Relativity Space: General Thread

[TrevorMonty]

Relativity has large cash reserves for now. Probably burning through it at fair rate, especially with Terran R development. No revenue as of present that I know of.

[ParabolicSnark]

Relativity has large cash reserves for now. Probably burning through it at fair rate, especially with Terran R development. No revenue as of present that I know of.

Last I heard, the company has about 1,200 people on staff. I compiled their funding round and employee ramp rate (citations needed) on a simple $150/hour rate for comp and overhead. Even with their extensive funding in 2020 and 2021, they should be looking for more money very soon. Of course, this doesn't cover the 1MM sqft facility in Long Beach, the new facilities at Stennis, and of course the vehicle hardware itself.

[DanClemmensen]

We joke a lot about "Elon time." Are there reasons to believe that "Relativity time" will be more accurate? I guess one reason is that Relativity has looked at SpaceX' history and learned from it, but comparing Relativity's schedule to SpaceX makes me doubtful. From a project standpoint, if Terran 1 is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 1, and Terran R is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 9, then numbers don't match up, so there must be some secret sauce in there for Relativity.

SpaceX launched F1 in March 2006. They launched F9 in June 2010, and they achieved the first F9 booster landing in October 2015. Terran 1 will (we all hope) launch successfully today, March 2023. If they can go as fast as SpaceX, we would expect to see Terran R launch in June 2027 and first recovery in October 2031, but they seem to be aiming for actual Terran R launch in 2024 and operations to start in 2025.

[AllenB]

Earlier in today's launch attempt, Relativity had to hold for quite a while due to "propellant conditioning" issues. Do we have any insight into what that could mean? It would seem to make sense in reference to subcooled propellants, but to my knowledge that is not the case here. With gasses at their boiling point wouldn't the only question be how full is each tank?

Clearly missing something here but not sure what it is. Thanks!

[whitelancer64]

Earlier in today's launch attempt, Relativity had to hold for quite a while due to "propellant conditioning" issues. Do we have any insight into what that could mean? It would seem to make sense in reference to subcooled propellants, but to my knowledge that is not the case here. With gasses at their boiling point wouldn't the only question be how full is each tank?

Clearly missing something here but not sure what it is. Thanks!

Most likely, the liquid oxygen was too cold. So they hold the countdown to let it warm up while still in the rocket's tanks.

[DeimosDream]

We joke a lot about "Elon time." Are there reasons to believe that "Relativity time" will be more accurate? I guess one reason is that Relativity has looked at SpaceX' history and learned from it, but comparing Relativity's schedule to SpaceX makes me doubtful. From a project standpoint, if Terran 1 is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 1, and Terran R is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 9, then numbers don't match up, so there must be some secret sauce in there for Relativity.

SpaceX launched F1 in March 2006. They launched F9 in June 2010, and they achieved the first F9 booster landing in October 2015. Terran 1 will (we all hope) launch successfully today, March 2023. If they can go as fast as SpaceX, we would expect to see Terran R launch in June 2027 and first recovery in October 2031, but they seem to be aiming for actual Terran R launch in 2024 and operations to start in 2025.

Falcon 9 was announced just one year before F1's launch (2005 vs 2006). Relativity announced Terran-R -two- years before Terran-1's launch which will save them a year. 
Add in 3D printing magic to save another year off retooling and 2025 isn't unrealistic. 2024 as announced... we'll see.

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?

[brussell]

Relativity has large cash reserves for now. Probably burning through it at fair rate, especially with Terran R development. No revenue as of present that I know of.

Last I heard, the company has about 1,200 people on staff. I compiled their funding round and employee ramp rate (citations needed) on a simple $150/hour rate for comp and overhead. Even with their extensive funding in 2020 and 2021, they should be looking for more money very soon. Of course, this doesn't cover the 1MM sqft facility in Long Beach, the new facilities at Stennis, and of course the vehicle hardware itself.

Is it really that high, ~300k/employee? I've always used $200k but maybe I ought to update those numbers. Still, it shouldn't be far off. This is a great chart and very eye opening.

(edit to add: Having seen how the sausage gets made, I can believe they are scrambling to push this one off the pad to go on another funding round)

[whitelancer64]

We joke a lot about "Elon time." Are there reasons to believe that "Relativity time" will be more accurate? I guess one reason is that Relativity has looked at SpaceX' history and learned from it, but comparing Relativity's schedule to SpaceX makes me doubtful. From a project standpoint, if Terran 1 is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 1, and Terran R is (very roughly) equivalent to Falcon 9, then numbers don't match up, so there must be some secret sauce in there for Relativity.

SpaceX launched F1 in March 2006. They launched F9 in June 2010, and they achieved the first F9 booster landing in October 2015. Terran 1 will (we all hope) launch successfully today, March 2023. If they can go as fast as SpaceX, we would expect to see Terran R launch in June 2027 and first recovery in October 2031, but they seem to be aiming for actual Terran R launch in 2024 and operations to start in 2025.

Falcon 9 was announced just one year before F1's launch (2005 vs 2006). Relativity announced Terran-R -two- years before Terran-1's launch which will save them a year. 
Add in 3D printing magic to save another year off retooling and 2025 isn't unrealistic. 2024 as announced... we'll see.

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?

Falcon 9's first attempt at recovery of a first stage was on January 10, 2015, during the CRS-5 launch the grid fins successfully targeted the ASDS but with a hard impact.

The first successful landing was on December 22, 2015, during the Orbcomm OG2 launch. This was after a six month hold on launches after CRS-7 failed in flight. There was only one launch with an attempted recovery (during CRS-6) between the two.

[brussell]

They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle.

None of those companies are close to making any money either, most are in a similar throwing-cash-into-a-pit situation to Relativity. You missed VO, who are at that stage and from public information have no more than a couple months, absent some miracle, before going defunct.

 A 'resilient' company is one that has a workable base for the future, not just one that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.

Is Rocketlab also burning money? I thought they were at least breaking even but I haven't really followed too closely.

[trimeta]

They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle.

None of those companies are close to making any money either, most are in a similar throwing-cash-into-a-pit situation to Relativity. You missed VO, who are at that stage and from public information have no more than a couple months, absent some miracle, before going defunct.

 A 'resilient' company is one that has a workable base for the future, not just one that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.

Is Rocketlab also burning money? I thought they were at least breaking even but I haven't really followed too closely.

From their 2022Q4 earnings report, they had a $14.5M EBITDA loss in the fourth quarter, with $472M in cash and marketable securities on hand. Which isn't necessarily "burning money," but their projections for 2023Q1 include an EBITDA loss of $28-30M, so it may accelerate a bit.

[TrevorMonty]

They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle.

None of those companies are close to making any money either, most are in a similar throwing-cash-into-a-pit situation to Relativity. You missed VO, who are at that stage and from public information have no more than a couple months, absent some miracle, before going defunct.

 A 'resilient' company is one that has a workable base for the future, not just one that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.

Is Rocketlab also burning money? I thought they were at least breaking even but I haven't really followed too closely.

From their 2022Q4 earnings report, they had a $14.5M EBITDA loss in the fourth quarter, with $472M in cash and marketable securities on hand. Which isn't necessarily "burning money," but their projections for 2023Q1 include an EBITDA loss of $28-30M, so it may accelerate a bit.

Revenues are climbing, not enough to cover Neutron R&D spend but should help stretch out cash reserves.

While Relativity has plenty of cash reserves they really do need Terran 1 to start paying its way. There is potential to make some money from their 3D printing technology but not heard if they are.

[trimeta]

While Relativity has plenty of cash reserves they really do need Terran 1 to start paying its way. There is potential to make some money from their 3D printing technology but not heard if they are.

For reference, both Rocket Lab and Virgin Orbit took around eight months from their first (failed) launch attempts to their second (successful) attempts, and the time delta for Astra and Firefly was over a year (if we discount all the other failed launches between the first attempt and the first success, in Astra's case). If Terran 1's first launch isn't successful (which even Relativity is trying to set expectations to), it'll at most launch one more time in 2023, and that may or may not be a commercial launch. Plus with Relativity already talking about how Terran 1 is just a testbed for Terran R, I'm almost wondering whether it will fly any commercial launches before it's cancelled.

[DanClemmensen]

While Relativity has plenty of cash reserves they really do need Terran 1 to start paying its way. There is potential to make some money from their 3D printing technology but not heard if they are.

For reference, both Rocket Lab and Virgin Orbit took around eight months from their first (failed) launch attempts to their second (successful) attempts, and the time delta for Astra and Firefly was over a year (if we discount all the other failed launches between the first attempt and the first success, in Astra's case). If Terran 1's first launch isn't successful (which even Relativity is trying to set expectations to), it'll at most launch one more time in 2023, and that may or may not be a commercial launch. Plus with Relativity already talking about how Terran 1 is just a testbed for Terran R, I'm almost wondering whether it will fly any commercial launches before it's cancelled.

For further reference, the first three Falcon 1 launches failed. It was 2.5 years form the first try until the first successful launch.

[Kryten]

They also have a flight vehicle sitting on the pad, and have been selling launch contracts for it in additional to contracts for Terran R. Companies they have built actual vehicles have proven to be pretty resilient despite sentiment to the contrary: Rocketlab continue to operate despite the purported dead-ness of the small launch market, Firefly have weathered 2 total funding failures, and even Astra is continuing to operate despite retiring their only launch vehicle.

None of those companies are close to making any money either, most are in a similar throwing-cash-into-a-pit situation to Relativity. You missed VO, who are at that stage and from public information have no more than a couple months, absent some miracle, before going defunct.

 A 'resilient' company is one that has a workable base for the future, not just one that hasn't gone bankrupt yet.

Is Rocketlab also burning money? I thought they were at least breaking even but I haven't really followed too closely.

They're the one I count as not just throwing cash into a deep pit, though they're still not making money. Last time they split out losses from launch services they still lost some money per launch: last earnings report they didn't include that, so I suspect they still are.

[edzieba]

Relativity has large cash reserves for now. Probably burning through it at fair rate, especially with Terran R development. No revenue as of present that I know of.

Last I heard, the company has about 1,200 people on staff. I compiled their funding round and employee ramp rate (citations needed) on a simple $150/hour rate for comp and overhead. Even with their extensive funding in 2020 and 2021, they should be looking for more money very soon. Of course, this doesn't cover the 1MM sqft facility in Long Beach, the new facilities at Stennis, and of course the vehicle hardware itself.

That does assume they will receive absolutely no further revenue or investment, which has not been the case thus far. Even SpaceX performed a funding round within the last quarter, and have been doing so regularly (IIRC to the tune of around $10bn invested thus far). This is no surprise, that's just the way many businesses operate.

[trimeta]

They're the one I count as not just throwing cash into a deep pit, though they're still not making money. Last time they split out losses from launch services they still lost some money per launch: last earnings report they didn't include that, so I suspect they still are.

I think during the Q3 report, they said they'd make money on launch if they had three full-price launches in a given quarter. That certainly wasn't the case in Q4, and isn't going to be the case in Q1 either (since their first launch from Wallops wasn't full-price). So pretty clear they've yet to have a quarter where launch was net profitable.

[DanClemmensen]

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?

I'm fairly sure SpaceX had the same optimistic expectations for F9 v1.0 that Relativity has for the first Terran R. Are you saying that SpaceX' experience with F9 somehow increases Relativity's  chance of success with the first Terran R?

I suspect (without any inside insight) that the fully-reusable Terran R will be a bigger challenge than the partially-reusable F9. I think that without additional data points, the best guess is that Relativity will need about the same 3 years to get from their v1.0 to their first mature version. I hope I'm wrong, because I would like to see them succeed.

[TrevorMonty]

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?

I'm fairly sure SpaceX had the same optimistic expectations for F9 v1.0 that Relativity has for the first Terran R. Are you saying that SpaceX' experience with F9 somehow increases Relativity's  chance of success with the first Terran R?

I suspect (without any inside insight) that the fully-reusable Terran R will be a bigger challenge than the partially-reusable F9. I think that without additional data points, the best guess is that Relativity will need about the same 3 years to get from their v1.0 to their first mature version. I hope I'm wrong, because I would like to see them succeed.

Will Terran R be flown with reuseable US from its first flight?.

[RDMM2081]

Also SpaceX did all the hard work learning what doesn't work with F9 v1.0. If Terran-R skips directly to v1.1 that will save them another 3-years. So 1st-stage recovery 2027?

I'm fairly sure SpaceX had the same optimistic expectations for F9 v1.0 that Relativity has for the first Terran R. Are you saying that SpaceX' experience with F9 somehow increases Relativity's  chance of success with the first Terran R?

I suspect (without any inside insight) that the fully-reusable Terran R will be a bigger challenge than the partially-reusable F9. I think that without additional data points, the best guess is that Relativity will need about the same 3 years to get from their v1.0 to their first mature version. I hope I'm wrong, because I would like to see them succeed.

Isn't the logical progression for Terran R though to start with booster reuse first, exactly like F9?  They can then proceed to reap those benefits against the rest of the non-reusable market (RocketLab, ULA) while they continue the SpaceX progression of working on second stage full reuse on paid customer launches, all while doing it on "someone elses lunch" due to the booster reuse.

I think it is much more likely that Relativity succeeds with booster recovery and reuse in their first handful of launches than SpaceX was able to achieve, exactly because SpaceX has already achieved it, proved it is possible, profitable, and that they have demonstrated both methods which do and do not work as well as shared details about recovery and reuse which a smart business would carefully examine and implement relevant features early in the development cycle.  I also have to say that I think RocketLab's Neutron is much more likely to succeed in its initial recovery efforts for the same reasons.

[DanClemmensen]

Will Terran R be flown with reuseable US from its first flight?.

I have no idea. The usual difference is that an expendable second stage is designed to minimize cost and mass, while a reusable second stage is designed for EDL, so two different designs. But Relativity needs to test their reusable design. My completely uninformed guess: they will not do a separate expendable design, but will produce and fly the reusable design from the very first flight, even if they do not attempt to actually land it.