Relativity Space: General Thread

[FutureSpaceTourist]

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

[Asteroza]

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...

[edkyle99]

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

[jstrotha0975]

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.

[russianhalo117]

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.

[Robotbeat]

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).

[gongora]

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

[edzieba]

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.

[anof]

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.

[playadelmars]

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.

[harrystranger]

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.

[harrystranger]

Imagery from Sentinel-2 taken @ 2020-08-28 16:05:34 UTC shows what looks like more land cleared, most notably for their hanger.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/gregwautry/status/1299825317146746880

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!

[ParabolicSnark]

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).

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

[JEF_300]

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).

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

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.

[ParabolicSnark]

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?

[playadelmars]

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.

[edzieba]

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.

[ringsider]

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.

[Davidthefat]

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?