FAILURE: Relativity Terran 1 Test Flight : CCSFS SLC-16 : 23 Mar 2023 03:25 UTC

[pippin]

I mean, everything has it's "firsts" when it's new.

While I tend to agree... the whole space scene is somehow guilty of that so I would not put too much into this.
Just watch any SpaceX starbase video... they are all full of "we are now watching the historic first lox tank pressurization" kind of stuff. It's so common that I'd say "historic" is now just a meaningless filler when mentioned in spaceflight context. So it should do not harm to Relativity just by itself

[whitelancer64]

Relativity must have someone on hand just to find "firsts" at this point.  They drive that point so hard and so constantly even when the "firsts" they are talking about really doesn't mean anything.  I mean, everything has it's "firsts" when it's new.

Their constant hammering of "firsts" and "historic" in every PR piece they release does not instill me with confidence of their long term survival.  It reminds me of fluff PR pieces.....no substance.  It's like they are screaming look at me over and over again.  I've never seen anything that does that ending well long term.

They managed to do something that not a lot of people thought they'd succeed at - 3D print most of a rocket, then fly it.

Some celebration is in order.

[eeergo]

Some celebration is understandable, but it's also true their fishing for attention is a bit cringy.

Kudos to them for not going full Virgin Orbit and claiming firsts that aren't true, taking care to qualify them against actual global feats which may not be so well-publicized "in the West".

Yet why go with things like the "first 2nd stage methane engine ignition attempt in the West", when that was a clear failure? Sure, the *attempt* was made, but ZQ-2 actually succeeded in it, plus in the whole 2nd stage flight profile, and beyond.

Celebrate the 3D-printed achievement (even if the important additively manufactured bits are actually now routinely fabricated by other companies too, and the value of 3D-printing what other LVs just derive from plain sheet metal alloy is, as many have pointed out, quite questionable), sure. Maybe even the whole "first methalox 'in space' in the West", even if a bit too drawn out for my liking. But going for limited-value firsts that actually went wrong is just unnecessary.

[Fmedici]

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1640475203145981953

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1640496978017804288

Terran 1, ad astra. #GLHF

📷 @johnkrausphotos

[2megs]

Some celebration is understandable, but it's also true their fishing for attention is a bit cringy.

We can debate all day whenever each of us personally finds it cringy.

What isn't up for debate is that Tim Ellis seems to be, by far, one of the most capable fundraisers of the current crop of launch startups. The way that he frames his message has an empirically-demonstrated track record of landing very well with the audience of investors that he needs. I don't get it, but I get that it's working for him.

Relativity has a big team, and the small launch market has been eaten by rideshare. Even if Terran 1 was launching on demand with perfect reliability, its operations wouldn't cover their payroll for the time it'll take to get Terran R to the pad. So he needs to keep doing exactly what he's been doing, which is to keep pitching the company to the people who can fund it, in the language they've been responding to.

[eeergo]

Some celebration is understandable, but it's also true their fishing for attention is a bit cringy.

We can debate all day whenever each of us personally finds it cringy.

What isn't up for debate is that Tim Ellis seems to be, by far, one of the most capable fundraisers of the current crop of launch startups. The way that he frames his message has an empirically-demonstrated track record of landing very well with the audience of investors that he needs. I don't get it, but I get that it's working for him.

Relativity has a big team, and the small launch market has been eaten by rideshare. Even if Terran 1 was launching on demand with perfect reliability, its operations wouldn't cover their payroll for the time it'll take to get Terran R to the pad. So he needs to keep doing exactly what he's been doing, which is to keep pitching the company to the people who can fund it, in the language they've been responding to.

Ok, my comment was from a fact-based point of view. Personally, I have an allergy to purely marketing-based reasoning, but I agree if that's the main driver Ellis' method might be, at least in the short term, commendable rather than cringy.

[abaddon]

I think it is both commendable and cringy.

Regardless, congratulation to the team for their successes and best wishes for a successful second flight.

[edzieba]

I'm rather surprised that so many see the excitement of a successful full-scale in-flight demonstration that proves their company's entire reason for existing - i.e. that a complete rocket body can be produced via direct metal deposition - is viable, is instead 'cringe'/'marketing'.
You know, rather than a bunch of engineers who have just shown that the idea they've spent the last near-decade working on works and are rightly rather happy about it.

[eeergo]

I'm rather surprised that so many see the excitement of a successful full-scale in-flight demonstration that proves their company's entire reason for existing - i.e. that a complete rocket body can be produced via direct metal deposition - is viable, is instead 'cringe'/'marketing'.
You know, rather than a bunch of engineers who have just shown that the idea they've spent the last near-decade working on works and are rightly rather happy about it.

Read the above comments again please, because that is *not* what they implied.

Marketing cringe is wrestling shiny, barely-reasonable "firsts" out of what is, by itself, as you indicate, a novel idea that bore its fruits after a drawn-out effort, while the jury is still out about its actual overall operative feasibility. What isn't cringy or marketing are the indisputable facts the viability of a 3D-printed aerospace-grade structure -which can be of economic/logical merit or not, but work it does nonetheless- and the reliable operation one of the first space-grade methalox engines, both facts combined into a working innovative first stage. No more, no less.

[trimeta]

I'm rather surprised that so many see the excitement of a successful full-scale in-flight demonstration that proves their company's entire reason for existing - i.e. that a complete rocket body can be produced via direct metal deposition - is viable, is instead 'cringe'/'marketing'.
You know, rather than a bunch of engineers who have just shown that the idea they've spent the last near-decade working on works and are rightly rather happy about it.

There are two different things which some people are calling "cringe": the launch commentators' reaction upon reaching certain milestones during flight, and Tim Ellis' tweet about all of the "firsts" from the launch. Personally I'm much more accepting of the former than the latter, although ultimately even the tweet is still "he's excited, plus it's his job to market for the company, so whatever."

[meekGee]

Relativity must have someone on hand just to find "firsts" at this point.  They drive that point so hard and so constantly even when the "firsts" they are talking about really doesn't mean anything.  I mean, everything has it's "firsts" when it's new.

Their constant hammering of "firsts" and "historic" in every PR piece they release does not instill me with confidence of their long term survival.  It reminds me of fluff PR pieces.....no substance.  It's like they are screaming look at me over and over again.  I've never seen anything that does that ending well long term.

Haha it would have been more concise to simply state they were the first second company to successfully fly a methane first stage

Which means the first third company to do so won't have to get too creative as in being the first company in the mid-west to successfully fly a methane first stage...

I blame Richard Branson for this hysteric historic trend.

[M.E.T.]

I'm rather surprised that so many see the excitement of a successful full-scale in-flight demonstration that proves their company's entire reason for existing - i.e. that a complete rocket body can be produced via direct metal deposition - is viable, is instead 'cringe'/'marketing'.
You know, rather than a bunch of engineers who have just shown that the idea they've spent the last near-decade working on works and are rightly rather happy about it.

Most didn’t doubt that a 3D printed rocket could fly. The skepticism is about whether 3D printing is more cost effective than traditional manufacturing for mass producing a rocket. That skepticism has in no way been addressed.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1641047339874779136

Sound-activated, remote camera view of @relativityspace’s Terran 1 lifting off from LC-16 in Cape Canaveral under the power of nine Aeon 1 methane+liquid oxygen rocket engines🚀

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1641114958485225472

Terran 1, earth ➡️ space. #GLHF

[butters]

I'm rather surprised that so many see the excitement of a successful full-scale in-flight demonstration that proves their company's entire reason for existing - i.e. that a complete rocket body can be produced via direct metal deposition - is viable, is instead 'cringe'/'marketing'.
You know, rather than a bunch of engineers who have just shown that the idea they've spent the last near-decade working on works and are rightly rather happy about it.

Most didn’t doubt that a 3D printed rocket could fly. The skepticism is about whether 3D printing is more cost effective than traditional manufacturing for mass producing a rocket. That skepticism has in no way been addressed.

Mass production of expendable small launch vehicles is one thing to be skeptical about. But if Relativity's manufacturing paradigm enables them to be second to market with a fully-reusable medium launch system, that would render that skepticism moot. The ability to rapidly iterate to a system that doesn't necessarily require economical mass production would thoroughly justify their approach.

[matthewkantar]

Their approach seem suspect to me at least from what they have shown so far. The tank walls they have shown look like drip castles on the beach. Any material out of plane is dead weight.

Show me isogrid-like tank walls with deep webs, with filleted corners, with smooth surfaces, etc.

The current tech must be heavier than conventional construction, is built with exotic alloy, takes forever to print, etc etc.

[whitelancer64]

Their approach seem suspect to me at least from what they have shown so far. The tank walls they have shown look like drip castles on the beach. Any material out of plane is dead weight.

Show me isogrid-like tank walls with deep webs, with filleted corners, with smooth surfaces, etc.

The current tech must be heavier than conventional construction, is built with exotic alloy, takes forever to print, etc etc.

Relativity is working towards going from putting feedstock in the 3D printer to a completed rocket in 60 days.

[matthewkantar]

Their approach seem suspect to me at least from what they have shown so far. The tank walls they have shown look like drip castles on the beach. Any material out of plane is dead weight.

Show me isogrid-like tank walls with deep webs, with filleted corners, with smooth surfaces, etc.

The current tech must be heavier than conventional construction, is built with exotic alloy, takes forever to print, etc etc.

Relativity is working towards going from putting feedstock in the 3D printer to a completed rocket in 60 days.

60 days is doable with old school tech. If the end result of 3D printing is heavier, uses exotic/expensive alloys, why bother?

I understand 3D printing is immature tech, but I don’t see the path they are on leading to lighter, cheaper, higher quality rocket bodies.

[whitelancer64]

Their approach seem suspect to me at least from what they have shown so far. The tank walls they have shown look like drip castles on the beach. Any material out of plane is dead weight.

Show me isogrid-like tank walls with deep webs, with filleted corners, with smooth surfaces, etc.

The current tech must be heavier than conventional construction, is built with exotic alloy, takes forever to print, etc etc.

Relativity is working towards going from putting feedstock in the 3D printer to a completed rocket in 60 days.

60 days is doable with old school tech.
*snip*

Citation needed.