-
Reddit Rumor: LM might be acquiring RL.
by
ringsider
on 19 Sep, 2018 05:31
-
-
#1
by
CameronD
on 19 Sep, 2018 06:35
-
-
#2
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 19 Sep, 2018 08:12
-
From RocketLab's website:
"Rocket Lab is a private company, with major investors including Khosla Ventures, Bessemer Venture Partners, DCVC (Data Collective), Promus Ventures, Lockheed Martin and K1W1."
Well, if Peter doesn't have more than 50% share of the company, its pretty much out of his control. If Lockheed Martin makes a good offer to the other investors, they'll probably take the exit so that they get a nice profit from their investment.
-
#3
by
TrevorMonty
on 19 Sep, 2018 08:52
-
While I'd like to see it stay in NZ unfortunate it's typical of lot of high tech NZ companies, they get bought out and moved off shore. Probably keep launch site but can see NZ branch shrinking in size and moving to US.
-
#4
by
woods170
on 19 Sep, 2018 11:45
-
While I'd like to see it stay in NZ unfortunate it's typical of lot of high tech NZ companies, they get bought out and moved off shore. Probably keep launch site but can see NZ branch shrinking in size and moving to US.
Ahem:
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/frequently-asked-questions/Rocket Lab is an American aerospace manufacturer with a wholly owned New Zealand subsidiary.
In other words: Rocket Lab already is a US company. They just happen to launch out of Nova Zeelandia.
-
#5
by
QuantumG
on 19 Sep, 2018 21:25
-
They just happen to launch out of Nova Zeelandia.
Or at least... say they do
-
#6
by
ChrisWilson68
on 19 Sep, 2018 21:40
-
It's a shame. Lockheed Martin is likely to run it into the ground.
I already thought it would be tough for any launch provider to compete as a small launch vehicle against large launch vehicles or as an expendable versus reusable launch vehicles. But with Lockheed Martin as owner, the chances would get a lot smaller.
-
#7
by
Star One
on 19 Sep, 2018 21:49
-
It's a shame. Lockheed Martin is likely to run it into the ground.
I already thought it would be tough for any launch provider to compete as a small launch vehicle against large launch vehicles or as an expendable versus reusable launch vehicles. But with Lockheed Martin as owner, the chances would get a lot smaller.
I already thought it was a LM company as whenever it’s referred to over here in the UK press it’s in terms of a LM company not something independent.
-
#8
by
brickmack
on 19 Sep, 2018 21:49
-
Presumably the only reason Lockheed invested in this at all is they want the technology for their own uses. It wouldn't make sense to throw money at it and then just bury it immediately after it finds success
-
#9
by
ncb1397
on 19 Sep, 2018 22:06
-
It's a shame. Lockheed Martin is likely to run it into the ground.
I already thought it would be tough for any launch provider to compete as a small launch vehicle against large launch vehicles or as an expendable versus reusable launch vehicles. But with Lockheed Martin as owner, the chances would get a lot smaller.
Maybe they are close to going bankrupt. Don't have a $2 billion contract from NASA. So, it is a choice between going bankrupt(i.e. running into the ground) or finding a source of the kinds of funds this enterprise requires. Lockheed Martin has earnings of ~$4 billion per year.
-
#10
by
russianhalo117
on 19 Sep, 2018 22:08
-
It's a shame. Lockheed Martin is likely to run it into the ground.
I already thought it would be tough for any launch provider to compete as a small launch vehicle against large launch vehicles or as an expendable versus reusable launch vehicles. But with Lockheed Martin as owner, the chances would get a lot smaller.
Well they would not be NGIS propulsion dependent like the Athena family. OSC and ATK merging put the nails in the Athena coffin. I dont think that LM would run it in to the ground.also they don't have LMCLS anymore. If RL was acquired by LM would the launcher end up under ULA or would it remain separate.
-
#11
by
ChrisWilson68
on 19 Sep, 2018 22:21
-
Presumably the only reason Lockheed invested in this at all is they want the technology for their own uses. It wouldn't make sense to throw money at it and then just bury it immediately after it finds success
I'm not saying that they'll purposely run it into the ground.
What I mean is that big companies often aren't successful when they try to run start-ups. It happens all the time. LM in particular, seems to me to have a culture that is very far away from the start-up mindset needed to run a start-up launcher company.
-
#12
by
ChrisWilson68
on 19 Sep, 2018 22:24
-
It's a shame. Lockheed Martin is likely to run it into the ground.
I already thought it would be tough for any launch provider to compete as a small launch vehicle against large launch vehicles or as an expendable versus reusable launch vehicles. But with Lockheed Martin as owner, the chances would get a lot smaller.
Well they would not be NGIS propulsion dependent like the Athena family. OSC and ATK merging put the nails in the Athena coffin. I dont think that LM would run it in to the ground.also they don't have LMCLS anymore. If RL was acquired by LM would the launcher end up under ULA or would it remain separate.
ULA is co-owned with Boeing. If they intended for it to end up under ULA, then they'd need Boeing to also want to make that move, and then they'd have ULA, not LM, buy it.
I think LM wants to own this company.
Big companies often see start-ups innovating in markets related to their own and want to be a part of it. Buying one or more of the start-ups is cheap for the big companies, so they often do it. But they usually have a hard time either integrating the new company into the bigger company or running it as a separate business.
-
#13
by
ncb1397
on 19 Sep, 2018 22:29
-
But they usually have a hard time either integrating the new company into the bigger company or running it as a separate business.
Most new companies fail within 5 years. So, the root cause for failure after acquisition and failure with no acquisition could be the same. You haven't demonstrated that failure is more or less likely in either case, only stating that it is "often" the case when an acquisition occurs. But a similar result is often the case when no acquisition occurs.
Anyways, Rocket Lab is screwed if they don't do something. They launched like 3 cubesats in their entire history. That isn't going to pay the bills for long. One Web went to Virgin Orbit. Starlink isn't contracting out...umm...NASA doesn't have a conveniently timed billion dollar contract.
-
#14
by
Kansan52
on 19 Sep, 2018 22:53
-
LM sees a growing market for a small launcher. LM doesn't build a small launcher. LM buys a small launcher company. Seems good for both RL and LM.
-
#15
by
gongora
on 19 Sep, 2018 22:59
-
Anyways, Rocket Lab is screwed if they don't do something. They launched like 3 cubesats in their entire history. That isn't going to pay the bills for long. One Web went to Virgin Orbit. Starlink isn't contracting out...umm...NASA doesn't have a conveniently timed billion dollar contract.
This is just nonsense. Rocket Lab has more flights upcoming. Electron is too small for OneWeb or StarLink (and Virgin invested in OneWeb). NASA isn't giving out billion dollar contracts to anyone for small launchers. Small launcher businesses have a chance to survive if they can keep their costs under control.
-
#16
by
ncb1397
on 19 Sep, 2018 23:13
-
Anyways, Rocket Lab is screwed if they don't do something. They launched like 3 cubesats in their entire history. That isn't going to pay the bills for long. One Web went to Virgin Orbit. Starlink isn't contracting out...umm...NASA doesn't have a conveniently timed billion dollar contract.
This is just nonsense. Rocket Lab has more flights upcoming. Electron is too small for OneWeb or StarLink (and Virgin invested in OneWeb). NASA isn't giving out billion dollar contracts to anyone for small launchers. Small launcher businesses have a chance to survive if they can keep their costs under control.
They apparently did have billion dollar contracts for small launcher companies.
NASA today announced its selection of the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft for the International Space Station (ISS) Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) contract award. The contract is for a guaranteed minimum of 20,000 kg to be carried to the International Space Station. The firm contracted value is $1.6 billion and NASA may elect to order additional missions for a cumulative total contract value of up to $3.1 billion.
https://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/nasa-selects-spacexs-falcon-9-booster-and-dragon-spacecraft-cargo-resupplyNASA isn't giving out billion dollar contracts to anyone for small launchers.
Yeah, exactly. Kind of what I said just worded differently.
Small launcher businesses have a chance to survive if they can keep their costs under control.
Sure, they have a chance, but how big is that chance is the $40,000 question. The only data point where we have enough insight is with where SpaceX was in 2008 before CRS (i.e. basically bankrupt). Sure, Rocket Lab is in a slightly better circumstance in that they have already reached orbit and did so with far less failures, but the way Elon Musk tells it, reaching orbit was necessary but not sufficient to save the company.
Electron is too small for OneWeb or StarLink (and Virgin invested in OneWeb).
Wikipedia says Electron is 150 - 225 kg to 500 km SSO. One Web satellites are reportedly 175-200 kg . I've also seen 145 kg. Even if Electron couldn't do it, 40-80 launches would justify a modified stretched version. And your data point where Rocket Lab's launch business is being disadvantaged vs competitors because they don't have cash flush corporate parents like Virgin Orbit does doesn't speak volumes about the soundness of the position that Rocket Lab currently finds itself in.
-
#17
by
ChrisWilson68
on 20 Sep, 2018 00:56
-
Anyways, Rocket Lab is screwed if they don't do something. They launched like 3 cubesats in their entire history. That isn't going to pay the bills for long. One Web went to Virgin Orbit. Starlink isn't contracting out...umm...NASA doesn't have a conveniently timed billion dollar contract.
This is just nonsense. Rocket Lab has more flights upcoming. Electron is too small for OneWeb or StarLink (and Virgin invested in OneWeb). NASA isn't giving out billion dollar contracts to anyone for small launchers.
I think calling that post nonsense is not justified. Whether you agree with it or not, it's expressing an opinion and giving some facts that tend to back it up.
Exactly one small launch start-up has made it big. That small launch start-up that succeeded had certain factors in the market going for it. Pointing out that Rocket Lab doesn't have those factors going for it seems reasonable to me.
It doesn't prove that Rocket Lab will fail. But it suggests RL will have a hard time.
Small launcher businesses have a chance to survive if they can keep their costs under control.
Keeping costs under control isn't enough. There has to be enough business. Lower costs reduce how much business they need, but they still need some business.
RL's manifest isn't currently enough to keep it in business for long, even if they keep costs as low as practical.
-
#18
by
niwax
on 20 Sep, 2018 10:19
-
LM sees a growing market for a small launcher. LM doesn't build a small launcher. LM buys a small launcher company. Seems good for both RL and LM.
And LM would have launch capabilities outside of ULA. Are they under any obligation to keep funding ULA?
-
#19
by
ringsider
on 20 Sep, 2018 10:39
-
Maybe they are close to going bankrupt.
They raised another $75m just over a year ago. Even Jimmy Cantrell can't spend it that fast.
