Relativity Space: General Thread

[TrevorMonty]

Moderator:
Remember to delete the Tapatalk tag when you post. Thanks.

I've disable the signature in past on Tapatalk but can't remember how.

[joek]

ULA, OATK, others. That’s about what they need for cash flow breakeven.
...

No. Granted there is a high degree of variance, but your statements fly in the face of facts. Facts please; "about what they need for cash flow positive" is at best a generic punt. You can do better, and you should do better.

[Robotbeat]

ULA, OATK, others. That’s about what they need for cash flow breakeven.
...

No. Granted there is a high degree of variance, but your statements fly in the face of facts. Facts please; "about what they need for cash flow positive" is at best a generic punt. You can do better, and you should do better.

What "facts" does it "fly in the face of"? Provide better estimates.

We're doing order of magnitude estimates, here. These are reasonable estimates. High variance is just a fact of this kind of estimation, and it's fine. [deleted]

[M.E.T.]

Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.

[Robotbeat]

Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.

This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.

[zubenelgenubi]

Are all of these five remaining Terran-1 launches canceled?

If so, what is the fate of the payloads?

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
NET June - VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: cubesat (x3) - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

October - "Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

TBD - TriSept launch - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16 / Vandenberg SLC-7

TBD - Iridium-NEXT 182 - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

Rideshare:
TBD - Spaceflight mission - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
Civil discussion is fundamental. ⚠️

Perhaps there is not enough sufficiently accurate information externally to draw conclusive conclusions?

[trimeta]

Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.

This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.

They could be hoping that the markets improve in a year or two and make it possible to secure additional investment funds. Although realistically, an earlier launch date would probably have helped encourage outside investment, so pushing the initial launch out to 2026 does show some amount of confidence that they won't need it.

[Zed_Noir]

Are all of these five remaining Terran-1 launches canceled?

If so, what is the fate of the payloads?

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
NET June - VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: cubesat (x3) - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

October - "Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

TBD - TriSept launch - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16 / Vandenberg SLC-7

TBD - Iridium-NEXT 182 - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

Rideshare:
TBD - Spaceflight mission - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

The payloads will likely transfer over to a SpaceX Transporter ride. Since the only real alternative is the RocketLab Electron that doesn't seem to have much excess launch capacity.

[trimeta]

Are all of these five remaining Terran-1 launches canceled?

If so, what is the fate of the payloads?

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
NET June - VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: cubesat (x3) - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

October - "Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

TBD - TriSept launch - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16 / Vandenberg SLC-7

TBD - Iridium-NEXT 182 - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

Rideshare:
TBD - Spaceflight mission - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

The payloads will likely transfer over to a SpaceX Transporter ride. Since the only real alternative is the RocketLab Electron that doesn't seem to have much excess launch capacity.

Peter Beck has talked frequently about how the limiting factor on his launch cadence is customer/payload readiness, so if we take him at his word then Rocket Lab does have excess launch capacity. However, only some of these payloads would fit on Electron. And others, like VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42, were basically "you're a fledgling launch provider so we want to give you an easy contract to get things going" contracts; NASA would probably just provision those cubesats on Transporter or Cargo Dragon (to be deployed from the ISS) if they're not going to be on a new provider.

Edit: Going through them one by one:

VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: A demo mission from NASA, won't be remanifested as a whole because the point was to demonstrate a new provider; they'll just fly these cubesats along with something else

"Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin: Probably too heavy for Electron; notably, since this is likely related to Lockheed Martin's refueling vehicle as part of Blue Moon, I could see this going on a rideshare with New Glenn's ESCAPADE launch (we always knew that launch had lots of excess capacity)

TriSept launch: They're a rideshare aggregator, and so could easily go on Transporter (especially if they were planning on aggregating more payloads than would fit on Electron)

Iridium-NEXT 182: One source I found lists the Iridium NEXT satellites as weighing 860kg, which is well over Electron's limit (and probably Firefly Alpha's, too); I guess ABL will have a customer

Spaceflight mission: Same as TriSept

[zubenelgenubi]

"Cryogenic Fluid Management Demonstration"

"Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin: Probably too heavy for Electron; notably, since this is likely related to Lockheed Martin's refueling vehicle as part of Blue Moon, I could see this going on a rideshare with New Glenn's ESCAPADE launch (we always knew that launch had lots of excess capacity).

Iridium-NEXT
860 kg

Iridium-NEXT 182: One source I found lists the Iridium NEXT satellites as weighing 860kg, which is well over Electron's limit (and probably Firefly Alpha's, too); I guess ABL will have a customer.

[lightleviathan]

"Cryogenic Fluid Management Demonstration"

"Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin: Probably too heavy for Electron; notably, since this is likely related to Lockheed Martin's refueling vehicle as part of Blue Moon, I could see this going on a rideshare with New Glenn's ESCAPADE launch (we always knew that launch had lots of excess capacity).

IIRC Lockheed already has some contracts with ABL, so that would make a lot of sense

[Lampyridae]

Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.

This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.

They may also take a small amount of cash as a deposit in exchange for a discount* on early flights, so their revenue is not necessarily zero until 2026. A lot depends how they want to structure their finances. They may choose not to take any payments in order to secure a more valuable tax writeoff. et cetera

*eg they probably didn't do this for those 5 manifested flights because they planned not to go through with them

[the_big_boot]

Are all of these five remaining Terran-1 launches canceled?

If so, what is the fate of the payloads?

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
NET June - VCLS (VADR) Demo-2R/ELaNa 42: cubesat (x3) - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

October - "Tipping Point" payload for Lockheed Martin - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

TBD - TriSept launch - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16 / Vandenberg SLC-7

TBD - Iridium-NEXT 182 - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

Rideshare:
TBD - Spaceflight mission - Terran-1 - Canaveral SLC-16

well, the tipping point contract was actually moved to abl's rs-1 quite a long while ago

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/abl-space-selected-for-nasa-cryogenic-demonstration-mission-301378851.html

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Sept. 16, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- ABL Space Systems announced that is has been selected as the launch provider for the NASA Cryogenic Demonstration Mission. Developed under a NASA Tipping Point contract awarded in 2020, the Cryogenic Demonstration Mission will launch in 2023...

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2023
TBD - Cryogenic Fluid Management Demonstration - RS1 (ABL space system) - TBD

[edit zubenelgenubi]

[matthewkantar]

Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.

This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.

They may also take a small amount of cash as a deposit in exchange for a discount* on early flights, so their revenue is not necessarily zero until 2026. A lot depends how they want to structure their finances. They may choose not to take any payments in order to secure a more valuable tax writeoff. et cetera

*eg they probably didn't do this for those 5 manifested flights because they planned not to go through with them

Has the notion that Relativity planned to scrap the first rocket design after one launch become a tenet in a new religion? If true, they signed those contracts in bad faith, communicated the signings to stock holders in bad faith, etc

I think incompetence is the more likely explanation. If so, Relativity can learn from mistakes and move on. If they have been signing contracts as a dog and pony show, they are much worse off.

[edzieba]

Or they negotiated with those holding contracts to either exit the contracts or move them to the new vehicle, as happened with a certain other company that accelerated their transition from a small launch vehicle to a larger one.

Seems more likely than "bad faith" or "incompetence".

[matthewkantar]

Or they negotiated with those holding contracts to either exit the contracts or move them to the new vehicle, as happened with a certain other company that accelerated their transition from a small launch vehicle to a larger one.

Seems more likely than "bad faith" or "incompetence".

Or they were actually planning on successful launches?

[JEF_300]

Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.

This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.

They could be hoping that the markets improve in a year or two and make it possible to secure additional investment funds. Although realistically, an earlier launch date would probably have helped encourage outside investment, so pushing the initial launch out to 2026 does show some amount of confidence that they won't need it.

Oh, and here I was thinking that they set the launch date in 2026 because the idea that you can develop a brand new heavy-lift launch vehicle, with a brand new engine, in like 3 years, is entirely insane, while about 4 years is only very bold. Silly me, it was of course clearly just a financial and confidence-based decision!

I think you guys have gotten a bit too wrapped up in the finances and lost sight of the engineering.

EDIT: Sorry for the snark.

[Robotbeat]

Well, it comes down to zero revenue until 2026, and billions in cumulative cash outflow until then. And the hope that this all pays off once Terran R - an F9 class launcher - starts flying in the evolved competitive landscape three years from now.

This is true, but they have a plan to do this. They've crunched the numbers, given their cash on hand and burn rate, and they believe they can make this work.

If they weren't confident, I think they'd actually have picked an EARLIER date for first launch of Terran-R... because they'd have no choice. If their burn rate was higher or their cash on hand lower, they'd have been forced to pick a much earlier date to get Terran-R in their air, even if the odds of it succeeding would be lower.

They may also take a small amount of cash as a deposit in exchange for a discount* on early flights, so their revenue is not necessarily zero until 2026. A lot depends how they want to structure their finances. They may choose not to take any payments in order to secure a more valuable tax writeoff. et cetera

*eg they probably didn't do this for those 5 manifested flights because they planned not to go through with them

Has the notion that Relativity planned to scrap the first rocket design after one launch become a tenet in a new religion? If true, they signed those contracts in bad faith, communicated the signings to stock holders in bad faith, etc

…

No, of course not. They planned to use Terran-1 as a pathfinder for Terran-R. They were going to quickly replace the Aeon-1 engines with a single Aeon-R, which would be clustered for Terran-R.

But Terran-1 was never, since the announcement of Terran-R, supposed to be a big revenue source. They were and are big believers in reuse, and it’s fairly clear Terran-1 didn’t have a path to cost effective reuse. They likely expected that they could transition the payloads to reusable Terran-R flights, just like SpaceX transitioned the Falcon 1 payloads to Falcon 9 (think Orbcomm, etc) if necessary.

Not sure why the tone is so aggressive and negative here.

[trimeta]

Oh, and here I was thinking that they set the launch date in 2026 because the idea that you can develop a brand new heavy-lift launch vehicle, with a brand new engine, in like 3 years, is entirely insane, while about 4 years is only very bold. Silly me, it was of course clearly just a financial and confidence-based decision!

I think you guys have gotten a bit too wrapped up in the finances and lost sight of the engineering.

EDIT: Sorry for the snark.

Let's just say that the scheduled inaugural launch of Terran R moving two years later when Relativity announced that they were dropping Terran 1 to focus full-time on Terran R didn't give me great feelings on the extent to which their timelines are based 100% on engineering necessities and nothing else.

At the very least, at some point they thought they could do it by 2024, then after further analysis they concluded that actually, they couldn't do it until 2026. Which raises the question of whether they're any more accurate about their estimates this time.