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.
Electron is too small.
Rutherford may not be.
If you can mass produce Rutherford cheaply enough, and ignore the fact that you have a completely ridiculous number of engines, you can make a F9 class launcher with F9 class payloads.
A modest proposal I posted in another thread.
Yes, it looks bloody silly and has three hundred rutherfords on the first stage.
But the payload penalty may be under ten percent - arguably much less.
It is also a much more flexible engine in principle, as the only thing you need to change for different fuels is the injector. And if you can do liquid oxygen and kerosene, your pumps can likely pump adequately any bipropellant rocket propellant other than liquid hydrogen with little or no change.
It also in principle would allow for a very, very, very fast incremental development if you are happy with your vehicle launching with 10% dead engines.
This would be a very odd thing for LM to do. It is very much not a 'big aerospace' approach and does not look like a conventional rocket.
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?
Until the act/order that forced the creation of ULA is rescinded.