"What went wrong with the Richard Branson company that once held so much promise?" Your premise is wrong. Virgin Orbit never had much promise nor a good business model. It was fundamentally limited and handicapped from day one. That's why some 80% of the SPAC investors pulled their money out before the IPO. They knew it was a dog. There is no giant market for dedicated small launchers. No one is gonna launch a constellation of hundreds or thousands of satellites ONE SATELLITE at a time - that would be like shipping each Nike sneaker from the factory on its own boat across the Pacific. And most non-constellation customers with a single small sat are perfectly happy to go for a cheap rideshare on a big rocket (Falcon 9 Transporter, India's PSLV). Even Rocket Lab - the most successful small launcher - makes the majority of its revenue from space systems, components and the like, not from launch. There's no money in dedicated small launch, which is why EVERY SINGLE small launch company is working on larger rockets. But Virgin Orbit could never build a bigger rocket, because they already launch from a stripped-down 747, at the limit of its capability. Also, as an air-launched system, Virgin's rocket had to be structurally reinforced for both horizontal AND vertical loads, increasing weight & complexity and further reducing payload capacity. Lastly, Virgin spent a billion dollars developing a small rocket that can only bring in $12-15M per launch. There was no way they were gonna get enough customers or launch frequently enough to recoup their development costs. Their business case never added up. Bankruptcy was always a question of when, not if.
Good arguments, except a small thing about SPACs. SPAC investors didn't pull out because the company had bad fundamentals, they pulled out because the hype had soured on SPACs. In 2020-21, any horrible company would see a >100% increase upon SPAC listing. The speculative market was gone by the time Virgin went public. If they'd gone out 6 months early, they likely would have raised a couple hundred million extra, which would've helped them survive longer.
This is a classic Richard Branson business model: raise as much as he can of other people's money and keep raising money. I don't think he ever has a goal of making a real profitable business. Just a company that has the ability to borrow as much as he can so he can say he's a billionaire.
Very good post. Excellent presentation of facts to support your argument. I find the collapse of Virgin Orbit sad but, as you say, inevitable. I did not know that Rocket Lab had expanded into the space systems business. That is very interesting and explains why they have not run into the same problems that brought down VO. Obviously, VO could have done the same but, apparently, somebody lacked the vision.
@@krishmalhotratalks ... Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "change in speed" ... Which is a longer way of saying acceleration/ deceleration? ... Which in money terms means amount of fuel?
@@wayando it saves more than 5% rocket fuel because if you can have 5% less acceleration, your rocket can be lighter, which saves more fuel for the entire stage. However that doesn't matter because fuel is cheap, the rocket is expensive. Launching from air to save $500 worth of fuel on your small rocket so you can spend $1000 on the jet fuel and $5000 on the maintenances of the airplane, makes absoletely no sense.
I live in Long Beach, California, and I pass by the Long Beach Airport often, and there is a Virgin Orbit 747 that's been sitting there for years now. I've never seen it fly, or move from it's parking spot.
NOTHING BETTER FOR HIM TO DO WITH HIS MONEY. Waste it on rockets. The reason for all this climate change and horrific storms is because the rockets going into space.
You can dial into Space any day of the week and those guys are running around like ants. When they are not launching, they are building, and when they are not building or launching, they are moving rockets around like a kid, playing with models and sometime they add fuel and take it out. the point is that they are always working while Sir richard and Jeff Bezos are partying and riding up and down on suborbital rockets and passing out astronaut wings, elon Musk was working his behind off. Jeff Bezos is next.
Love how everyone thinks that someone on the planet is competing with SpaceX, when SpaceX alone in 2022 launched into orbit 95% of the commercial payload of the world and the same mass of everyone combined...twice over, and probably did all of this at a fraction of the cost of the rest of the planet. It's the same people who thinks that Tesla has competition, when Tesla is selling you a 48k$ cars that they make for 33k ( Q1 results of 4) days ago, meanwhile the competition is selling you a 60k car with worse specs, and that cost them 85k to make ( hello -40%-margins-on-EVs-Ford).
@@alt8791 even so virgin orbit would only be able to fly 1 or 2 of them. Spacex is easily doing 5 if not more (depending on size of course) at a fraction of the cost. Virgin orbits only marketing is you don't have to wait a year for others to sign up for a ride share. Spacex isn't competing in this space. Merely just picking up what slack is left
I have been buying some stocks since the beginning of the year, but nothing substantial. Why am I treating this poorly? However, people in the same profession are earning six figures on articles, which inspires me to aim toward becoming the first person in my polygamous family to hit the million dollar mark. I am perfectly aware that working harder to gain more money is expensive.
Nothing you're doing is wrong; you simply lack the knowledge to profit in a bear market. The only people who may earn greatly during dangerous times like these are professionals with vast knowledge who must have observed the 2008 crisis.
My consultant is *"JAMES GIFF GIFFORD"* .I found him on a CNBC interview where he was featured and reached out to him afterwards. he has since provided entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can look him up online if you care supervision. I basically follow his trade pattern and haven’t regretted doing so.
People, this is a SCAM thread, all bot comments, please for the love of god do NOT fall for this sort of crap!!! These crypto/investment etc. advisors are all scammers.
Hmm... in many cases, running out of liquidity is the problem. A company might still be worth a fortune, on paper (e.g. holding key patents, but unable to pay this year’s tax bill). I don’t think the Virgin outfit has much of value, though.
No, it spun ff because orbital satellite launch is a very different business from suborbital tourist hops. It made little sense to have those two businesses under the same management. If they had known it could not be profitable, Virgin Galactic would have simply stopped work on it. Now, given that Orbital ATK's Pegasus rocket had already been forced out of the market, even if it was technically still listed as active, there was a great deal of skepticism that VO could be made to work, but the Virgin Group are not so stupid as to pursue a business they know will fail.
The space race heated up when two billionaires, at nearly the same time, created new rocket companies and began developing new rockets. Sometime later another group of billionaires decided to get into the business and this is where Branson comes in. He saw what SpaceX in particular was doing and wanted the street cred that comes with being a billionaire rocket company owner. Along the way Musk got Branson to also play follow the leader with the Hyperloop and in the end Branson is going to lose tens of billions trying to play along. The jury's still out on Bezos but after more than 20 years in the rocket business (he started Blu Origin before Musk and SpaceX) he's yet to put even a single microgram into orbit!
Blue Origin has sent people into space, as has Virgin Galactic and Space X. They’ve all accomplished that but it’s gonna be hard to do it repeatedly and safely
@@DirtFather407 Blue Origin has not put even a single microgram in orbit -- getting to space they way they have requires about 1/8 the dV required for orbit. But even that underestimates the challenge of getting into orbit as the rocket needed to provide 8 times the dV of New Shepard is way more than 8 times larger. BO is a joke!
@@DirtFather407 the scientists, engineers working for them knows these billionaires have no passion when it comes to space and only doing it for the attention, Its a complete waste of money and gas, musk is putting satellites into space so he's at least doing something, space tourism will never be a thing in our lifetime.
I hate having to explain this. Blue Origin was started as a space think tank not a rocket company. Around 2010 they started to transition to the idea of building rocket engines for other companies and then chose the make rockets themselves. While Blue Origin has not put anything in orbit yet they have flown dozens of NASA payloads on New Shepard including landing sensors that will be used in the Artemis program.
I think the commercial space industry has rapidly been evolving. It seems like Virgin Orbit had less capability. Also, 2 out of 6 failures is not great. They basically seem like a company still heavily in the R&D phase with an anemic roadmap. I know that sounds brutal, but it seems like the commercial space industry growth will be highly influenced by two things. One, reduction in cost for weight to orbit, and 2 the ability to move smaller things or people to orbit in hours, not months or days. I think that’s what makes companies in the game more successful.
I’m referring to the logistics involved with a launch. If you wanted to do an emergency launch like get a satellite up or deliver supplies, you would most likely be paying for the vehicle as well as cost involved to bump other companies or govs. If a company had a proven ability to launch with minimal notice, that would fill a niche.
@@apok1980 Launching big Rockets require permits, Good weather and hardware inspections , So they are not in the same league as aeroplanes ,but in 2022 SpaceX launched approximately One Rocket in every 6 days ! So that's as frequent as it can get. Mid-size Rockets like Falcon 9 and Gslv mk 3(Indian) cost 67 million dollars and their payloads may cost beyond a billion dollars ,so you should not be taking risk to ramp up launch frequency.
Video could just be, "Branson likes to fake it till he makes it". Space travel is hard, they were trying to do something no one else does. It could work, but Branson doesn't work like that. He normally enters markets where there are other players, flash it up and bit, then cash out. Paul Allen probably would have done a better job. Or another backer with more conviction.
6:11 voiceover says launches remain stagnant since 2017 at the same time as showing a chart showing an almost doubling of small satellite launches in the most recent year. Top journalism guys 👏
I think that was almost entirely due to SpaceX Starlink launches, and they provide their own service. Outside of that, there hasn't been nearly as much growth in the small launch market as was anticipated a few years ago and SpaceX and ISRO, with rideshares, and Rocket Lab, are able to service the entire market. VO had no competitive advantage in payload or price, and their ability to launch from anywhere in the world was not that attractive in the market.
I think it’s a basic economics principle. There’s only so much small sat launch demand, and far more small sat launch supply than there is demand. There are too many launch providers.
This is something I have also realized and it is interesting that most space commentators don't mention this. Most small sat launch startups are going to fail even if they successfully develop their launch vehicles.
It was anticipated that there would be a very significant increase in the small sat market and perhaps there has been but not enough to support even half a dozen providers. There are something over a hundred companies calling themselves small sat launch providers. the vast majority of these have yet to bend metal and they never will. Relativity and ABL have both had failed test launches. Astra tried to become operational but after five failures in seven launches shut down to work on a bigger, better rocket. That left exactly four in the small sat market. SpaceX and ISRO both doing rideshares and neither of them dependent on small sat revenues for their existence, one being a government agency and the other the globally dominant launch provider. Rocket Lab, which expanded their business to providing payload components to satellite builders which, as I understand it, now provides the bulk of their revenue, and who is developing a medium lift rocket, and Virgin Orbit, which was wholly and solely dependent on launch operations for their revenue. And now there are three. This probably shows the necessary path other small sat launchers are going to have to follow. Find some other source of revenue to support your launch operations while you develop a medium lift rocket to try to challenge SpaceX. The enormous explosion in the small sat market may still occur, but the great majority of them are going to be content with the smaller price of getting a rideshare on a medium or heavy lift rocket rather than paying for special treatment on a small launcher.
Judging by other Virgin companies such as virgin mobile and virgin atlantic its no wonder virgin galactic failed. What surprises me is how Brenson is still in business with his other brands.
Delivering few launches, going ipo on the spac, not raising enough money, and the last recorded positive news from the CEO was from 2 years ago that’s an issue
Failure teaches us to dust ourselves off and try again. Any experience is valuable. So we should be grateful for it and move on with expectancy! You will rise again. The competition is rife.
You are confusing Virgin Orbit with Virgin Galactic. Virgin Galactic, somewhat surprisingly, is still in business and ready to begin commercial operations. We will see how long they last.
Whether or not Virgin Orbit was ever a viable business it's objective was relatively modest and it seems a lot of effort just for it to collapse after one debut flight failed.
The failure of the Cornwall flight did not cause the bankruptcy. Had it succeeded, they might have held on a while longer, but really not more than a few weeks.
@@no_rubbernecking Well, actually, the primary, maybe sole, owner was the SPAC that had acquired VO to let them go public. That said, I'm not sure what Branson's net worth is, but there is a big difference between net worth and cash on hand. Branson's net worth is the values of the stock he holds in his various businesses. That is not money he has in a vault somewhere. Either way though, he had made it plain he was not going to support the company any more. The last $25 million he put into it was a loan with the airplane and other tangible assets being put up as collateral. When the boss starts treating you like that, you are in big trouble.
Very simple actually SpaceX and Blue Origin are afloat to a large degree because both are large government contractors. NASA/DoD/DARPA have doled out billions of dollars to both companies for rockets, engines, supply runs to ISS and future projects (like a moon lander). All the "fun stuff" like space tourism or mission to Mars are small side projects to their core business and are funded indirectly because of those large government contracts stated before. Virgin Orbit's problem is that their entire business is the "fun stuff" and without the government dollars they can't stay afloat.
They seemed to have just spent money and did nothing. Launching rockets to space had been researched in past on at least 2 occasions that I know of. Last time it was ditched was due to the fuel volatility if I recall correctly but also it's benefits just don't add up. How about a launch ramp up the side of Mt Chimborazo, now lets get an IPO going. 🤑
The Pegasus rocket, developed by Orbital Sciences Corp. was actually the first privately developed launcher to achieve orbit, long before SpaceX was even a gleam in Elon Musk's eye. They had a pretty good launch cadence through the 1990s but gradually tailed off in the 2000s due to competition from other providers, particularly SpaceX. Northrop Grumman now owns the system, having bought Orbital-ATK, and lists it as active but it has flown all of four times in the last ten years, the last time in 2021, and they have no launches planned. So, while it has not, technically, been ditched, I doubt it will ever fly again.
As far as i understand, spac deals are conducted between a business which has not been listed and a spac company,ie, a listed shell company,right? but in the middle of the news, the reporter said "vergin orbit went public via spac??" If i might have been wrong about companies deals with spac companies ..could anybody tell me what was that about the deal?
The comment at 6:17, about rockets getting bigger, and launching multiple satellites from one rocket, therefore reducing the cost per satellite. Seemed like the nail in the coffin, as Virgin Orbits rockets were now old, and too small. They, therefore, could not compete without a redesign, which Virgin Orbit didn't have the money for.
Even with a redesign, a horizontal launcher launching a single small payload cannot compete with a larger, vertical launcher able to launch multiple small payloads at a time. The flexibility of launch location and scheduling VO offered just wasn't that attractive in the market.
With inflation and high interest rates, start ups and small companies end up spending more on finances and less money R&D/innovation. Money more expensive now. Space x can launch 60 Starlink satellites at one time. Starship can launch many times more. Branson is a billionaire. He could contribute more. High interest rates means less money being thrown at new startups
How much cargo can it carry if the rocket had wings and does a point to point sub-orbital flight and is100% reusable? WHEN IT HAS TO BE THERE YESTERDAY, could be their slogan.
CNBC publishes interesting articles, but I think they use interns to compile these videos. The quality control issues are something of a trend throughout the channel.
Ok you’re all wrong. Richard Branson has been talking about going to space and having space tourism for like 20-30 years. He was way before musk and bezos. The problem is that realistically you need government contracts in order to afford enough launches. So they couldn’t get past that last step. He also got to space like he wanted to. So he really doesn’t care any more.
Well, he may not care anymore, in which case I have very little respect for him, but his space tourism company, Virgin Galactic, is still in business. It is his small sat orbital launch company, Virgin Orbit, which has collapsed.
Virgin orbit business model was a compromise. A halfway measure to compete in a field where innovation is king . Branson played in a game with half a deck
Classic example of growing too fast for your own good. There was no need for them to go public or hire so many people when they didn't have the revenue to support it.
Ya they were focused on creating high value and taking the company public and dumping the shares on people than working on engineering and mission success.
"If the satellite gets shot down they won't have to wait six months to launch a replacement..." Um, yeah they would probably need to spend some time constructing the replacement satellite - I doubt they have warehouses full of spares.
Say, even if they stick to it, persevere, and build a complete orbital launch vehicle that does exactly what they envisioned. That would be great... except now, instead of self-proclaiming to be in, they're now officially in the same race as SpaceX. Could they actually beat the Falcon 9 competitively? Not to mention, SpaceX is already beginning their actual test launch phase of Starship. Only an imbecile of an investor would not bail as soon as they can...
CNBC is the most interesting TH-cam Channel by far. The videos are incredible. They are really interesting and educational. They research things really well. Thank you CNBC
What went wrong is me failing to see what was supposed to go right in the first place. For something that offers a shorted, fun, and very expensive trip, it wasn't meant to be viable. This will matter in the future not now. It will matter when space technology has advanced so much that prices are a fraction of what SpaceX charge per cargo today. Then you will have a lot of people paying for that short, fun trip to orbit.
Virgin Orbit, which went bankrupt, flew small payloads to orbit on small rockets. Virgin Galactic, which wants to fly people on suborbital flights aboard a spaceplane, is still in business and expects to finally commence operations next month. We will see how long they last. Good luck to them though.
Just like Bezos, Branson is not a rocket scientist like Elon Musk! I know some of you will argue that Musk is not (tachnically) a rocket scientist. It only means you never heard him talk about rocket engines and how they are built and how they work. For me, that alone qualifies Elon as a rocket scientist.
@obbie1osias467 If you watched the video, you'd see recognise that, rather than 'rocket scientist', Elon Musk is just more popular/a better salesman. Further, Branson didn't care enough to save Orbit when he can take his millions and invest in a competitor.
@@HabitualLine-Stepper Do you understand rcoket science? Try some videos where Elon explains how rockets work. He's not just a salesman like Branson and Bezos. He actually knows how his products are made and has a lot of say about how to make them.
@@obbie1osias467 Still doesn't make him a rocket scientist for sure though. He's also not a chemical engineer nor computer vision scientist just because he can talk about Tesla vehicles. He does care enough to at least learn high-level concepts to talk about them, I'd give you that.
If I had the investment capital and wanted to get into this market I would 100% PURCHASE this company. Purchasing them would put someone at least 5-10 years ahead of starting from zero. They require REAL leadership. Damn what an opportunity.
Purchasing an already developed system from a money hungry billionaire who has put in loads of man-hours?! ... You'd get totally ripped of! I guess that's why no one is buying it! 😂😂😂 ... Am sure there are plenty of people who are able, and have a use for the system ... But the deal is no bueno!
@@wayando Well, Virgin was in absolutely no position to negotiate. A bankruptcy sale is an auction. the actual owners of the bankrupt entity don't get any money out of it. All they get is their debts cancelled while their creditors get whatever money is bid, which doesn't come close to making them whole. In this case, from the point of view of an outsider with no real knowledge of the industry, it looks as though the company could have been operated profitably once shorn of all its debt but, obviously, industry insiders disagreed.
Every country is a potential customer, every communication company is a customer, every media company is a potential customer ... It's just a matter of reducing costs to where the customers can afford it.
Virgin Orbit surely did "spin out" but the actual term for making a corporate business division or department "go solo" as its own standalone company - usually as a "risk management" measure post-merger when a "blue chip" company acquires a "tech firm" - is SPIN OFF. None of that is applicable in the case of Virgin...whatever. The whole purpose of the "spin out" was PR and creating the illusion of a "publicly traded" Virgin "subsidiary" with "adults" in the boardroom and an actual "entrepreneur" with his "own money" and actual billions in "liquidity" to "invest" during the company "launch".
Love how everyone thinks that someone on the planet is competing with SpaceX, when SpaceX alone in 2022 launched into orbit 95% of the commercial payload of the world and the same mass of everyone combined...twice over, and probably did all of this at a fraction of the cost of the rest of the planet. It's the same people who thinks that Tesla has competition, when Tesla is selling you a 48k$ cars that they make for 33k ( Q1 results of 4) days ago, meanwhile the competition is selling you a 60k car with worse specs, and that cost them 85k to make ( hello -40%-margins-on-EVs-Ford). Virgin didn't have any plan that made sense in a world were you can piggyback on a falcon 9 that launches 3 times a week
You are confusing Virgin Orbit, which is the company that went out of business, with both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, both of which are still in business.
There is no way these companies can compete with India's state owned ISRO in multiple small and medium satellite launches in terms of success rate and cost efficiency.
ISRO launches only a few times every year, but manages to load a large amount of satellites onto a launch vehicle. That is one way to reduce launch costs.
Oh! Now i saw the front part of the news, an interviewee explaing a merger with a spac firm with an aim to raise capital on the market. I thought spac deals are just deals.. not some kind of listing procedure.. technically, the company in question did a merger with a spac firm.. not going public on the stock market. Well, in some way, it could be said, a sort of indirect listing ᆢin a convenient way..though. Admittedly, i thought vergin orbit was a listed company.. By the way, with the acquisition, on whose name, capital is raised, on the stock market? Sorry about the pestering with questions^^
They completely missed out on a revenue stream. They should have sold seats on the 747 for people to witness the launch itself. These seats would have brought in additional revenue needed to help the company survive.
They spent way too long in the beginning trying to capitalize on luxury space travel . The Virgin Galactic plane was never luxurious as a private jet and they spent way too much on something that quickly lost its novelty for bored rich people. They shifted too late to the private satellite sector to adjust for the miscalculation
Virgin Orbit was a spinoff of Virgin Galactic. The fortunes of the one had nothing to do with those of the other. Virgin Galactic is still in business and about to begin commercial operations.
@@odysseusrex5908 Its a vertical integrated business, they are connected. Virgin Galactic came first and would have funded Orbit, but it couldn't, because Virgin Galactic never brought in the tourism factor it was supposed to. They rely heavily on private funding unlike Spacex who gets government and military contracts.
@@distorta No, it is not vertically integrated and once VO was spun off it was a completely separate corporation. There was no connection between them.
Yes, it's sad, but it was inevitable. They never had a viable business model. Even if their last launch had been successful, that would only have delayed matters a few weeks.
I feel bad for richard brandson but BBC should look at its tail becuase they asked India why they are investing in space program instead of feeding its people.
"What went wrong with the Richard Branson company that once held so much promise?"
Your premise is wrong. Virgin Orbit never had much promise nor a good business model. It was fundamentally limited and handicapped from day one. That's why some 80% of the SPAC investors pulled their money out before the IPO. They knew it was a dog.
There is no giant market for dedicated small launchers. No one is gonna launch a constellation of hundreds or thousands of satellites ONE SATELLITE at a time - that would be like shipping each Nike sneaker from the factory on its own boat across the Pacific. And most non-constellation customers with a single small sat are perfectly happy to go for a cheap rideshare on a big rocket (Falcon 9 Transporter, India's PSLV). Even Rocket Lab - the most successful small launcher - makes the majority of its revenue from space systems, components and the like, not from launch. There's no money in dedicated small launch, which is why EVERY SINGLE small launch company is working on larger rockets.
But Virgin Orbit could never build a bigger rocket, because they already launch from a stripped-down 747, at the limit of its capability. Also, as an air-launched system, Virgin's rocket had to be structurally reinforced for both horizontal AND vertical loads, increasing weight & complexity and further reducing payload capacity. Lastly, Virgin spent a billion dollars developing a small rocket that can only bring in $12-15M per launch. There was no way they were gonna get enough customers or launch frequently enough to recoup their development costs. Their business case never added up. Bankruptcy was always a question of when, not if.
Good arguments, except a small thing about SPACs. SPAC investors didn't pull out because the company had bad fundamentals, they pulled out because the hype had soured on SPACs. In 2020-21, any horrible company would see a >100% increase upon SPAC listing. The speculative market was gone by the time Virgin went public. If they'd gone out 6 months early, they likely would have raised a couple hundred million extra, which would've helped them survive longer.
True, you really need a technical CEO in the rocket business. All the startups have very technical CEO's.
This is a classic Richard Branson business model: raise as much as he can of other people's money and keep raising money. I don't think he ever has a goal of making a real profitable business. Just a company that has the ability to borrow as much as he can so he can say he's a billionaire.
Very good post. Excellent presentation of facts to support your argument. I find the collapse of Virgin Orbit sad but, as you say, inevitable. I did not know that Rocket Lab had expanded into the space systems business. That is very interesting and explains why they have not run into the same problems that brought down VO. Obviously, VO could have done the same but, apparently, somebody lacked the vision.
But Branson was good at getting governments to invest.
What went wrong is the fact that launching from a plane still requires like 95% the delta V as launching from ground.
So they only save 5% of the rocket fuel? ... How much is that in $?
@@wayando when you aim to save 5% and fail to even succeed.
The only person i know who can do alot with 5% is ethan klien, according to Trisha
@@wayando 5% efficiency is actually really good, the delta v is different from rocket fuel saved
@@krishmalhotratalks ... Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "change in speed" ... Which is a longer way of saying acceleration/ deceleration? ... Which in money terms means amount of fuel?
@@wayando it saves more than 5% rocket fuel because if you can have 5% less acceleration, your rocket can be lighter, which saves more fuel for the entire stage. However that doesn't matter because fuel is cheap, the rocket is expensive. Launching from air to save $500 worth of fuel on your small rocket so you can spend $1000 on the jet fuel and $5000 on the maintenances of the airplane, makes absoletely no sense.
I live in Long Beach, California, and I pass by the Long Beach Airport often, and there is a Virgin Orbit 747 that's been sitting there for years now. I've never seen it fly, or move from it's parking spot.
Likewise.
That's where it parks in between launches, you must not have noticed for an entire month while it was in Mojave, for a few launches.
NOTHING BETTER FOR HIM TO DO WITH HIS MONEY. Waste it on rockets. The reason for all this climate change and horrific storms is because the rockets going into space.
@@Chicago48 yikes... It's not even worth having a discussion with a boomer on your lvl. You win 😂
You can dial into Space any day of the week and those guys are running around like ants. When they are not launching, they are building, and when they are not building or launching, they are moving rockets around like a kid, playing with models and sometime they add fuel and take it out. the point is that they are always working while Sir richard and Jeff Bezos are partying and riding up and down on suborbital rockets and passing out astronaut wings, elon Musk was working his behind off. Jeff Bezos is next.
Love how SpaceX is touted as a competitor when they are competing in a completely different weight class.
They really are a competitor with their "share ride" program.
Love how everyone thinks that someone on the planet is competing with SpaceX, when SpaceX alone in 2022 launched into orbit 95% of the commercial payload of the world and the same mass of everyone combined...twice over, and probably did all of this at a fraction of the cost of the rest of the planet. It's the same people who thinks that Tesla has competition, when Tesla is selling you a 48k$ cars that they make for 33k ( Q1 results of 4) days ago, meanwhile the competition is selling you a 60k car with worse specs, and that cost them 85k to make ( hello -40%-margins-on-EVs-Ford).
Did you guys miss the entire section on SpaceX offering rideshares? SpaceX flies the Transporter missions which carry dozens of smallsats each
@@alt8791 even so virgin orbit would only be able to fly 1 or 2 of them. Spacex is easily doing 5 if not more (depending on size of course) at a fraction of the cost. Virgin orbits only marketing is you don't have to wait a year for others to sign up for a ride share. Spacex isn't competing in this space. Merely just picking up what slack is left
@@winnipeg21
“The maximum number of satellites that SpaceX has launched on a single Falcon 9 rocket is 60.”
I have been buying some stocks since the beginning of the year, but nothing substantial. Why am I treating this poorly? However, people in the same profession are earning six figures on articles, which inspires me to aim toward becoming the first person in my polygamous family to hit the million dollar mark. I am perfectly aware that working harder to gain more money is expensive.
Nothing you're doing is wrong; you simply lack the knowledge to profit in a bear market. The only people who may earn greatly during dangerous times like these are professionals with vast knowledge who must have observed the 2008 crisis.
My consultant is *"JAMES GIFF GIFFORD"* .I found him on a CNBC interview where he was featured and reached out to him afterwards. he has since provided entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can look him up online if you care supervision. I basically follow his trade pattern and haven’t regretted doing so.
People, this is a SCAM thread, all bot comments, please for the love of god do NOT fall for this sort of crap!!! These crypto/investment etc. advisors are all scammers.
Downvote/dislike these bots/scammers guys.
Scambots
So, you’re telling me throwing money at something without a plan, doesn’t guarantee success … I’m shocked 🤣
Pretty much any politician's mo.
@@joet7136 Totally off-topic. This isn't about politics, Mr TrollBot
It ran out of money.
Interestingly, research proves that this is the primary reason businesses fail.
Hmm... in many cases, running out of liquidity is the problem. A company might still be worth a fortune, on paper (e.g. holding key patents, but unable to pay this year’s tax bill). I don’t think the Virgin outfit has much of value, though.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 Nope, they were sold off for a total of about $36 million.
they saw it coming a while back, which would explain why they spun it off from virgin galactic
No, it spun ff because orbital satellite launch is a very different business from suborbital tourist hops. It made little sense to have those two businesses under the same management. If they had known it could not be profitable, Virgin Galactic would have simply stopped work on it. Now, given that Orbital ATK's Pegasus rocket had already been forced out of the market, even if it was technically still listed as active, there was a great deal of skepticism that VO could be made to work, but the Virgin Group are not so stupid as to pursue a business they know will fail.
The space race heated up when two billionaires, at nearly the same time, created new rocket companies and began developing new rockets. Sometime later another group of billionaires decided to get into the business and this is where Branson comes in. He saw what SpaceX in particular was doing and wanted the street cred that comes with being a billionaire rocket company owner. Along the way Musk got Branson to also play follow the leader with the Hyperloop and in the end Branson is going to lose tens of billions trying to play along. The jury's still out on Bezos but after more than 20 years in the rocket business (he started Blu Origin before Musk and SpaceX) he's yet to put even a single microgram into orbit!
Blue Origin has sent people into space, as has Virgin Galactic and Space X. They’ve all accomplished that but it’s gonna be hard to do it repeatedly and safely
@@DirtFather407 Blue Origin has not put even a single microgram in orbit -- getting to space they way they have requires about 1/8 the dV required for orbit. But even that underestimates the challenge of getting into orbit as the rocket needed to provide 8 times the dV of New Shepard is way more than 8 times larger. BO is a joke!
@@DirtFather407 the scientists, engineers working for them knows these billionaires have no passion when it comes to space and only doing it for the attention, Its a complete waste of money and gas, musk is putting satellites into space so he's at least doing something, space tourism will never be a thing in our lifetime.
I hate having to explain this. Blue Origin was started as a space think tank not a rocket company. Around 2010 they started to transition to the idea of building rocket engines for other companies and then chose the make rockets themselves.
While Blue Origin has not put anything in orbit yet they have flown dozens of NASA payloads on New Shepard including landing sensors that will be used in the Artemis program.
@@luther0013 What the hell is a space think tank? Can their be anything more dilettante that owning a space think tank?
I think the commercial space industry has rapidly been evolving. It seems like Virgin Orbit had less capability. Also, 2 out of 6 failures is not great. They basically seem like a company still heavily in the R&D phase with an anemic roadmap. I know that sounds brutal, but it seems like the commercial space industry growth will be highly influenced by two things. One, reduction in cost for weight to orbit, and 2 the ability to move smaller things or people to orbit in hours, not months or days. I think that’s what makes companies in the game more successful.
Actually currently people can go to orbit in minutes, Docking with ISS requires anywhere between 6 to 72 hours.
I’m referring to the logistics involved with a launch. If you wanted to do an emergency launch like get a satellite up or deliver supplies, you would most likely be paying for the vehicle as well as cost involved to bump other companies or govs. If a company had a proven ability to launch with minimal notice, that would fill a niche.
@@apok1980 Launching big Rockets require permits, Good weather and hardware inspections , So they are not in the same league as aeroplanes ,but in 2022 SpaceX launched approximately One Rocket in every 6 days ! So that's as frequent as it can get.
Mid-size Rockets like Falcon 9 and Gslv mk 3(Indian) cost 67 million dollars and their payloads may cost beyond a billion dollars ,so you should not be taking risk to ramp up launch frequency.
Video could just be, "Branson likes to fake it till he makes it".
Space travel is hard, they were trying to do something no one else does. It could work, but Branson doesn't work like that. He normally enters markets where there are other players, flash it up and bit, then cash out.
Paul Allen probably would have done a better job. Or another backer with more conviction.
Paul could have done many things. He was a true master of execution. His loss is a loss for many industries who now rely on FOMO and memes.
I would like to see Paul Allen's business card.
6:11 voiceover says launches remain stagnant since 2017 at the same time as showing a chart showing an almost doubling of small satellite launches in the most recent year. Top journalism guys 👏
I think that was almost entirely due to SpaceX Starlink launches, and they provide their own service. Outside of that, there hasn't been nearly as much growth in the small launch market as was anticipated a few years ago and SpaceX and ISRO, with rideshares, and Rocket Lab, are able to service the entire market. VO had no competitive advantage in payload or price, and their ability to launch from anywhere in the world was not that attractive in the market.
I think it’s a basic economics principle. There’s only so much small sat launch demand, and far more small sat launch supply than there is demand. There are too many launch providers.
This is something I have also realized and it is interesting that most space commentators don't mention this. Most small sat launch startups are going to fail even if they successfully develop their launch vehicles.
It was anticipated that there would be a very significant increase in the small sat market and perhaps there has been but not enough to support even half a dozen providers. There are something over a hundred companies calling themselves small sat launch providers. the vast majority of these have yet to bend metal and they never will.
Relativity and ABL have both had failed test launches. Astra tried to become operational but after five failures in seven launches shut down to work on a bigger, better rocket. That left exactly four in the small sat market. SpaceX and ISRO both doing rideshares and neither of them dependent on small sat revenues for their existence, one being a government agency and the other the globally dominant launch provider. Rocket Lab, which expanded their business to providing payload components to satellite builders which, as I understand it, now provides the bulk of their revenue, and who is developing a medium lift rocket, and Virgin Orbit, which was wholly and solely dependent on launch operations for their revenue. And now there are three. This probably shows the necessary path other small sat launchers are going to have to follow. Find some other source of revenue to support your launch operations while you develop a medium lift rocket to try to challenge SpaceX. The enormous explosion in the small sat market may still occur, but the great majority of them are going to be content with the smaller price of getting a rideshare on a medium or heavy lift rocket rather than paying for special treatment on a small launcher.
typos mistake ... 10:48 (Nov 2023 !! ?) now its April 2023
It has not happened yet ... We are seeing the future.
As a Rocklet Lab investor, this is excellent.
Judging by other Virgin companies such as virgin mobile and virgin atlantic its no wonder virgin galactic failed. What surprises me is how Brenson is still in business with his other brands.
It failed because you can find a clip of Jim Cramer saying it's a buy
Delivering few launches, going ipo on the spac, not raising enough money, and the last recorded positive news from the CEO was from 2 years ago that’s an issue
I knew one of the engineers that went to work for them about 5 years ago after leaving SpaceX, that sucks they are going under.
I also knew of people who left space x for Virgin orbit
Even geniuses make poor decisions sometime huh.
Failure teaches us to dust ourselves off and try again. Any experience is valuable. So we should be grateful for it and move on with expectancy! You will rise again. The competition is rife.
It didn't fail. Branson was to the space, that was the whole thing.
Rich guy with his fullfil desires.
He went to space and cashed out $500mil in stocks after he landed back on earth.
You are confusing Virgin Orbit with Virgin Galactic. Virgin Galactic, somewhat surprisingly, is still in business and ready to begin commercial operations. We will see how long they last.
@@jondoh3471 That was Virgin Galactic, not Orbit.
It’s possible though it only needs some improvements and could be proven profitable
How was one of the articles written in Nov. 7th of 2023?
The issue is the speed. Satellites stays up there due to their speed, launch from an aircraft limits the fuel it carries.
Whether or not Virgin Orbit was ever a viable business it's objective was relatively modest and it seems a lot of effort just for it to collapse after one debut flight failed.
7:28 "In total, the company launched six missions, four of which were successful and two of which failed."
The failure of the Cornwall flight did not cause the bankruptcy. Had it succeeded, they might have held on a while longer, but really not more than a few weeks.
@@odysseusrex5908 Why would that have to be the case? Wasn't it largely owned by a man with an estimated net worth over £2 billion?
@@no_rubbernecking Well, actually, the primary, maybe sole, owner was the SPAC that had acquired VO to let them go public. That said, I'm not sure what Branson's net worth is, but there is a big difference between net worth and cash on hand. Branson's net worth is the values of the stock he holds in his various businesses. That is not money he has in a vault somewhere. Either way though, he had made it plain he was not going to support the company any more. The last $25 million he put into it was a loan with the airplane and other tangible assets being put up as collateral. When the boss starts treating you like that, you are in big trouble.
@@odysseusrex5908 Granted, but any idea what they were doing wrong that Branson felt was beyond fixing?
Very simple actually
SpaceX and Blue Origin are afloat to a large degree because both are large government contractors. NASA/DoD/DARPA have doled out billions of dollars to both companies for rockets, engines, supply runs to ISS and future projects (like a moon lander). All the "fun stuff" like space tourism or mission to Mars are small side projects to their core business and are funded indirectly because of those large government contracts stated before.
Virgin Orbit's problem is that their entire business is the "fun stuff" and without the government dollars they can't stay afloat.
Virgin orbit should start from India, here Govt has allowed Pvt sector in space...
Many players are coming in..
They seemed to have just spent money and did nothing. Launching rockets to space had been researched in past on at least 2 occasions that I know of. Last time it was ditched was due to the fuel volatility if I recall correctly but also it's benefits just don't add up. How about a launch ramp up the side of Mt Chimborazo, now lets get an IPO going. 🤑
The Pegasus rocket, developed by Orbital Sciences Corp. was actually the first privately developed launcher to achieve orbit, long before SpaceX was even a gleam in Elon Musk's eye. They had a pretty good launch cadence through the 1990s but gradually tailed off in the 2000s due to competition from other providers, particularly SpaceX. Northrop Grumman now owns the system, having bought Orbital-ATK, and lists it as active but it has flown all of four times in the last ten years, the last time in 2021, and they have no launches planned. So, while it has not, technically, been ditched, I doubt it will ever fly again.
Who were the SPACs? That's what I want to know.
excellent reporting
As far as i understand, spac deals are conducted between a business which has not been listed and a spac company,ie, a listed shell company,right?
but in the middle of the news, the reporter said
"vergin orbit went public via spac??"
If i might have been wrong about companies deals with spac companies ..could anybody tell me what was that about the deal?
What?????
Yes, you are exactly right and that was precisely what was described.
This sort of thing (such as the various SSTO designs) will no doubt make a comeback only after the next huge leap in propulsion tech...
Eventually the tracks will get electric to them. Light speed?
I love how these places can raise a billion dollars and then it just goes in the trash. Never ceases to amaze me the things people will invest in
The comment at 6:17, about rockets getting bigger, and launching multiple satellites from one rocket, therefore reducing the cost per satellite. Seemed like the nail in the coffin, as Virgin Orbits rockets were now old, and too small. They, therefore, could not compete without a redesign, which Virgin Orbit didn't have the money for.
Even with a redesign, a horizontal launcher launching a single small payload cannot compete with a larger, vertical launcher able to launch multiple small payloads at a time. The flexibility of launch location and scheduling VO offered just wasn't that attractive in the market.
13+ minutes is an awful long time to say "Because Richard Branson was running the company".
Michael Sheetz can write articles about the future 😮
10:45
The problem of virgin ? They don't have Elon musk as their ceo. Richard Branson is too poor to run rocket company
Nope. Branson are just like bezos no work of ethics!!!
I do believe they need to improve the quality control and solve the technical problems before the company become profitable.
The company is out of business and was when you posted this.
10:45 Nov 7th, 2023???
With inflation and high interest rates, start ups and small companies end up spending more on finances and less money R&D/innovation. Money more expensive now. Space x can launch 60 Starlink satellites at one time. Starship can launch many times more. Branson is a billionaire. He could contribute more. High interest rates means less money being thrown at new startups
It failed as most of Branson's things do.
Virgin Galactic is next. They haven't done anything since that 1st flight.
Not as good as the first time, heh?
I love getting Virgin Airlines and Voyages ads when waiting for this video to stay. Lol
Theese loses are pocket change, i am going to bankruptcy court and buying this thing and taking it private... Ill be ultra rich when i fix it
Saudi Arabia is asking if Virgin Orbit has anything to do with the 72 Virgins in Heaven
😂
I'm looking to buy the Virgin Orbit from Richard Branson Companies Virgin Orbit to Invention technology ideas for Aerospace
How much cargo can it carry if the rocket had wings and does a point to point sub-orbital flight and is100% reusable? WHEN IT HAS TO BE THERE YESTERDAY, could be their slogan.
at 10:46 They are a citing a news article from the FUTURE!!! From Nov. 7, 2023 !
CNBC publishes interesting articles, but I think they use interns to compile these videos. The quality control issues are something of a trend throughout the channel.
I guess we need chad orbit
Ok you’re all wrong. Richard Branson has been talking about going to space and having space tourism for like 20-30 years. He was way before musk and bezos. The problem is that realistically you need government contracts in order to afford enough launches. So they couldn’t get past that last step. He also got to space like he wanted to. So he really doesn’t care any more.
Well, he may not care anymore, in which case I have very little respect for him, but his space tourism company, Virgin Galactic, is still in business. It is his small sat orbital launch company, Virgin Orbit, which has collapsed.
Bet? Bet it is more successful considering the launch pad doesn't need total rebuild
Did anyone think anything else would happen look at the cell service.
SpaceX 😎👍 for the win 🚀
Most scientists: We told you so !
Virgin orbit business model was a compromise. A halfway measure to compete in a field where innovation is king . Branson played in a game with half a deck
They got out-competed by ISRO, which offers a lower cost and more reliable satellite launch service for smaller payloads.
No money equals no business. You can barrow quite a bit but at some point you have to turn a profit.
Classic example of growing too fast for your own good. There was no need for them to go public or hire so many people when they didn't have the revenue to support it.
Too fast? LOL
@@foobarmaximus3506 Yes. Too fast.
So a multi billion dollar company creates another LLC company. Asks money from investors. Then declares bankruptcy to be paid by taxpayers?
yup
Railroad tracks and fly it. The dam things lands half the time.
Cause the CEO and Upper management took too much money out of the company that should have went to development, simple.
It's so weird having only heard all of these space reporters' voices on podcasts and then suddenly seeing their faces for the first time
Ya they were focused on creating high value and taking the company public and dumping the shares on people than working on engineering and mission success.
Hmm, I don't think the engineers would agree with you there.
"If the satellite gets shot down they won't have to wait six months to launch a replacement..."
Um, yeah they would probably need to spend some time constructing the replacement satellite - I doubt they have warehouses full of spares.
So sad regardless of why, what, who or how?
I mean why should it be cheaper now than in the 1990s
Say, even if they stick to it, persevere, and build a complete orbital launch vehicle that does exactly what they envisioned. That would be great... except now, instead of self-proclaiming to be in, they're now officially in the same race as SpaceX. Could they actually beat the Falcon 9 competitively? Not to mention, SpaceX is already beginning their actual test launch phase of Starship.
Only an imbecile of an investor would not bail as soon as they can...
CNBC is the most interesting TH-cam Channel by far. The videos are incredible. They are really interesting and educational. They research things really well. Thank you CNBC
10:47 Nov 2023.... wait what ?
Ya that's weird. Maybe they meant 2022.
What went wrong is me failing to see what was supposed to go right in the first place.
For something that offers a shorted, fun, and very expensive trip, it wasn't meant to be viable.
This will matter in the future not now.
It will matter when space technology has advanced so much that prices are a fraction of what SpaceX charge per cargo today. Then you will have a lot of people paying for that short, fun trip to orbit.
Are you confusing Virgin Orbit with Virgin Galactic? They are two distinct companies.
Virgin Orbit, which went bankrupt, flew small payloads to orbit on small rockets. Virgin Galactic, which wants to fly people on suborbital flights aboard a spaceplane, is still in business and expects to finally commence operations next month. We will see how long they last. Good luck to them though.
Where is the revenue to come from. This is government business not private sector activity.
I see Spacex vs all others in the future(Blue Origin, LM/NG etc.)
Just like Bezos, Branson is not a rocket scientist like Elon Musk! I know some of you will argue that Musk is not (tachnically) a rocket scientist. It only means you never heard him talk about rocket engines and how they are built and how they work. For me, that alone qualifies Elon as a rocket scientist.
@obbie1osias467 If you watched the video, you'd see recognise that, rather than 'rocket scientist', Elon Musk is just more popular/a better salesman.
Further, Branson didn't care enough to save Orbit when he can take his millions and invest in a competitor.
@@HabitualLine-Stepper Do you understand rcoket science? Try some videos where Elon explains how rockets work. He's not just a salesman like Branson and Bezos. He actually knows how his products are made and has a lot of say about how to make them.
@obbie1osias467 So you really believe that SpaceX outlived Orbit because Musk knows more about rockets than Bezos or Branson?
OK..............
@@obbie1osias467 Still doesn't make him a rocket scientist for sure though. He's also not a chemical engineer nor computer vision scientist just because he can talk about Tesla vehicles. He does care enough to at least learn high-level concepts to talk about them, I'd give you that.
@@zichenglong6992 What?😳😳😳 Really???🤣🤣🤣
If I had the investment capital and wanted to get into this market I would 100% PURCHASE this company. Purchasing them would put someone at least 5-10 years ahead of starting from zero. They require REAL leadership. Damn what an opportunity.
Purchasing an already developed system from a money hungry billionaire who has put in loads of man-hours?! ... You'd get totally ripped of!
I guess that's why no one is buying it! 😂😂😂 ... Am sure there are plenty of people who are able, and have a use for the system ... But the deal is no bueno!
@@wayando That's your opinion based on your thinking such as it is.....
Commercial space travel will be akin to the airline business in a few years; in other words a capitalist graveyard.
@@marcus_b1 He's right.
@@wayando Well, Virgin was in absolutely no position to negotiate. A bankruptcy sale is an auction. the actual owners of the bankrupt entity don't get any money out of it. All they get is their debts cancelled while their creditors get whatever money is bid, which doesn't come close to making them whole. In this case, from the point of view of an outsider with no real knowledge of the industry, it looks as though the company could have been operated profitably once shorn of all its debt but, obviously, industry insiders disagreed.
eventually there will have to be alot of mergers within this space, too many space startups and not enough customers to go around
Every country is a potential customer, every communication company is a customer, every media company is a potential customer ... It's just a matter of reducing costs to where the customers can afford it.
Virgin orbit was sn actual company?
Virgin Orbit surely did "spin out" but the actual term for making a corporate business division or department "go solo" as its own standalone company - usually as a "risk management" measure post-merger when a "blue chip" company acquires a "tech firm" - is SPIN OFF.
None of that is applicable in the case of Virgin...whatever. The whole purpose of the "spin out" was PR and creating the illusion of a "publicly traded" Virgin "subsidiary" with "adults" in the boardroom and an actual "entrepreneur" with his "own money" and actual billions in "liquidity" to "invest" during the company "launch".
Love how everyone thinks that someone on the planet is competing with SpaceX, when SpaceX alone in 2022 launched into orbit 95% of the commercial payload of the world and the same mass of everyone combined...twice over, and probably did all of this at a fraction of the cost of the rest of the planet. It's the same people who thinks that Tesla has competition, when Tesla is selling you a 48k$ cars that they make for 33k ( Q1 results of 4) days ago, meanwhile the competition is selling you a 60k car with worse specs, and that cost them 85k to make ( hello -40%-margins-on-EVs-Ford).
Virgin didn't have any plan that made sense in a world were you can piggyback on a falcon 9 that launches 3 times a week
Branson and his brother went into space and now they could care less. He had to tell his investors something to get the money for it
You're thinking of Jeff Bezos. But yes Branson went to space as well.
You are confusing Virgin Orbit, which is the company that went out of business, with both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, both of which are still in business.
There is no way these companies can compete with India's state owned ISRO in multiple small and medium satellite launches in terms of success rate and cost efficiency.
Indian space companies will most likely buy them out.
lolol Right.
This False Bravado is not good.
ISRO launches only a few times every year, but manages to load a large amount of satellites onto a launch vehicle. That is one way to reduce launch costs.
Oh! Now i saw the front part of the news, an interviewee explaing a merger with a spac firm with an aim to raise capital on the market.
I thought spac deals are just deals.. not some kind of listing procedure..
technically, the company in question did a merger with a spac firm.. not going public on the stock market.
Well, in some way, it could be said, a sort of indirect listing ᆢin a convenient way..though.
Admittedly, i thought vergin orbit was a listed company..
By the way, with the acquisition, on whose name, capital is raised, on the stock market?
Sorry about the pestering with questions^^
Good for him!Bravo!
When the head of a conglomerate refuses to continue to financially support a startup company of that conglomerate, you know that company's boned.
Absolutely.
What went wrong? Oh I don’t know a little company called space x started dominating the entire market.
They completely missed out on a revenue stream. They should have sold seats on the 747 for people to witness the launch itself. These seats would have brought in additional revenue needed to help the company survive.
Certification and insurance prohibits this, I’m sure. Also, you’d see nothing. Maybe just to say “I was there”.
I guess one web went with ISRO
And OneWeb sent its satellite with ISRO, India's space agency.
the employees screwed things up on purpose. now their all fired. 3 companies picked up orbit who already have enough people.
OK, I no scientist or anything, but why would they want to put a microwave or refrigerator into orbit?
They spent way too long in the beginning trying to capitalize on luxury space travel . The Virgin Galactic plane was never luxurious as a private jet and they spent way too much on something that quickly lost its novelty for bored rich people. They shifted too late to the private satellite sector to adjust for the miscalculation
Virgin Orbit was a spinoff of Virgin Galactic. The fortunes of the one had nothing to do with those of the other. Virgin Galactic is still in business and about to begin commercial operations.
@@odysseusrex5908 Its a vertical integrated business, they are connected. Virgin Galactic came first and would have funded Orbit, but it couldn't, because Virgin Galactic never brought in the tourism factor it was supposed to. They rely heavily on private funding unlike Spacex who gets government and military contracts.
@@distorta No, it is not vertically integrated and once VO was spun off it was a completely separate corporation. There was no connection between them.
Retitled this article to "Why I sold my stock in Virgin Galactic".
The typical representation of 0% interest rates, central bankers madness, QE, euphoria, and easy money era.
This is sad. I wished to see multiple billionaires competing in space industry. Sad to see VO go bankrupt.
Yes, it's sad, but it was inevitable. They never had a viable business model. Even if their last launch had been successful, that would only have delayed matters a few weeks.
Branson could have bailed them out.
It's funny how you refer to SpaceX as a competitor to Virgin Orbit.
Oh yes, money well spent so that one rich guy could get to space.
I'm so sick of these old style rockets....strapping a bomb to a capsule. I want to fly a Tick Tack!
I feel bad for richard brandson but BBC should look at its tail becuase they asked India why they are investing in space program instead of feeding its people.
so when did Virgin Orbit become the UK space agency?
Cosmic girl is no more virgin
Who in their right mind would trust a multi million dollar satallite to a cut price rocket?
Depends on what your insurance broker quotes, I suppose.