Relativity Space: General Thread

[jongoff]

That said, I'm excited about Terran R too. I feel like I'm more bullish on Relativity than most in this forum, I certainly wouldn't count them out. If they can actually launch their Terran 1 this year (rather than the typical "Q4 means the next year" we've come to expect from space launch), it will be a good sign that they really are as nimble as they say they are, which would suggest they may be able to pivot to Terran R more quickly than one would expect.

I've been a Relativity fan since they started. Tim was one of my last two interns at Masten, and I've been really impressed with what he's done since then. He does a really good job of focusing on the right problems to solve (from a business standpoint), though I agree that how well things go with Terran-1 this year is going to be a good indicator of how seriously to take Terran-R.

I'm just glad our industry is now getting multiple well-funded "shots on goal" for partially and fully-reusable launch. People who haven't been following this industry for the past quarter century have no idea how insane it is to think that we have multiple companies that have raised $500-750M to go after medium-lift RLVs. SpaceX's success is a big driver of that, but even outside of launch, VC's willingness to put serious money into space ventures seems to have really increased in the last 3-5yrs.

~Jon

[edzieba]

Even if Relativity don't have commercial luck with Terran-1, they have the consolation prize of a high-TRL direct metal deposition system with an extraordinary working volume. The 'inspect-while-depositing' software alone has value, never mind the custom alloy and bank of printers themselves!

[TrevorMonty]

Even if Relativity don't have commercial luck with Terran-1, they have the consolation prize of a high-TRL direct metal deposition system with an extraordinary working volume. The 'inspect-while-depositing' software alone has value, never mind the custom alloy and bank of printers themselves!

These alternative revenues to launch are what make Relativity and RL good investments. In RL cases its their satelite systems and components.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[JEF_300]

When it comes to being a launch provider, Relativity, their 3D printing, and reusability are all fairly un-impressive to me in the current market. However, their claims of really bringing down the part count on their Terran-1 does interest me a lot. I've included an image of the part of their site which talks about that.

Do we know what vehicle their comparing Terran-1 to here? Is ~60,000 parts really normal in launch vehicles? How much of this is actually because of 3D printing?

[ParabolicSnark]

Do we know what vehicle their comparing Terran-1 to here? Is ~60,000 parts really normal in launch vehicles? How much of this is actually because of 3D printing?

I think the part counts in that plot are apples and oranges, cherry-picked by marketing to make a pitch. 60k parts on a launch vehicle passes my sniff check. 720 sounds to me like they're applying a different standard on what counts as a part to an disingenuous level.

Take for example a single pressure transducer on their pump discharge line. It's a cryogenic propellant, so it needs to be isolated from the flow on a sense line. There's the tube, there's the tapoff fitting going to the sense line, there's the sense line itself, the pressure transducer, the support for the transducer so its not shaking itself apart, and the electrical harness back to the flight computer. That sense line is made of a tube, sleeves, and nuts. The support is probably a clamp, bolt, washer, nut, and maybe a standoff. The electrical harness has connectors and backshells. That single instrument consists of  of 10-20 individual parts. Multiply that by what's probably around 100 pressure transducers for a vehicle with that many engines and you've blown their count out of the water just on pressure transducers.

I bet they're ignoring all instrumentation, fluid connections, and hardware at a minimum when coming up with their counts and then comparing it to the full-up BoM from other another program that one of them worked on.

[Davidthefat]

Do we know what vehicle their comparing Terran-1 to here? Is ~60,000 parts really normal in launch vehicles? How much of this is actually because of 3D printing?

I think the part counts in that plot are apples and oranges, cherry-picked by marketing to make a pitch. 60k parts on a launch vehicle passes my sniff check. 720 sounds to me like they're applying a different standard on what counts as a part to an disingenuous level.

Take for example a single pressure transducer on their pump discharge line. It's a cryogenic propellant, so it needs to be isolated from the flow on a sense line. There's the tube, there's the tapoff fitting going to the sense line, there's the sense line itself, the pressure transducer, the support for the transducer so its not shaking itself apart, and the electrical harness back to the flight computer. That sense line is made of a tube, sleeves, and nuts. The support is probably a clamp, bolt, washer, nut, and maybe a standoff. The electrical harness has connectors and backshells. That single instrument consists of  of 10-20 individual parts. Multiply that by what's probably around 100 pressure transducers for a vehicle with that many engines and you've blown their count out of the water just on pressure transducers.

I bet they're ignoring all instrumentation, fluid connections, and hardware at a minimum when coming up with their counts and then comparing it to the full-up BoM from other another program that one of them worked on.

Right, are they counting COTS parts that other programs may have brought in internally like a regulator to be part of the part count? Like the springs, seals, valve stem, housing, ect. If they are buying a regulator off the shelf, are they just calling that 1 part? Like the slosh baffles are definitely counted piece by piece in a traditional LV vs the integral baffles in their tanks.

Like a Merlin is inherently made up of more parts like a liner, jacket, manifolds, ect that are just one or two printed parts on a 3D printed chamber. But that's just due to the scale of the engine. The Terrran R sized engine probably won't have that luxury anymore and will have to revert to mostly traditional manufacturing methods like brazing and welding.

[Lars-J]

I find it difficult to know how serious to actually take Relatively as a launch vehicle developer and operator.

They have from the beginning looked like a business that was specializing in 3D printing for launch vehicle needs with the ultimate goal of being acquired for such technology by SpaceX/ULA/Blue Origin/whomever rather than building their own launch vehicle.

I hope they are able to actually finish and fly Terran 1. If they drop that and switch Terran R then that just reinforces the impression that they are more interested in selling or being acquired rather than flying.

[Robotbeat]

I thought the team seemed pretty good. They had the potential to be kind of like RocketLab. But they picked a bad technology to build the tanks IMHO.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.

[JEF_300]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.

My guess, pure speculation: He offered to make Ellis CEO of Blue Origin, or at least considering it.

[Davidthefat]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.

My guess, pure speculation: He offered to make Ellis CEO of Blue Origin, or at least considering it.

More realistically buying it out. Or even more realistically just checking it out.

[trimeta]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.

My guess, pure speculation: He offered to make Ellis CEO of Blue Origin, or at least considering it.

More realistically buying it out. Or even more realistically just checking it out.

Discussions about buying out Relativity (which may not come to fruition, mind you) seem like the only plausible explanation here, IMO. Which would be a shame: I used to think that Relativity's end game was always going to be "bought out by SpaceX or Blue Origin," but more recently I've come to really want to see Terran 1 launch. And it kind of feels that despite the obvious overlap in industry, there's actually not much synergy here. What use does Blue Origin have for Relativity's unique capabilities? They're not going to redesign New Glenn to use Stargate-printed tanks instead of isogrids. And it's too late in the BE-4's development cycle to radically redesign it to use significantly more 3D printing, either.

If anything, the only thing Blue Origin gains by buying out Relativity is making sure that Terran R never sees the light of day, potentially competing with New Glenn. And I guess getting a cadre of skilled engineers, but again, if they're focused on 3D printing specifically, that may have less value than making sure there's one fewer new 20-ton launch vehicle in the next decade.

[J-B]

My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.

[trimeta]

My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.

I'd like to believe that, Relativity continuing to build their own launch vehicles as well as subcontracting for others to build various aerospace-grade hardware. On the one hand, it doesn't really make sense for Blue Origin to be looking into something like that right now, they have so much on their plate (with New Shepard, BE-4, Blue Moon, and New Glenn all in the works), they can't afford to be picking up a new project (e.g., actually designing their in-space infrastructure beyond some paper plans). On the other hand, as their existing "plate" demonstrates, they already have a history of taking on (too) many simultaneous projects, so I can't really rule out them adding another. And maybe the visit was really informal, not "can we start work on building these designs?", but "can you tell me about the general capabilities of your machines, so we can have a slow-burn project to design something for them and come back in five years to discuss actual fabrication?"

[Robotbeat]

My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.

This is what I think as well.

It bothers me when people ignore the fact that both SpaceX and Blue Origin are means to an end that isn't just more money. (Which isn't to say that money doesn't become seductive and turn people's will to its own aims, but I don't think everyone just mechanistically operates with money as the end goal. Blue Origin in particular has been a money pit which Bezos has been happy to dump his wealth into.)

[yg1968]

My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.

This is what I think as well.

It bothers me when people ignore the fact that both SpaceX and Blue Origin are means to an end that isn't just more money. (Which isn't to say that money doesn't become seductive and turn people's will to its own aims, but I don't think everyone just mechanistically operates with money as the end goal. Blue Origin in particular has been a money pit which Bezos has been happy to dump his wealth into.)

I believe that Blue's and SpaceX's goal is to be transportation companies. Neither of these companies make habitats. I know that Blue likes to talk about living and working in space and SpaceX's about settling Mars but unless such goals can become profitable, neither of these companies will be engaged in these activities. These companies aren't non-profit companies.

[GWH]

Neither of these companies make habitats. I know that Blue likes to talk about living and working in space...

Not entirely true, Blue has participated in ISS successor studies, and recently posted a habitat designer position: https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-considers-entering-commercial-space-station-business/

[Robotbeat]

My hypothesis is that Bezos is interested in RS technology for his O'neill cylinder project which is his main objective. Initially it may be for a more modest goal of infrastructure on the moon or space station...  I hope and believe that Relativity Space will not be sold but will sell its services for the construction of infrastructures.

This is what I think as well.

It bothers me when people ignore the fact that both SpaceX and Blue Origin are means to an end that isn't just more money. (Which isn't to say that money doesn't become seductive and turn people's will to its own aims, but I don't think everyone just mechanistically operates with money as the end goal. Blue Origin in particular has been a money pit which Bezos has been happy to dump his wealth into.)

I believe that Blue's and SpaceX's goal is to be transportation companies. Neither of these companies make habitats. I know that Blue likes to talk about living and working in space and SpaceX's about settling Mars but unless such goals can become profitable, neither of these companies will be engaged in these activities. These companies aren't non-profit companies.

Wrong. Both of the companies are essentially charities in their goals. But operating as a non-profit is suboptimal for what they want to achieve as there are regulatory constraints for non-profits (for instance, you can’t make a profit in the usual sense), and the prerequisite to enabling living in space is to address the insane cost-of-transport problem. Ideally, a for-profit company in a competitive market WILL be very effective at reducing launch costs. But if the market is non-ideal, then it may become more profitable to actually not reduce price, and many of the cost reduction methods rely on a price-reduction-driven demand growth. So they can’t act PURELY as for-profit companies or they could get stuck simply sitting in a position where they collect rents from a monopoly/oligopoly position. Also, non-profits can’t attract private investment (which wants a return, of course) for obvious reasons.

I mean, the launch market is pretty limited in revenue. A few billion per year, largely government, and with inelastic demand. Which is why the ULAs of the world didn’t bother investing in reusability: why invest in lowering cost per kg to orbit if your revenue at the end of the day will be the same? If tonnage demand increases 10 fold for a 10 fold reduction in price (so the revenue & likely profit remains constant), then there’s no profit incentive to put billions into developing reuse.

So they act like one or the other or both, depending on which best suits the goal of making humanity a spacefaring civilization. Many multimillionaires and billionaires before them sunk millions and billions of dollars with nothing to show for it, so the idea it’s a highly lucrative market is a bit ludicrous. They developed reuse because it was necessary and the market wasn’t evolving in that direction on its own. SpaceX even created their own demand by producing Starlink (on such a scale that it might only just break even).

So again, they’ll do what’s necessary. It’s silly to call them “just a transport company” as Starlink already proves that false. If no one else steps up and produces habitats and develops demand, they will just create habitats themselves, profit-be-damned. And Blue in particular has shown presentations where they develop habitats and other elements of deep space infrastructure (they’re just kind of slow at it).

Lunar Starship already is a sort of makeshift habitat-in-the-making. Lunar crew accommodations are a non-trivial portion of their HLS contract work.

So again, they both actually are somewhat “charity” based in that their end goals may require sacrificing profit margin to achieve.

[Robotbeat]

I should point out that relativity does not bill itself as primarily a launch company. They see their main strength as manufacturing, with their manufacturing method suited for in space manufacturing. Rockets are just an early revenue stream and a sort of stress test of the technology.

It is well suited to an eventual Blue Origin acquisition, if you set aside concerns about the scalability of this kind of 3D printing.

Relativity has SpaceX/BlueOrigin-like starry eyes in their company vision. This is in contrast to Relativity or Astra who billed themselves more like a for-profit BUSINESS (although doubtless Peter Beck, etc, also has his long term sights set on enabling a spacefaring humanity). For Relativity, it’s “Business Time,” not “let’s build a business with questionable profit potential—underwear gnomes?—to enable a City on Mars.” Private investors like that. Except for Bezos, who probably appreciates the starry eyes of the Relativity founders.

[Darkseraph]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/jeff-bezos-tours-relativity-space-headquarters-with-tim-ellis.html

Jeff Bezos visited the new headquarters of Relativity Space, the 3D-printing rocket builder
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 5 20216:59 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ

KEY POINTS

Jeff Bezos stopped by the gleaming headquarters of Relativity Space on Friday, a person familiar with the visit told CNBC.

He toured the facility with Relativity CEO Tim Ellis, the person said.

Although the nature of the visit to Relativity’s headquarters was unclear, Ellis previously worked at Bezos’ space company Blue Origin.

My guess, pure speculation: He offered to make Ellis CEO of Blue Origin, or at least considering it.

More realistically buying it out. Or even more realistically just checking it out.

There's also the potential that he wants to invest in it without Blue Origin buying it out. He easily has the resources to and if Blue Origin doesn't pan out in the long run at creating that vision of human settlement of space, it helps to have eggs in more than one basket. Their technology would also be quite complementary to building rockets and eventually space infrastructure from extraterrestrial resources.

If what Relativity are doing is half as good as they claim, it's only a matter of time before someone else with a lot of money thinks or putting a large investment in them or buying them out right. There's no reason why their technology couldn't be applied to building other more Earthly things like airplanes, ships and weapons systems.