Relativity Space: General Thread

[trimeta]

Terran 1 development will give Relativity a smaller Vac engine that can be used for 3rd stage or space tug. In case of space tug would only need a single Terran R tanker launch to refuel it.

Tim said they had other plans for this engine besides Terran 1 US, so it may well endup being used in 3rd stage or spacetug.

Somewhere I got the idea that Aeon 1 Vac would also be used for the second stage of Terran R (not just Terran 1). Would that be completely unreasonable?

[TrevorMonty]

Terran 1 development will give Relativity a smaller Vac engine that can be used for 3rd stage or space tug. In case of space tug would only need a single Terran R tanker launch to refuel it.

Tim said they had other plans for this engine besides Terran 1 US, so it may well endup being used in 3rd stage or spacetug.

Somewhere I got the idea that Aeon 1 Vac would also be used for the second stage of Terran R (not just Terran 1). Would that be completely unreasonable?

Too small to be used as main engine unless clustering them. One large engine is cheaper to and probably lighter. They might use Aeon 1 SL for landing US.

[Robotbeat]

Tim Ellis in the interview said that the Stargate printer has been able to print under Martian atmospheric conditions; Would it be a plausible jump from there to printing metallic pressure vessels in orbital space?  Would they be too dependent on (even thin) atmospheric pressure to prevent the aluminum from boiling away while they weld?  Would the 0g fluid dynamics / welding behaviour push them away from their own experience and into the subjects Made in Space or Tethers Unlimited have worked on?

Metal boiling away in vacuum isn't a major problem from what I understand. After all, electron beam welding works great and it requires a pretty good vacuum.

[edzieba]

Terran 1 development will give Relativity a smaller Vac engine that can be used for 3rd stage or space tug. In case of space tug would only need a single Terran R tanker launch to refuel it.

Tim said they had other plans for this engine besides Terran 1 US, so it may well endup being used in 3rd stage or spacetug.

Somewhere I got the idea that Aeon 1 Vac would also be used for the second stage of Terran R (not just Terran 1). Would that be completely unreasonable?

It's still what is listed on their website, and the Mars mission CGI showed a Terran R upper stage with a single engine.

[M.E.T.]

So what is Terran 1’s estimated price for 1250kg to LEO? That’s all that really matters to determine its business case.

This after Tim Ellis stated that they intend to continue operating Terran 1 in its own right even once Terran R is operational.

If it approaches anything around the ~$10M mark, the business case seems pretty limited.

[AU1.52]

Tim Ellis in the interview said that the Stargate printer has been able to print under Martian atmospheric conditions; Would it be a plausible jump from there to printing metallic pressure vessels in orbital space?  Would they be too dependent on (even thin) atmospheric pressure to prevent the aluminum from boiling away while they weld?  Would the 0g fluid dynamics / welding behaviour push them away from their own experience and into the subjects Made in Space or Tethers Unlimited have worked on?

Metal boiling away in vacuum isn't a major problem from what I understand. After all, electron beam welding works great and it requires a pretty good vacuum.

Would that be the same as in a vacuum with very low atmospheric pressure?

[c4fusion]

So what is Terran 1’s estimated price for 1250kg to LEO? That’s all that really matters to determine its business case.

This after Tim Ellis stated that they intend to continue operating Terran 1 in its own right even once Terran R is operational.

If it approaches anything around the ~$10M mark, the business case seems pretty limited.

$12 million: source

[Daniels30]

Stennis expansion underway above E4 test site

https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1556625317459988480/photo/1

[TrevorMonty]

So what is Terran 1’s estimated price for 1250kg to LEO? That’s all that really matters to determine its business case.

This after Tim Ellis stated that they intend to continue operating Terran 1 in its own right even once Terran R is operational.

If it approaches anything around the ~$10M mark, the business case seems pretty limited.

$12 million: source

Around $10,000kg seems to be list price for this class LV.

[M.E.T.]

So what is Terran 1’s estimated price for 1250kg to LEO? That’s all that really matters to determine its business case.

This after Tim Ellis stated that they intend to continue operating Terran 1 in its own right even once Terran R is operational.

If it approaches anything around the ~$10M mark, the business case seems pretty limited.

$12 million: source

Around $10,000kg seems to be list price for this class LV.

To be clear, as with Rocketlab, I’m not saying there isn’t a niche market for launches in this category, but I am saying that this niche is too small to present a viable long term business case. So until Terran R is flying in at least partially reusable format (5 years from now?), Relativity is not likely to have a profitable launch business.

[Robotbeat]

I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.

[M.E.T.]

I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.

Of course. As will RL with Neutron. As will SpaceX with Starship. They all would love to have their next generation rockets flying reusably as soon as possible. If wishes were wings and so on…

Edit

To clarify, here I mean partial reusability as reflying a booster, rather than merely recovering it.

[Robotbeat]

I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.

Of course. As will RL with Neutron. As will SpaceX with Starship. They all would love to have their next generation rockets flying reusably as soon as possible. If wishes were wings and so on…

Edit

To clarify, here I mean partial reusability as reflying a booster, rather than merely recovering it.

If they don’t recover and reuse a booster two years after first successful orbital launch, I’ll be a little surprised. They are using a similar approach to Falcon 9 and have hired some people who’ve worked on F9.

[M.E.T.]

I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.

Of course. As will RL with Neutron. As will SpaceX with Starship. They all would love to have their next generation rockets flying reusably as soon as possible. If wishes were wings and so on…

Edit

To clarify, here I mean partial reusability as reflying a booster, rather than merely recovering it.

If they don’t recover and reuse a booster two years after first successful orbital launch, I’ll be a little surprised. They are using a similar approach to Falcon 9 and have hired some people who’ve worked on F9.

Sure, that’s reasonable. Which brings us back to a roughly 5 year timeframe for Terran R partial reusability. Give or take a year.

Edit

Unless you meant 2 years after first Terran 1 orbital launch. In which case I definitely disagree. 2 years after first Terran R successful orbital launch I agree is reasonable.

[edzieba]

I think Relativity will be trying to launch Terran-R in reusable form very early on.

Of course. As will RL with Neutron. As will SpaceX with Starship. They all would love to have their next generation rockets flying reusably as soon as possible. If wishes were wings and so on…

Edit

To clarify, here I mean partial reusability as reflying a booster, rather than merely recovering it.

If they don’t recover and reuse a booster two years after first successful orbital launch, I’ll be a little surprised. They are using a similar approach to Falcon 9 and have hired some people who’ve worked on F9.

Sure, that’s reasonable. Which brings us back to a roughly 5 year timeframe for Terran R partial reusability. Give or take a year.

Edit

Unless you meant 2 years after first Terran 1 orbital launch. In which case I definitely disagree. 2 years after first Terran R successful orbital launch I agree is reasonable.

I'd expect a much tighter timescale than with F9 re-use development. F9 was a pathfinder, finding a bunch of unknown-unknowns. This is no longer the case, and there is no need to duplicate a lot of work just to re-find known failure states. Relativity may not solve the problems in the same way, but they know the majority of the problems they need to solve already rather than having to find them as they go.

[heavylift]

This hasn't aged well, has it?

I doubt Relativity has a much lower part count, if at all, than other similar launchers. The actual number of unique parts that go into the tanks are relatively low, and they're not building engines any differently than anyone else, bound to be a similar count of parts for those.

To compare their build times of "2 months" to the alternative of "24 months" is a bit too cheeky, too. Sure, if you're comparing against the build of a Saturn V, 5-6 decades ago, this might be true (I'm not actually sure what the production cadence was) but their modern day competitors are going to be churning out vehicles at the same rate as them; not to mention, having to compare your production with that of a rocket from 50 years ago with >100x the performance just to make a favorable comparison... the criticism just writes itself.

Years later, is anybody buying the 3D printing gimmick? If you asked me what the simplest, most tried-and-true, straightforward part of a rocket design was I'd tell you: tanks. What's the hardest? Propulsion, maybe avionics, depending on how you do it. Neither of which are things they are doing any differently than anybody else.

Just sounds like a great way to build the heaviest, worst mass fraction vehicle you can while spinning an optimistic story about the future of manufacturing.

[TrevorMonty]

When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.   

They aren't doing anything different than competition with engine construction.

[edzieba]

When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.

It's not so simple. Flight rate determines how many launches the initial construction cost can be spread across, as well as how many launches fixed costs are spread across. e.g. build one core and fly it 10 times per year for 10 years, build 10 cores and fly them each one a year for 10 years, and build 10 cores per year and fly each one, all spread the various fixed and variable costs differently. They also have different risks (if you only have 1 core, if it experiences a failure you have no business at all), and different personnel skillset and facility needs over time (if you build 10 cores in one year and 0 cores for 9 years, do you pay your engineers to do nothing for 9 years, or let everyone go  and then rehire 9 years down the line?). And if 5 years in you find your vehicles are obsolete - or just a bad fit to the market and unprofitable - are you able to afford to produce new vehicles and take the loss of your existing ones having effectively doubled in manufacturing cost per vehicle at point of retirement (because they only flew half their design lifespan)?

[TrevorMonty]

When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.

It's not so simple. Flight rate determines how many launches the initial construction cost can be spread across, as well as how many launches fixed costs are spread across. e.g. build one core and fly it 10 times per year for 10 years, build 10 cores and fly them each one a year for 10 years, and build 10 cores per year and fly each one, all spread the various fixed and variable costs differently. They also have different risks (if you only have 1 core, if it experiences a failure you have no business at all), and different personnel skillset and facility needs over time (if you build 10 cores in one year and 0 cores for 9 years, do you pay your engineers to do nothing for 9 years, or let everyone go  and then rehire 9 years down the line?). And if 5 years in you find your vehicles are obsolete - or just a bad fit to the market and unprofitable - are you able to afford to produce new vehicles and take the loss of your existing ones having effectively doubled in manufacturing cost per vehicle at point of retirement (because they only flew half their design lifespan)?

With this class RLV I'd work off 10 flights minimum, which F9 has demonstrated repeatedly. If you aren't launching 10-20 times are year then business case for being launch industry isn't great. Retired boosters can be expended on high performance missions.

Relativity aren't going to be building their boosters that much cheaper than competition. A 20-25% build cost is going to matter that much over 10+ flights. Still need to recoup development costs which for Relativity is very high as they've spent lot of money developing their technology.
Firefly and RL are using off the shelf composite printing machines that can print lot faster. Google "continuous composites 3d printer" .

[heavylift]

When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.

It's not so simple. Flight rate determines how many launches the initial construction cost can be spread across, as well as how many launches fixed costs are spread across. e.g. build one core and fly it 10 times per year for 10 years, build 10 cores and fly them each one a year for 10 years, and build 10 cores per year and fly each one, all spread the various fixed and variable costs differently. They also have different risks (if you only have 1 core, if it experiences a failure you have no business at all), and different personnel skillset and facility needs over time (if you build 10 cores in one year and 0 cores for 9 years, do you pay your engineers to do nothing for 9 years, or let everyone go  and then rehire 9 years down the line?). And if 5 years in you find your vehicles are obsolete - or just a bad fit to the market and unprofitable - are you able to afford to produce new vehicles and take the loss of your existing ones having effectively doubled in manufacturing cost per vehicle at point of retirement (because they only flew half their design lifespan)?

This only makes Relativity's story worse. At least for Terran-1, without re-use, it's all in one vehicle. There's no amortization across many flights to be had.

Now, ignoring that (that there are no savings across multiple flights), you are now actually amortizing the enormous development cost of tank 3D printers across every flight you fly, for no good reason at all (since 3D printing the easiest part of a rocket for a development cost of tens to hundreds of millions is a ridiculous choice). So now, you just have a rocket with the same performance as all other rockets in the industry, with the same production speed (this is a guess, it could end up being even worse, ironically enough), and more or less the same market price. Factor in amortized development, and the overzealous size of company needed to drive that development and build (at ~1k personnel, Relativity is the largest of the 1t launcher companies) and you've created the most expensive, least economically feasible vehicle there is for the level of performance.