@@Mottbox Second stage reusability. It seems like they are skating towards where the puck is now, not where it will be in 10 years. Think he is on the money with regards to RTLS though
43:14 Okay, I disagree. Don't promise customers on Block 5 capabilities in an iterative design process. I don't think that it would be possible to create a fully featured block 5 launch vehicle on the first try. You are still a start-up.
The problem is that SpaceX had common part with falcon 1 and falcon 9 the Merlin engines. Relativity is really in risky situation than SpaceX ever was, they are expanding and focus on new product meanwhile they don’t even have product on the line that flown successfully to orbit. Falcon 9 early days also had tremendous pressure to get its going fast, president Obama commercial incentive was lacking support from old guards and start up failed to launch. So if relativity fails its will the investors have dried up investing in rocket company as launch business sucks. Relativity is not realizing this enough, they entering in a market that is already saturated with falcon 9 and atlas, and without reliability record (that needs years of flight to prove) you can’t just compete.
![[🔴LIVE] งานประกาศรางวัล MAYA TV AWARDS 2024 : มายามหาชน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwmWYXXVwBY/mqdefault.jpg)
You need to get Peter Beck to talk about Archimedes Engine Development. Tim was talking about Rocket Lab. He only didn't mention the name :)
Get Beck on here for Archimedes talk/Neutron. They are the second player.
Theranos of rocket companies 😉
Cool though this is, I can't help but be disappointed at the scaling back of the R ambition. No longer unique enough to get excited about.
What did they scale back in regards to Terran R?
@@Mottbox Second stage reusability. It seems like they are skating towards where the puck is now, not where it will be in 10 years. Think he is on the money with regards to RTLS though
The walmart Elon Musk 😂😂😂
Nah going ox rich stage combustion is only for those who know they can. Stop with excuses. No reason to use GG cycle on a large rocket.
43:14 Okay, I disagree. Don't promise customers on Block 5 capabilities in an iterative design process. I don't think that it would be possible to create a fully featured block 5 launch vehicle on the first try. You are still a start-up.
i think after falcon 1's successful launch spacex moved onto development of falcon 9 just as quickly
The problem is that SpaceX had common part with falcon 1 and falcon 9 the Merlin engines. Relativity is really in risky situation than SpaceX ever was, they are expanding and focus on new product meanwhile they don’t even have product on the line that flown successfully to orbit. Falcon 9 early days also had tremendous pressure to get its going fast, president Obama commercial incentive was lacking support from old guards and start up failed to launch. So if relativity fails its will the investors have dried up investing in rocket company as launch business sucks. Relativity is not realizing this enough, they entering in a market that is already saturated with falcon 9 and atlas, and without reliability record (that needs years of flight to prove) you can’t just compete.
@@lartorgames The Terran 1 was close to orbit. It passed max-Q. Again, Relativity asked customers if they wanted to see Terran 1 in orbit.
So many F9 like rockets are designed rn
You got a design that's better than the market leader in mind?
mfs in 1924 be like “So many Model T like automobiles are designed rn”