7 ms·

A Convo with Rocket Lab’s Peter Beck on Reusability, Launch Demand, and More

47 points by aml183 4y ago

pstuart 4y ago
Never heard of this company -- SpaceX seems to have sucked the publicity oxygen out of the room. > There’s gonna be a lot of launch vehicles sitting on a pad waiting for payloads in the next few years. It wasn't clear if that was because the demand pipeline was "done" or it was a chicken and egg scenario of businesses not having that locked in to develop on, which raises an interesting question of how much business there is for satellites even if launching was cheap and trivial.
- lattalayta 4y ago
  Everyday Astronaut has some videos about rocket lab [0] and small sat launch demand [1] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcuOSXjevGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcuOSXjevGs [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Sfw58jApo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Sfw58jApo
- jccooper 4y ago
  It's because a large number of new entrants, all started within a similar time window having seen the same market opportunity, are going to start flying soon. While demand for small launch may be growing, payloads are not multiplying at the same rate as launchers. And this is not a surprise; everyone knows there's no way the market supports 100 small launch companies. They just hope to be one of the several who will survive.
  - gameswithgo 4y ago
  - Taniwha 4y ago
    Yeah, but unlike all those small startups Rocketlabs have been launching for almost 5 years now - 25 launches
onphonenow 4y ago
In terms of lack of launch on demand side. One thing that would solve this almost immediately is to re-purpose money from legacy science / launch efforts. For example, take 4B/year from SLS. You could fund just an incredible amount of activity with that.
- fireflymetavrse 4y ago
  It's not that simple from any point of view. First you cannot just replace a single SLS with 100 Electrons.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    Correct. The math is actually about 500 electron launches. That is to replace the cost of launching one SLS. If you include development costs cancelling out SLS now would easily save $4B per launch + 10B+ of dev costs. I think the proposal would be to open up funding for both additional launches AND additional science missions. For the let's say $6B/year or so, you could do a huge amount.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    True but you could with Starship. Or even if we ignore Starship. Falcon Heavy, Vulcan and New Glenn. The only reason SLS is required is because the mission architects HAD TO use SLS in their architecture. SLS in terms of what it does for it price would never be used in any architecture that tried to achieve the most with a given budget.
    - onphonenow 4y ago
      Yeah, I'm ignoring starship. F9 Heavy can do a lot of good science missions, and many payload sizes are coming down. I'd personally include the Ariane stuff as well, James Webb launched on a Ariane 5 (around $200M per launch - so can get 20 launches on that or 10 launches + 10 new $200M science missions for one SLS). This ignores the DEVELOPMENT cost of SLS which is mind bogglingly large as well as some of the ongoing just sustainment costs (also insane).
rpmisms 4y ago
I'm fairly bullish about Rocket Lab's chances. They're rolling their own engines, doing great work, and Peter Beck literally ate his own hat when he was wrong.
- thinkcontext 4y ago
  Their launch rate hasn't been increasing nearly as fast as one would have expected if they are going to make it to profitability. I wonder how much of that is due to SpaceX's rideshare offering, one would think it must have stolen a good bit of business from RL.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  They are an actual entrant in the space race, and compared to say Blue Origin, which I personally consider to be a vanity project, they are really making headway. But I don't see them improving on SpaceX just yet even when adjusting for the gigantic headstart SpaceX has and that is going to be the competition. Still, they have some interesting tech and appear to be really driven to become a serious player and I wish them well.
  - grayrest 4y ago
    > Blue Origin, which I personally consider to be a vanity project I could see an argument for that given the time/resources invested compared to the results but ULA's future and a large fraction of Project Kupier's planned launches are tied to the success of the BE-4 so they do have immediate ambitions beyond suborbital tourist hops.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      That lack of immediate ambition is exactly the problem and why I don't think they'll make it. You either go all in on something like this or you might as well not play.
      - rpmisms 4y ago
        The conventional expression is "stay hungry". Blue Origin is approximately the opposite of that adage. Bezos specifically said it would be chill.
ultramegachurch 4y ago
I'm looking forward to ~5 years from now when hopefully a lot of these small launch companies have gone under. They suck up insane amounts of venture capital and engineering talent. A few companies will certainly rise to the top, Rocket Lab likely being one of them. My company (non-aerospace) just had a couple engineers leave for a different small launcher. I wish them success, but also wish their talent could be applied elsewhere. I say this as someone who just left the space industry.
- the_duke 4y ago
  There are billions going into extremely boring software startups all the time. The amounts raised by these "New Space" startups is relatively modest in comparison. Sure, there is no way that the launch market will need Rocketlab, Astra, Firefly, Relativity and Blue Origin on top of ULA and SpaceX. Especially if Starship is successful ( a big Starship rideshare + in-orbit shutteling services will be almost impossible to beat if that rocket ends up being actually reusable). It will definitely put a downward pressure on prices. And even if they go under, the know how and the talent will still be useful. In any case, building an orbital rocket is certainly a lot more interesting than building the umpteenth webapp or SasS.
- AYBABTME 4y ago
  That's a strange take, since I personally see space tech as a useful endeavour, versus ... ad-tech, building yet another chat app, social network apps, another financial service, another way to sell eyeballs, another way to scam people with NFTs.
  - ultramegachurch 4y ago
    I work at a clean energy startup, which is an industry that desperately needs the talent that aerospace often grabs. I wholeheartedly agree that space is a useful endeavor.
NortySpock 4y ago
Disclosure: long on Rocket Lab Another recent interview with Peter Beck, as a podcast https://www.wemartians.com/podcasts/118-planetary-exploration-at-rocket-lab-feat-peter-beck https://www.wemartians.com/podcasts/118-planetary-exploratio... It is clear from Rocket Lab's purchases of space hardware companies that they are well aware of SpaceX's downward pressure on launch prices, and are diversifying and vertically integrating their business, to include satellite design and build, as well as selling satellite components off the shelf like star trackers and (momentum) reaction control wheels. https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/18/rocket-lab-acquires-solaero-holdings-for-80m-to-boost-space-solar-cell-production/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/18/rocket-lab-acquires-solaer... https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/15/rocket-lab-acquires-planetary-systems-corporation-in-cash-and-stock-deal/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/15/rocket-lab-acquires-planet... https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-acquires-software-company-as-it-plans-additional-deals/ https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-acquires-software-company-a... https://www.rocketlabusa.com/space-systems/satellite-components/reaction-wheels/ https://www.rocketlabusa.com/space-systems/satellite-compone...
- engineer_22 4y ago
  Do you own Rocket Lab?
  - NortySpock 4y ago
    I have bought some stock in the company, yes. That's what I meant by my disclosure statement.

47 points by aml183 4y ago

Never heard of this company -- SpaceX seems to have sucked the publicity oxygen out of the room. > There’s gonna be a lot of launch vehicles sitting on a pad waiting for payloads in the next few years. It wasn't clear if that was because the demand pipeline was "done" or it was a chicken and egg scenario of businesses not having that locked in to develop on, which raises an interesting question of how much business there is for satellites even if launching was cheap and trivial.

lattalayta 4y ago
Everyday Astronaut has some videos about rocket lab [0] and small sat launch demand [1] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcuOSXjevGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcuOSXjevGs [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Sfw58jApo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Sfw58jApo
jccooper 4y ago
It's because a large number of new entrants, all started within a similar time window having seen the same market opportunity, are going to start flying soon. While demand for small launch may be growing, payloads are not multiplying at the same rate as launchers. And this is not a surprise; everyone knows there's no way the market supports 100 small launch companies. They just hope to be one of the several who will survive.
- gameswithgo 4y ago
- Taniwha 4y ago
  Yeah, but unlike all those small startups Rocketlabs have been launching for almost 5 years now - 25 launches

onphonenow 4y ago

In terms of lack of launch on demand side. One thing that would solve this almost immediately is to re-purpose money from legacy science / launch efforts. For example, take 4B/year from SLS. You could fund just an incredible amount of activity with that.

fireflymetavrse 4y ago
It's not that simple from any point of view. First you cannot just replace a single SLS with 100 Electrons.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Correct. The math is actually about 500 electron launches. That is to replace the cost of launching one SLS. If you include development costs cancelling out SLS now would easily save $4B per launch + 10B+ of dev costs. I think the proposal would be to open up funding for both additional launches AND additional science missions. For the let's say $6B/year or so, you could do a huge amount.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  True but you could with Starship. Or even if we ignore Starship. Falcon Heavy, Vulcan and New Glenn. The only reason SLS is required is because the mission architects HAD TO use SLS in their architecture. SLS in terms of what it does for it price would never be used in any architecture that tried to achieve the most with a given budget.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    Yeah, I'm ignoring starship. F9 Heavy can do a lot of good science missions, and many payload sizes are coming down. I'd personally include the Ariane stuff as well, James Webb launched on a Ariane 5 (around $200M per launch - so can get 20 launches on that or 10 launches + 10 new $200M science missions for one SLS). This ignores the DEVELOPMENT cost of SLS which is mind bogglingly large as well as some of the ongoing just sustainment costs (also insane).

rpmisms 4y ago

I'm fairly bullish about Rocket Lab's chances. They're rolling their own engines, doing great work, and Peter Beck literally ate his own hat when he was wrong.

thinkcontext 4y ago
Their launch rate hasn't been increasing nearly as fast as one would have expected if they are going to make it to profitability. I wonder how much of that is due to SpaceX's rideshare offering, one would think it must have stolen a good bit of business from RL.
jacquesm 4y ago
They are an actual entrant in the space race, and compared to say Blue Origin, which I personally consider to be a vanity project, they are really making headway. But I don't see them improving on SpaceX just yet even when adjusting for the gigantic headstart SpaceX has and that is going to be the competition. Still, they have some interesting tech and appear to be really driven to become a serious player and I wish them well.
- grayrest 4y ago
  > Blue Origin, which I personally consider to be a vanity project I could see an argument for that given the time/resources invested compared to the results but ULA's future and a large fraction of Project Kupier's planned launches are tied to the success of the BE-4 so they do have immediate ambitions beyond suborbital tourist hops.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That lack of immediate ambition is exactly the problem and why I don't think they'll make it. You either go all in on something like this or you might as well not play.
    - rpmisms 4y ago
      The conventional expression is "stay hungry". Blue Origin is approximately the opposite of that adage. Bezos specifically said it would be chill.

ultramegachurch 4y ago

I'm looking forward to ~5 years from now when hopefully a lot of these small launch companies have gone under. They suck up insane amounts of venture capital and engineering talent. A few companies will certainly rise to the top, Rocket Lab likely being one of them. My company (non-aerospace) just had a couple engineers leave for a different small launcher. I wish them success, but also wish their talent could be applied elsewhere. I say this as someone who just left the space industry.

the_duke 4y ago
There are billions going into extremely boring software startups all the time. The amounts raised by these "New Space" startups is relatively modest in comparison. Sure, there is no way that the launch market will need Rocketlab, Astra, Firefly, Relativity and Blue Origin on top of ULA and SpaceX. Especially if Starship is successful ( a big Starship rideshare + in-orbit shutteling services will be almost impossible to beat if that rocket ends up being actually reusable). It will definitely put a downward pressure on prices. And even if they go under, the know how and the talent will still be useful. In any case, building an orbital rocket is certainly a lot more interesting than building the umpteenth webapp or SasS.
AYBABTME 4y ago
That's a strange take, since I personally see space tech as a useful endeavour, versus ... ad-tech, building yet another chat app, social network apps, another financial service, another way to sell eyeballs, another way to scam people with NFTs.
- ultramegachurch 4y ago
  I work at a clean energy startup, which is an industry that desperately needs the talent that aerospace often grabs. I wholeheartedly agree that space is a useful endeavor.

NortySpock 4y ago

Disclosure: long on Rocket Lab Another recent interview with Peter Beck, as a podcast https://www.wemartians.com/podcasts/118-planetary-exploration-at-rocket-lab-feat-peter-beck https://www.wemartians.com/podcasts/118-planetary-exploratio... It is clear from Rocket Lab's purchases of space hardware companies that they are well aware of SpaceX's downward pressure on launch prices, and are diversifying and vertically integrating their business, to include satellite design and build, as well as selling satellite components off the shelf like star trackers and (momentum) reaction control wheels. https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/18/rocket-lab-acquires-solaero-holdings-for-80m-to-boost-space-solar-cell-production/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/18/rocket-lab-acquires-solaer... https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/15/rocket-lab-acquires-planetary-systems-corporation-in-cash-and-stock-deal/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/15/rocket-lab-acquires-planet... https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-acquires-software-company-as-it-plans-additional-deals/ https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-acquires-software-company-a... https://www.rocketlabusa.com/space-systems/satellite-components/reaction-wheels/ https://www.rocketlabusa.com/space-systems/satellite-compone...

engineer_22 4y ago
Do you own Rocket Lab?
- NortySpock 4y ago
  I have bought some stock in the company, yes. That's what I meant by my disclosure statement.