the full scale Block 1 airframe (made from aluminum instead of carbon fiber to conserve money)
The difference is that Musk's publicity stunt was to win customers. We've watched the hype machine fail to raise funding for years now. It's almost like the stupidest investors are already broke. I really do hope Vector fly something, as that's the only way to convince investors that you've actually got a shot.
..and no-one should forget that Musk almost landed himself in the "stupidest investors" category with the first few launches of his very own Falcon 1.
Space is not only hard, but a high-stakes gamble also. Let's hope they find someone they can partner with to get this venture off the ground.
I man, dang. If Rocketlabs can be worth a billion without launching, maybe Vector has a chance.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/04/2017 04:19 amI man, dang. If Rocketlabs can be worth a billion without launching, maybe Vector has a chance.It's an evaluation based on the credentials of the existing investors. SpaceX was much the same in that regards.
Except SpaceX had launched and recovered Dragon before they were worth a billion.
Lots of pointless bad mouth on this thread. You can complain if they keep launching the same thing with no changes. In this case, the superficial vehicle and the launcher are "new".
StratSpace [email protected] to meThe Brave New World Of Space Launch2017 will be a pivotal year in the history of space launch. The year started off with a bang when a SpaceX Falcon-9 launched the Netherlands’ SES 10, a 5,000kg communication satellite, into orbit using a recycled launch vehicle first stage. The Falcon-9 appears to be back on track after a disastrous 2016 while the Proton M is still in a long process of replacing defective first stage engines that could delay them years and further delay the the planned Russian Communication system deployment. 2017 will also be the year of the micro launchers - a new breed of launchers dedicated to the small and micro satellite markets with several first launches expected this year.Launch vehicle flight rates and launch capacity (or lack of the right capacity in the case of recent years) is driving the overall space market by limiting the supply of reliable launches into orbit. There is great irony in today's launch market where some sectors have tremendous over-supply (Heavy Launch) while other sectors (small launch) are suffering from a severe shortage of capacity. This all speaks to a changing launch vehicle market that will reshape the face of the launch and satellite industry for decades to come!The current heavy launch providers face an over-capacity situation with the ULA Atlas/Delta, Ariane V, Proton and H2 facing the cheaper and more efficient Falcon Heavy set to debut this year. Meanwhile, the capacity for launching small and micro satellites is in extremely short supply and is projected to remain so until new providers such as RocketLab and Vector come on line. The launch supply situation is key for satellite operators as they consider options for launching new constellations and replenishing existing systems in orbit. The recent valuation of RocketLab in the Unicorn Billion Dollar range also speaks to investor interest and faith in the growing small satellite launch market dominated by RocketLab and Vector.***Graph1 goes here***The StratSpace forecast model predicts significant over-capacity in the Heavy Lift launch market and severe shortages of capacity in the small and micro launch markets where new entrants are vying to meet a growing market demand. The nominal model contemplates suppliers such as RocketLab and Vector being successful in developing operational capability in the small and micro launch sectors respectively. Despite this added launch capacity, the market will remain short of launch capacity for at least 5 years.Does Reusability Really Reduce Launch Cost ?Its long been understood In the space industry that achieving high launch rates is a key factor in reducing launch costs and increasing reliability. Yet, most launch rates for a single vehicle rarely exceed 10-12 launches per year in a good year ! The argument for reducing launch costs are well founded and based on known economics of learning curve cost reductions associated with manufacturing a complex machine combined with a more efficient use of fixed capital expenses. Reductions in recurring labor costs and supply chain cost reductions contribute to an ever-decreasing cost basis as more vehicles are produced. In addition to the cost reductions, if the vehicles are truly production oriented, increases in reliability would also be expected. The reality in the launch industry is quite different however since launch vehicles are still made in a bespoke manner with block upgrades every 10-15 units. The venerable SpaceX Falcon-9 is actually not the same vehicle that flew early on and has undergone major design changes every 10 flights on the average. These changes are aimed at enhancing launch capacity to orbit which lifts revenue and profit per launch. So what of the topic of reusability ? Why is SpaceX and Blue Origin spending massive capital to achieve reusability and why are other launch companies eschewing this in favor of high launch rates ? Reusability, like that demonstrated by SpaceX this week, is another cost reduction strategy. Most studies and models agree that re-use begins to generate positive returns after about the 10th cycle of re-use for each unit however. Taking capital expenditures into account and refurbishment costs, this means that a reusable rocket remains a sunk cost until about the 10th re-used flight on the average. After that tenth flight, lowered costs can be used to pad the profit lines or reduce costs to satellite operators. This makes sense with the Blue Origin business model of repeatedly flying tourists into space and returning to the launch pad and we would expect re-use of the launchers to extend into 20-50 launches per vehicle. In the case of SpaceX, the economics are less obvious but are worth a closer examination. The overall demand for a Falcon 9 class launch is simply not large enough to justify an investment return from re-usable first stage cores. If the cores work across the F-9 and F-Heavy launchers, the case begins to come to a close but it is still not a stellar ROI. Is there another reason why SpaceX is pursuing reusable first stages ? Perhaps the answer lies in production capacity. It's well established in industry circles that SpaceX needs about 20 F-9 launches a year to be firmly cash flow positive yet the factory does not appear capable of reliably producing this many Falcon 9's and flying them. Perhaps the reusability is the answer to the capacity problem by offsetting the need for building new large complex stages in addition to being a technology important for Mars missions. Based on our analysis of LV demand and likely re-use costs, we believe that re-use is SpaceX's way of increasing its flight tempo and to crowd out many of the other heavy lift launch vehicle producers who are more expensive and have an inherently limited launch rates. What this means, we believe, is that ULA and Russian launch providers face some very tough choices as the over capacity in this market continues to grow and SpaceX succeeds in re-using its first stages.***A button labelled ' Browse Stratspace forecasts is here, linking to this page***MicroSats Are Shattering The Launch Industry Micro and small satellites are set to shape the winners and losers in the launch industry for the next decade. While the majority of micro and small satellites are being launched as ride-share aboard much larger launches with large primary satellites. While this launch method has enabled the micro satellite revolution to begin, a dedicated launch service for this growing sector is emerging. Small sats markets are beginning to be built in such numbers that a dedicated launch service is not only a viable business but can support upwards of 4 competitors in this sector alone. RocketLab's Electron is focused not he small satellite sector (100-200 kg) with launches up to 50 per year and Vector is focused on the smaller micro satellites in the 25-100 kg range with launches exceeding 100 per year. RocketLab will launch first in 2017 and Vector is scheduled to follow closely behind in early 2018. It will be a race of execution between RocketLab and Vector to achieve high flight rates and start flying off the growing backlog of small and micro satellites.This new Space Race is emerging as one of the most interesting changes in the launch industry to come along since the success demonstrated by SpaceX. StratSpace models who the attraction of this market and lay clues to the changes about to happen before our very eyes. In many ways, this is shaping up to be the equivalent of the emergence of the PC in the 1980's and 1990's.***Graph2 goes here***Micro And Small Satellites To Dominate Market by 2020The StratSpace market forecast for spacecraft procurement shows a running trend that nano, micro and small satellites will dominate the market by 2020. By 2022, 70% of all spacecraft being built will be nano, micro or small satellites weighing under 250 kg. This is a stunning shift in the market and is further accentuated by the projected drop in demand for traditionally strong GEO comsats over the next five years. In five years time, small and micro satellites will become the industry norm and the trend most resembles that of the micro computer of the 1980's.***Image of Rocketlab launch complex***RocketLab uses a fixed launch infrastructure located in New Zealand and analysts expect launch rates of up to 50 per year from the company.***Image of Vector launch trailer***Vector uses a mobile launch approach where all that is needed to launch is a concrete pad on a commercial launch range. To date, they have plans to launch from Cape Canaveral, Spaceport Camden and Kodiak Island Alaska at the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska.Happy to help.Questions ? Please email us at [email protected] !Copyright © 2017 Vector, All rights reserved.You are receiving this email communication as one of our company investors. [Note; I'm not, I just signed up for email updates]
FWIW, this is fairly standard fair for investment these days. Not defending it but explaining it.
In fact, if you are not overt you never even get heard.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/04/2017 09:14 pmFWIW, this is fairly standard fair for investment these days. Not defending it but explaining it.I am fairly certain I have more experience of professional venture finance than anyone on this forum, and this is not "standard fair".
QuoteIn fact, if you are not overt you never even get heard. This is untrue. There are dozens of examples, but here are two from this sector. Relativity Space raised $10m in a matter of weeks, as a complete startup, from solid tech VCs, and almost nobody knows what they are doing. That is about 10x more VC money than Vector, and they are utterly silent. Actually I would say Vector has angel money, not VC money, which is usually naive money with weak DD.
Rocket Lab didn't even make what they were doing public until they had locked Khosla and K1W1 in private. Not a whisper until they showed off the engine.
This is not a investment or entrepreneurship forum, this is a space interest forum. So its not our place to judge any of these firms as investment, because there is no "voir dire" to empanel an effective, impartial "technical jury" .
@vectorspacesys Vector-R Block 0.1 ready to launch. Stay tuned ! #Space #SpaceX #CubeSat
