Vector Launch (formerly Vector Space Systems)

[ChrisWilson68]

The key paragraph, near the bottom of the Bloomberg piece linked above:

The aerospace industry is divided on how successful these small rockets will be. The price per pound on the large rockets from SpaceX and others is still more economical. But it’s the flexibility of requesting a launch, almost like you’d order something on Amazon.com, that could end up being more attractive than pure cost. “The lower end of the market will be more important than most people realize,” said Rob Coneybeer, managing director at Shasta Ventures. “Moore’s Law is allowing you to make more capable things smaller and smaller, and I think the low-end rockets will hit the sweet spot.”

And there's the problem right there for all these small launch vehicles.  The lower end of the market is the most price-sensitive.  They're the ones who are least likely to be willing, or even able, to pay 5x for flexibility of requesting a launch.  And the bigger the market becomes, the more regularly-scheduled dedicated flights on big launchers.  That means more flexibility from the low-cost alternative.

Vector and Rocket Lab and the rest are trying to be charter flights versus the airliner of SpaceX and eventually Blue Origin and others.  The more demand there is, the more regular airliner flights there are, so the more flexibility you can get just by booking on an airliner, so the less attractive a charter becomes.  And these charter operators are targeting a market that is very price-sensitive.  And they are charter operators who have cost structures that make them permanently far more expensive.  And they are charter operators who can't provide much in the way of value-add over the airliners other than schedule.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Video clip of interview attached to this tweet:

"We’ll launch more rockets than anybody else in the world, combined." @vectorspacesys CEO @jamesncantrell on @cheddar #cheddarlive  earlier

https://twitter.com/lisahopeking/status/880922466503188480

Peter B de Selding pulled out this quote:

CEO of @vectorspacesys: "We've already sold nearly 200 launches and we havent launched yet. So demand is there."

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/881218280568094722

I imagine that's a key part of the pitch to VCs.

[Robotbeat]

Are these booked launches with a significant non-refundable deposit, or are these just the same payloads that everyone in the industry is also "booking" via a memorandum of understanding?

To put it another way: is there any cost to me as some random person for just "booking" a launch to save a spot for a payload I haven't and may never build? Or if I do have a payload, is there any reason I can't book on every microlaunch startup and just cancel all but one for no extra cost?

[ChrisWilson68]

The point is the structure of the entire activity. Unlike traditional launch. Where the ignorance might come from.

The low cost vehicle/launcher/GSE (and you can afford 10-20 of them concurrent) means that its cheap resource can be speculatively deployed, launch can happen or not, and it returns to inventory. "Restocking fee" only.

So you get flexibility with low cost.

That directly contradicts the Bloomberg article you yourself quoted above that makes the point that bulk launches on larger launchers are lower cost.

It's not that you are paying for flexibility. You're "paying" for immediacy.

Again, flexibility is what the Bloomberg quote above says.  You're the one that quoted it.  And when I respond to the point about flexibility, you say no, it's not flexibility at all.  Then why did you quote that paragraph of the article, say it was "key", and not say anything then if you thought the main argument they made in favor of microlaunch was wrong?

Anyway, launch operations are a significant portion of launch costs.  That "restocking fee" is likely to be large.

So the market for a cubesat is you either wait for a rideshare (1-5yr) or microlaunch (1 week).

You're continuing to ignore my main point, which is that if the cubesat market really is large, there will be regular, common dedicated cubesat launches on the big launchers.  If the market is big enough to support the kinds of launch rates the small launchers are predicating their business plans on (a hundred a year), it will support monthly dedicated cubesat launches on F9.  So it's a month, or less if the market is really big, for rideshare.

(Also, being able to do "speculative launch" for govt payloads, where you can "quick turn" a sensor/other in less than a week, and maybe it comes together and orbits, or it doesn't and you try again next week. No worry!)

The question is how much it's worth to get it every week instead of every month.  And, the other question is how long until the market is big enough the rideshare launches on F9 are every week.

And the bigger the market becomes, the more regularly-scheduled dedicated flights on big launchers.

Nope.

There will be few concentrations of bulk cubesat launches. Most will be primary payloads (including constellations) w/o cubesats. That's what the market forecasts say, but hey what do they know ...  ::)

It's simply not plausible that there will be hundreds of smallsats launched a year on small launchers but that there will be few dedicated flights of large launchers with lots of smallsats.

That means more flexibility from the low-cost alternative.

Which you get for free ... if you don't sit on the pad until you launch.

It's not free because you're paying much more to launch on the small launcher versus rideshare.

Vector and Rocket Lab and the rest are trying to be charter flights versus the airliner of SpaceX and eventually Blue Origin and others.

Wrong again.

RL is just a miniature SX. There's nothing that allows them to increase cadence beyond a launch 3-6 months. Can't do "charter flights" with that few per annum - the costs don't work.

There's no reason at all to think Rocket Labs needs 3-6 months between flights.  You say they're a miniature SpaceX, but SpaceX is already launching twice a month from the same pad.

And look how hard its been for SX to gain cadence.

Yeah, lets look at that.  They have a much more complex system than Rocket Lab.  They have kept changing their vehicle.  They have simultaneously been working on cargo and crew delivery to the ISS in addition to launch, and they've been working on recovery of their first stage and fairings.

It looks to me like most of the things that slowed down SpaceX don't apply to Rocket Lab.

Even if they did, SpaceX eventually did get to multiple launches a month, so that would imply Rocket Lab will get there too.

IMHO RL isn't microlaunch. Yet the idea was to dominate microlaunch. Fail at domination.

We'll have to wait and see whether they fail or not, and who fails more, Vector or Rocket Lab.

[ChrisWilson68]

So the best evidence you can produce is that Sequoia Capital invested in it, so if my opinion differs from Sequoia, I'm ignorant?

The vast majority of posters on here are able to be respectful even when they strongly disagree with someone else's opinion.  You might want to pay attention and notice they don't feel the need to call people they disagree with ignorant.

The point is about reading the materials on the subject matter and attempting to comment intelligently.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, not my intent. More concerned that other don't get mislead by an unintentional ignorant remark.

Which turns most forums, unlike this one, into crap.

No, you still aren't getting it.  You calling me ignorant didn't hurt my feelings.  It made you look bad.  It made you seem like your feelings were hurt because you lowered the level of discourse by resorting to unnecessary insults.

Predicting the future of demand in an industry that doesn't even exist today is fundamentally subjective.  If you're so amazingly confident in one particular prediction, and so confident that not only it is correct, but it is so obviously correct that anyone who has a different opinion could only be ignorant, well, good for you, but the more intelligent readers of this forum will not be impressed by your claiming that.

[ChrisWilson68]

Are these booked launches with a significant non-refundable deposit, or are these just the same payloads that everyone in the industry is also "booking" via a memorandum of understanding?

For a VC to accept it as a launch, yes, a significant non-refundable deposit. So, you don't ask the company about manifest, you ask the investor and believe what they say.

I have significant experience with VCs and I don't share your "believe what they say" attitude.

I've seen it happen all the time that VCs invest in companies claiming customers when those claimed customers have made no firm commitments at all, in spite of misleading press releases to the contrary.

[TrevorMonty]

Immediacy is more important than cost, just ask the millions of people everyday using taxis instead of buses.
When comes to costs, every day a satellite sits on ground waiting for cheaper rideshare flight is another day of lost revenue. In mean time the same small startup satellite company needs to pay wages and dozens of other bills.

[ringsider]

I say Vector has a much greater shot of meeting a $100m valuation than RL does of a billion.

And just the fact that Vector doesn't dismiss reuse means they have more of a shot at reaching hundreds of launches than RL does (assuming RL doesn't change their tune on reuse, which is admittedly a big assumption).

You are talking about different phases - Rocket Lab is at Series D, Vector at Series A. 20m at 100m in an A round is massive. Rocket Lab's A series was nowhere near that level, I have the numbers somewhere.

Reuse is almost irrelevant at this scale. It's such a minor cost compared to labor.

[TrevorMonty]

I've read a couple of statements from RL that suggest RLV is in their future. If they don't develop a RLV their competition will. In near term they need to get their ELV flying regularly.

These smallsat LV have more options for reuseability than likes of F9. Mid air recovery of complete booster is possible, for downrange recovery they just need a small ship with helipad.

[ringsider]

Are these booked launches with a significant non-refundable deposit, or are these just the same payloads that everyone in the industry is also "booking" via a memorandum of understanding?

To put it another way: is there any cost to me as some random person for just "booking" a launch to save a spot for a payload I haven't and may never build? Or if I do have a payload, is there any reason I can't book on every microlaunch startup and just cancel all but one for no extra cost?

No rational business is going to prepay without some guarantee or a way out for non-performance. LoIs are prevalent in this sector but actual contracts are much rarer.

[Robotbeat]

I say Vector has a much greater shot of meeting a $100m valuation than RL does of a billion.

And just the fact that Vector doesn't dismiss reuse means they have more of a shot at reaching hundreds of launches than RL does (assuming RL doesn't change their tune on reuse, which is admittedly a big assumption).

You are talking about different phases - Rocket Lab is at Series D, Vector at Series A. 20m at 100m in an A round is massive. Rocket Lab's A series was nowhere near that level, I have the numbers somewhere.

Reuse is almost irrelevant at this scale. It's such a minor cost compared to labor.

Wait, you don't think reuse reduces labor?? Do you think people are pursuing reuse to save on raw material costs??

[gongora]

I've read a couple of statements from RL that suggest RLV is in their future. If they don't develop a RLV their competition will. In near term they need to get their ELV flying regularly.

These smallsat LV have more options for reuseability than likes of F9. Mid air recovery of complete booster is possible, for downrange recovery they just need a small ship with helipad.

If you want to focus on reuse then you're kinda missing the point of these companies.  They're based on small cheap launch vehicles, some of which barely have enough fuel to get to orbit.  They're not going to do F9 style downrange landings.  Spending an extra $100M or more making their vehicle reusable could eat up years of profits or bankrupt the company, and they don't have billionaire founders.

[Robotbeat]

Immediacy is more important than cost, just ask the millions of people everyday using taxis instead of buses.
When comes to costs, every day a satellite sits on ground waiting for cheaper rideshare flight is another day of lost revenue. In mean time the same small startup satellite company needs to pay wages and dozens of other bills.

People might feel differently if they were paying $100,000 per kg for their cab ride.

Besides, it remains to be seen that tiny payloads would launch more (and thus have greater availability), even though everyone takes it as some sort of unmentioned assumption. R7/Soyuz is the most launched architecture ever by a large margin and is a medium class rocket.

[Robotbeat]

Are these booked launches with a significant non-refundable deposit, or are these just the same payloads that everyone in the industry is also "booking" via a memorandum of understanding?

To put it another way: is there any cost to me as some random person for just "booking" a launch to save a spot for a payload I haven't and may never build? Or if I do have a payload, is there any reason I can't book on every microlaunch startup and just cancel all but one for no extra cost?

No rational business is going to prepay without some guarantee or a way out for non-performance. LoIs are prevalent in this sector but actual contracts are much rarer.

So you're saying these booked launches are refundable? That confirms the rumors I've been hearing that many of these microlaunch companies have the same payloads on their manifests.

[ringsider]

Are these booked launches with a significant non-refundable deposit, or are these just the same payloads that everyone in the industry is also "booking" via a memorandum of understanding?

To put it another way: is there any cost to me as some random person for just "booking" a launch to save a spot for a payload I haven't and may never build? Or if I do have a payload, is there any reason I can't book on every microlaunch startup and just cancel all but one for no extra cost?

No rational business is going to prepay without some guarantee or a way out for non-performance. LoIs are prevalent in this sector but actual contracts are much rarer.

So you're saying these booked launches are refundable? That confirms the rumors I've been hearing that many of these microlaunch companies have the same payloads on their manifests.

I would actually be amazed if there was any money changing hands, except in the case of Rocket Lab.

If there are firms with enough cash to prepay 20-30% on several launchers in parallel I would be astounded.

[Lars-J]

Vector may claim to be able to launch from small mobile launchers, but I'm *HIGHLY* skeptical. They aren't even be close to launching ANYTHING, so they can make all kinds of grand claims about being oh so much better and cheaper than RL (or anyone else) without having to back them up. But I won't have any of it. They need to show they can launch something up higher than a percentage point or two of the karman line, and *then* I will find them credible.

[Lars-J]

RL is just a miniature SX. There's nothing that allows them to increase cadence beyond a launch 3-6 months. Can't do "charter flights" with that few per annum - the costs don't work. And look how hard its been for SX to gain cadence.

I've got lots of respect for you, Space Ghost, but that is just a dumb statement, and you know it.
Are you going to call me ignorant now as well?

[ringsider]

I say Vector has a much greater shot of meeting a $100m valuation than RL does of a billion.

And just the fact that Vector doesn't dismiss reuse means they have more of a shot at reaching hundreds of launches than RL does (assuming RL doesn't change their tune on reuse, which is admittedly a big assumption).

You are talking about different phases - Rocket Lab is at Series D, Vector at Series A. 20m at 100m in an A round is massive. Rocket Lab's A series was nowhere near that level, I have the numbers somewhere.

Reuse is almost irrelevant at this scale. It's such a minor cost compared to labor.

Wait, you don't think reuse reduces labor??

Not initally. How much money do you think Spacex invested to get to re-use? Probably almost as much as it took to develop F9 to begin with?

If you look at Vector, what could they re-use? What would it cost to recover a stage from the ocean and rebuild it versus building a new one? This is a launcher with a price of $1.5m...the components can't be more than 300k to hit that price point.

And if you do the math, the flaw in their plan is easy to see - they NEED 50-100 launches a year to pay their overhead. If they fly the small one 10 times a year they will be toast. This is why they definitely need a bigger rocket long term, because each launch is more valuable....

And by the way - parachutes as proposed by Vector don't create re-use directly, they create spare parts and a mass penalty.

[Robotbeat]

Sure, so don't invest much in reuse before you get expendable launches working. That's a perfectly fine approach, and it's the one SpaceX took although it's not the only option.

And yeah, if you're only launching a few times per year, reuse doesn't make sense. But these microlaunch companies are claiming HUNDREDS of launches per year.

If you really believe hundreds of launches per year, then you owe it to yourself and investors not to dismiss reuse out of hand as it'd drastically reduce labor.

[Robotbeat]

Vector may claim to be able to launch from small mobile launchers, but I'm *HIGHLY* skeptical. They aren't even be close to launching ANYTHING, so they can make all kinds of grand claims about being oh so much better and cheaper than RL (or anyone else) without having to back them up. But I won't have any of it. They need to show they can launch something up higher than a percentage point or two of the karman line, and *then* I will find them credible.

What's so absurd about launching from a mobile launcher?

V2 did, and it was over twice the lift-off mass. And V2 also used a cryogenic propellant, so that's no kind of showstopper either.

It's a perfectly valid approach.