5 ms·

Virgin Orbit: Sir Richard Branson's rocket company lays off 85% of staff

86 points by neversaydie 4y ago

bdcravens 4y ago
More than just layoffs: the company is pretty much dead, unable to secure new funding.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Is that more to do with failures specific to Virgin Orbit, or more to do with the hype machine moving on from the commercial space launch industry in general?
  - localplume 4y ago
    [dead]
  - toyg 4y ago
    Bit of column A and bit of column B, for sure, but VO has probably been one of the worst at overhyping and underdelivering. It doesn't help that they went full-Brexit, that sort of thing is bound to be offputting to foreign capital.
    - leonroy 4y ago
      > It doesn't help that they went full-Brexit, that sort of thing is bound to be offputting to foreign capital. WDYM? Virgin Orbital Inc. are incorporated in the US and listed on the NASDAQ.
      - toyg 4y ago
        They made a lot out of the fact that they'd be launching from the UK, pandering to governments desperate to somehow prove that the country isn't backsliding after brexit.
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
      It’s also worth mentioning the VSS disaster, which ended up setting all of Branson’s space flight endeavors back significantly and you could probably make the case indirectly caused the downfall of this subsidiary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash
- ss108 4y ago
  I don't understand why it needs "funding"--I was under the impression it was a subsidiary of whatever the Virgin parent company is, but I guess I was wrong.
pbj1968 4y ago
That sucks. The more players in this industry, the better.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  There are over 100 companies in the small launch business. There is only one that is currently doing regular operations (RocketLab). Rocket Lab concluded that 1 company is too many for the market to sustain and are transitioning into the medium launch business. The problem is that they have to compete against SpaceX rideshare, which has a starting price of $275K. Virgin Galactic was charging $12M. https://spacefund.com/launch-database/ https://spacefund.com/launch-database/
- abudabi123 4y ago
  As SpX Starship technology matures the unit weight to orbit should dialdown to going postal freight rate. Perhaps industry players need to specialize their division of labor away from competing against SpX if they can't seeing getting to capability parity within five or ten years. Deep space astroid belt mining operation using autonomous vehicles?
  - cubefox 4y ago
    That seems unlikely. It is not even clear whether reusing the Starship upper stage a few times will be cheaper than using several Falcon 9 upper stages once. After all, the engines are a lot more expensive and they need a heat shield. Anyway, SpaceX is only lower the price as much as the competition forces them to, they won't sell flights cheaper than necessary.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dom96 4y ago
Is this the same company as Virgin Galactic? Curious if Joe Rohde (an ex Disney imagineer) is likely to be out of a job soon. Edit: hm, I guess Virgin Orbit is just a small part of Virgin Galactic.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Virgin Orbit is a spin off from Virgin Galactic, they are two separate companies. IMO Virgin Orbit was the only one of the pair that had a faint hope of becoming viable. Virgin Galactic needs to fly 100 times per year to break even. Their product is a death trap that needs months of maintenance between flights. Their competition, Blue Origin, has a safe product. The reason why Virgin Orbit died first is because they're in an established market so it is relatively easy to do valuations. Virgin Galactic is in a virgin[1] market, where valuation has a substantial component of BS and hand waving. And Branson is good at BS. 1: sorry.
Dave3of5 4y ago
Yeah I thought this all along. The company really was just ego stroking for Mr Billionaire. Note for all, he has enough cash to keep funding this himself. The reality is now that economy is worse all the frivolous stuff like this is going to be cut.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  > The company really was just ego stroking for Mr Billionaire The modus operandi is to slap the "Virgin" brand onto a venture - lending the brand in return for some equity. If the dice roll between a 5 and a 9 he cashes out - every other outcome, someone else loses. Its not far off the Dragons Den model of venture capitalism, and seems to be somewhat of the basis for the Celebrity SPAC model.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > The modus operandi is to slap the "Virgin" brand onto a venture - lending the brand in return for some equity. I wonder why would a space company go for that deal? I understand if you're building some consumer-grade service and need the brand recognition, but if you're one of a dozen companies actually capable of going to space, who cares about the brand?
    - MagicMoonlight 4y ago
      You’re not capable of going to space, that’s why you need the money from investors
jimnotgym 4y ago
I seem to remember that they wasted a decade pursuing a novel rubber powered rocket and that really took away their time advantage.
- yourapostasy 4y ago
  The rabbit hole I emerged from yielded this, it was interesting: their SpaceShipTwo was powered by the RocketMotorTwo engine [1] fueled by the solid fuel hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) [2]. HTPB's primary precursor compound is butadiene [3], which is a synthetic rubber precursor. No rubber plantations were sourced for rocket fuel, as green as that would have sounded in the marketing collateral; good 'ol hydrocarbons, mostly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl-terminated_polybutadiene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl-terminated_polybutadi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butadiene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butadiene
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    SS2 is Virgin Galactic. The article is about Virgin Orbit.
    - yourapostasy 4y ago
      Thank you for the correction. Why did Virgin Orbit choose to develop and use a different launch platform (LauncherOne [1], it seems) than putting effort behind Galactic's SS2 platform? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LauncherOne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LauncherOne
pestatije 4y ago
Is this guy a free rider? I mean, i've been hearing about him all my life and he seems to just be enjoying himself, maybe good at marketing, or keeping good contacts happy
- jackstraw14 4y ago
  All of the above really, but not sure what you mean by free rider. The reason you've heard about Virgin all your life is because they cover tons of areas, which is why stuff like Virgin Orbit can exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group#Subsidiaries_and_investments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group#Subsidiaries_and_...
idontwantthis 4y ago
I never expected any of this to work. They bought two different existing designs, one of which was purpose built to fly TWO times and then never fly again, and another which is a well known, unpopular, and highly specific launch system that no one really wanted anymore.
jmyeet 4y ago
I'm skeptical that there's a business model at all for these "small" rocket companies. Consider the neophyte Relativitiy Space. They recently had a launch of their Terran-1 non-reusable vehicle. It didn't reach orbit but succeeded in a lot of other important milestones. It has an expected payload capacity of 1250kg to LEO from what I gather. The company plans to make a larger reusable version called the Terran-R and expects it to launch as early as next year. It will have a larger payload capacity (2,500kg) and target $12 million cost per launch. I'm skeptical they'll achieve this next year when they haven't yet reached orbit, landing stages is a huge engineering challenge and they're doing this with a methane rocket engine, which is much more complicated than the current RP-1 (ie kerosene) engines. Falcon 9 has an estimated launch cost of $67 million but a payload to LEO as high as ~22,000kg. Their actual cost including reuse may be significantly lower but even so that puts them at $3,000/kg compared to the (still theoretical) Terran-R's projected costs of $4,800/kg. Now, you could say that these smaller launch vehicles may have other advantages including less lead time, higher launch velocity and to simply suit smaller payloads. As we've seen from Starlink satellite launches, a single larger rocket can launch a number of satellites at once. Obviously you can only do that if they have very similar orbits. Building and testing a launch vehicle is an expensive business. Blue Origin has been around for almost 23 years and still hasn't reached orbit (or delivered the ULA's BE-4 engines they promised years ago). And that's with Bezos pouring billions into it. Starlink was created, in part (IMHO), to create the launch demand that simply doesn't otherwise exist and to prove Falcon 9 with repeated reuse. There are some Falcon 9 first stages now that I believe have completed 10 successful launches and landings. Falcon 9 has become the 747 of space launch vehicles. The 747 created a market dominating product for decades that was hugely profitable in its last decades. It took many, many years to erode that advantage (which ultimately came from the switch from four-engine to two-engine wide body planes that was a result of massive increases in engine reliability and efficiency). I see that same kind of market advantage with the falcon 9. So small launch vehicles seems like a tough place to establish a business. Virgin Orbit seems to be a victim of that.
- rippercushions 4y ago
  The only upcoming rocket that could disrupt Falcon 9 is SpaceX's own Starship.

86 points by neversaydie 4y ago

bdcravens 4y ago

More than just layoffs: the company is pretty much dead, unable to secure new funding.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Is that more to do with failures specific to Virgin Orbit, or more to do with the hype machine moving on from the commercial space launch industry in general?
- localplume 4y ago
  [dead]
- toyg 4y ago
  Bit of column A and bit of column B, for sure, but VO has probably been one of the worst at overhyping and underdelivering. It doesn't help that they went full-Brexit, that sort of thing is bound to be offputting to foreign capital.
  - leonroy 4y ago
    > It doesn't help that they went full-Brexit, that sort of thing is bound to be offputting to foreign capital. WDYM? Virgin Orbital Inc. are incorporated in the US and listed on the NASDAQ.
    - toyg 4y ago
      They made a lot out of the fact that they'd be launching from the UK, pandering to governments desperate to somehow prove that the country isn't backsliding after brexit.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
    It’s also worth mentioning the VSS disaster, which ended up setting all of Branson’s space flight endeavors back significantly and you could probably make the case indirectly caused the downfall of this subsidiary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash
ss108 4y ago
I don't understand why it needs "funding"--I was under the impression it was a subsidiary of whatever the Virgin parent company is, but I guess I was wrong.

pbj1968 4y ago

That sucks. The more players in this industry, the better.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
There are over 100 companies in the small launch business. There is only one that is currently doing regular operations (RocketLab). Rocket Lab concluded that 1 company is too many for the market to sustain and are transitioning into the medium launch business. The problem is that they have to compete against SpaceX rideshare, which has a starting price of $275K. Virgin Galactic was charging $12M. https://spacefund.com/launch-database/ https://spacefund.com/launch-database/
abudabi123 4y ago
As SpX Starship technology matures the unit weight to orbit should dialdown to going postal freight rate. Perhaps industry players need to specialize their division of labor away from competing against SpX if they can't seeing getting to capability parity within five or ten years. Deep space astroid belt mining operation using autonomous vehicles?
- cubefox 4y ago
  That seems unlikely. It is not even clear whether reusing the Starship upper stage a few times will be cheaper than using several Falcon 9 upper stages once. After all, the engines are a lot more expensive and they need a heat shield. Anyway, SpaceX is only lower the price as much as the competition forces them to, they won't sell flights cheaper than necessary.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dom96 4y ago

Is this the same company as Virgin Galactic? Curious if Joe Rohde (an ex Disney imagineer) is likely to be out of a job soon. Edit: hm, I guess Virgin Orbit is just a small part of Virgin Galactic.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Virgin Orbit is a spin off from Virgin Galactic, they are two separate companies. IMO Virgin Orbit was the only one of the pair that had a faint hope of becoming viable. Virgin Galactic needs to fly 100 times per year to break even. Their product is a death trap that needs months of maintenance between flights. Their competition, Blue Origin, has a safe product. The reason why Virgin Orbit died first is because they're in an established market so it is relatively easy to do valuations. Virgin Galactic is in a virgin[1] market, where valuation has a substantial component of BS and hand waving. And Branson is good at BS. 1: sorry.

Dave3of5 4y ago

Yeah I thought this all along. The company really was just ego stroking for Mr Billionaire. Note for all, he has enough cash to keep funding this himself. The reality is now that economy is worse all the frivolous stuff like this is going to be cut.

shapefrog 4y ago
> The company really was just ego stroking for Mr Billionaire The modus operandi is to slap the "Virgin" brand onto a venture - lending the brand in return for some equity. If the dice roll between a 5 and a 9 he cashes out - every other outcome, someone else loses. Its not far off the Dragons Den model of venture capitalism, and seems to be somewhat of the basis for the Celebrity SPAC model.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > The modus operandi is to slap the "Virgin" brand onto a venture - lending the brand in return for some equity. I wonder why would a space company go for that deal? I understand if you're building some consumer-grade service and need the brand recognition, but if you're one of a dozen companies actually capable of going to space, who cares about the brand?
  - MagicMoonlight 4y ago
    You’re not capable of going to space, that’s why you need the money from investors

jimnotgym 4y ago

I seem to remember that they wasted a decade pursuing a novel rubber powered rocket and that really took away their time advantage.

yourapostasy 4y ago
The rabbit hole I emerged from yielded this, it was interesting: their SpaceShipTwo was powered by the RocketMotorTwo engine [1] fueled by the solid fuel hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) [2]. HTPB's primary precursor compound is butadiene [3], which is a synthetic rubber precursor. No rubber plantations were sourced for rocket fuel, as green as that would have sounded in the marketing collateral; good 'ol hydrocarbons, mostly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl-terminated_polybutadiene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl-terminated_polybutadi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butadiene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butadiene
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  SS2 is Virgin Galactic. The article is about Virgin Orbit.
  - yourapostasy 4y ago
    Thank you for the correction. Why did Virgin Orbit choose to develop and use a different launch platform (LauncherOne [1], it seems) than putting effort behind Galactic's SS2 platform? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LauncherOne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LauncherOne

pestatije 4y ago

Is this guy a free rider? I mean, i've been hearing about him all my life and he seems to just be enjoying himself, maybe good at marketing, or keeping good contacts happy

jackstraw14 4y ago
All of the above really, but not sure what you mean by free rider. The reason you've heard about Virgin all your life is because they cover tons of areas, which is why stuff like Virgin Orbit can exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group#Subsidiaries_and_investments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group#Subsidiaries_and_...

idontwantthis 4y ago

I never expected any of this to work. They bought two different existing designs, one of which was purpose built to fly TWO times and then never fly again, and another which is a well known, unpopular, and highly specific launch system that no one really wanted anymore.

jmyeet 4y ago

I'm skeptical that there's a business model at all for these "small" rocket companies. Consider the neophyte Relativitiy Space. They recently had a launch of their Terran-1 non-reusable vehicle. It didn't reach orbit but succeeded in a lot of other important milestones. It has an expected payload capacity of 1250kg to LEO from what I gather. The company plans to make a larger reusable version called the Terran-R and expects it to launch as early as next year. It will have a larger payload capacity (2,500kg) and target $12 million cost per launch. I'm skeptical they'll achieve this next year when they haven't yet reached orbit, landing stages is a huge engineering challenge and they're doing this with a methane rocket engine, which is much more complicated than the current RP-1 (ie kerosene) engines. Falcon 9 has an estimated launch cost of $67 million but a payload to LEO as high as ~22,000kg. Their actual cost including reuse may be significantly lower but even so that puts them at $3,000/kg compared to the (still theoretical) Terran-R's projected costs of $4,800/kg. Now, you could say that these smaller launch vehicles may have other advantages including less lead time, higher launch velocity and to simply suit smaller payloads. As we've seen from Starlink satellite launches, a single larger rocket can launch a number of satellites at once. Obviously you can only do that if they have very similar orbits. Building and testing a launch vehicle is an expensive business. Blue Origin has been around for almost 23 years and still hasn't reached orbit (or delivered the ULA's BE-4 engines they promised years ago). And that's with Bezos pouring billions into it. Starlink was created, in part (IMHO), to create the launch demand that simply doesn't otherwise exist and to prove Falcon 9 with repeated reuse. There are some Falcon 9 first stages now that I believe have completed 10 successful launches and landings. Falcon 9 has become the 747 of space launch vehicles. The 747 created a market dominating product for decades that was hugely profitable in its last decades. It took many, many years to erode that advantage (which ultimately came from the switch from four-engine to two-engine wide body planes that was a result of massive increases in engine reliability and efficiency). I see that same kind of market advantage with the falcon 9. So small launch vehicles seems like a tough place to establish a business. Virgin Orbit seems to be a victim of that.

rippercushions 4y ago
The only upcoming rocket that could disrupt Falcon 9 is SpaceX's own Starship.