wishful, it is the idea that they will have a massive success in capturing the world smallsat market (partially to being KIWI!) that is wishful thinking.
Rocket Lab are about to have the whole market to themselves for a year or more, other than the rare rideshares and the non existent bulk rides. We will see when launcher one goes up. somebody tell me how the pressure fed propellent rocket works when you don't use a nitrogen tank farm (as in do you get sufficient isp for orbit).
-
#1045
by
Robotbeat
on 17 Jun, 2017 21:56
-
Neither are rare or nonexistent.
Iridium is a whole bunch of smallsats. Launches on Falcon 9.
Planet has a huge constellation of cubesats. Launch from ISS and rideshare.
-
#1046
by
Zingpc
on 18 Jun, 2017 00:45
-
Iridium cluster excluded. These constellations are not what I and others mean by the small satellite market.
Specifically it is the tiny satellites and the one or two 100kg approximately that the operator cannot bulk together for a larger rocket than the 100kg to 400kg range of the launchers coming up.
-
#1047
by
Robotbeat
on 18 Jun, 2017 02:11
-
Iridium cluster excluded. These constellations are not what I and others mean by the small satellite market.
Specifically it is the tiny satellites and the one or two 100kg approximately that the operator cannot bulk together for a larger rocket than the 100kg to 400kg range of the launchers coming up.
Constellations excluded??
Just how many non-constellation smallsat launches could there possibly be in a year? I can't believe it's anywhere near 50, especially not at $5 million.
The vast, VAST majority of the smallsat market is constellation satellites.
-
#1048
by
Zingpc
on 19 Jun, 2017 08:30
-
Iridium cluster excluded. These constellations are not what I and others mean by the small satellite market.
Specifically it is the tiny satellites and the one or two 100kg approximately that the operator cannot bulk together for a larger rocket than the 100kg to 400kg range of the launchers coming up.
Constellations excluded??
Just how many non-constellation smallsat launches could there possibly be in a year? I can't believe it's anywhere near 50, especially not at $5 million.
The vast, VAST majority of the smallsat market is constellation satellites.
Fine, if that is your definition of the market that is being hyped at this time. But constellations are not what I hear as what the market is. These constellations of course can be launched by large rockets so they are not part of the problem of things that cannot get to orbit.
Becks main PR sentence that will annoy you is 'space is now open for business'. Think about what he means by this, if you believe him. He is a smart cookie.
-
#1049
by
high road
on 19 Jun, 2017 09:24
-
Iridium cluster excluded. These constellations are not what I and others mean by the small satellite market.
Specifically it is the tiny satellites and the one or two 100kg approximately that the operator cannot bulk together for a larger rocket than the 100kg to 400kg range of the launchers coming up.
Constellations excluded??
Just how many non-constellation smallsat launches could there possibly be in a year? I can't believe it's anywhere near 50, especially not at $5 million.
The vast, VAST majority of the smallsat market is constellation satellites.
Fine, if that is your definition of the market that is being hyped at this time. But constellations are not what I hear as what the market is. These constellations of course can be launched by large rockets so they are not part of the problem of things that cannot get to orbit.
Becks main PR sentence that will annoy you is 'space is now open for business'. Think about what he means by this, if you believe him. He is a smart cookie.
Could you be specific about 'what you hear what the market is', or 'what you and others mean' and how that would amount to 50 launches a year? The only thing that I might be annoyed by is the sheer emptyness of such phrases so everybody can just project whatever meaning they want on them. At least you're not hiding the fact that you're asking other to do the thinking/reasoning.
Beck's PR just says "we've built, now come already". Hopefully enough people can and want to. Until I see stronger (or any at all, actually) argumentation to support that, I count that as wishfull thinking on my part.
-
#1050
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 29 Jun, 2017 12:42
-
-
#1051
by
GWH
on 29 Jun, 2017 19:05
-
-
#1052
by
high road
on 29 Jun, 2017 21:08
-
-
#1053
by
CameronD
on 30 Jun, 2017 00:25
-
Interesting article. Great to hear they're going to try again this quickly. But I found this statement somewhat confusing:
Beck’s goal of launching at least once a week is also more ambitious than SpaceX’s once a month.
Seems a bit dated, no? And somewhat misleading at best.
Just shows you can't believe everything you read in the press. All we know is (a) they're preparing for another round of
tests, to be carried out when they're ready and not necessarily before and (b) there's nothing preventing them from launching "at least once a week" if they have a goodly supply of rockets ready to go.
-
#1054
by
QuantumG
on 30 Jun, 2017 00:47
-
It's actually a new article with real quotes from a journalist I respect... and that's saying a lot.
I'm really glad to see Beck's goal of regular launches hasn't died, yet. One of the fundamental tenants of the Cheap Access To Space belief that Beck appears to subscribe to is that you build a market by launching on a regular schedule, whether there's payloads available or not. This gives confidence to your sales force that the capacity really is there and when the industry sees launch space going to waste they line up for discounts. Soon you have more demand than supply and prices increase. This puts pressure on your engineering team to increase their output. A virtuous cycle forms.
-
#1055
by
Robotbeat
on 30 Jun, 2017 03:02
-
-
#1056
by
butters
on 30 Jun, 2017 03:22
-
Okay, 3D-printed engines, that could be a good way to produce 500 units per year. But how do they intend to manufacture 50 sets of carbon fiber kerolox rocket stages per year? I realize it's not a huge vehicle, but that seems like a pretty labor-intensive enterprise.
-
#1057
by
high road
on 30 Jun, 2017 06:28
-
when the industry sees launch space going to waste they line up for discounts. Soon you have more demand than supply and prices increase.
Discounts are quite risky. Many customers will rather wait for discounts than purchase at full price. This can annihilate the profit margin.
But there are many other pricing and scheduling strategies that would indeed benefit from regular launches.
-
#1058
by
TrevorMonty
on 08 Jul, 2017 19:55
-
Okay, 3D-printed engines, that could be a good way to produce 500 units per year. But how do they intend to manufacture 50 sets of carbon fiber kerolox rocket stages per year? I realize it's not a huge vehicle, but that seems like a pretty labor-intensive enterprise.
They want to automate composite tank construction. I don't how they plan to do it but this video is one possible way. Just like engines scaling is easy, just buy more 3D printers or robotics.
Production line assembly of engines and stages shouldn't be any different from any other massed produced product.
It is not only small LV that are being massed produced but also small satellites, Airbus and Oneweb are gearing up to make 100s a year.
-
#1059
by
whitelancer64
on 17 Jul, 2017 17:02
-
Offhand, does anyone know how much payload Electron can throw into a direct TLI?
No, investors know there is risk. The problem is when other people (i.e. us) see investments and assume a foolproof plan.