Hey Dave thanks for the shout out. Happy to support the great content here on your channel. Even if electron reusability doesn’t end up being worth the small gain in margin, I’m sure the lesson’s learned to take into neutrons development were more than worth it.
Interesting on Archimedes engine. SpaceX Raptor 1st test fire was 2016, 1st product-like test fire Feb 2019, first Starhopper test mid 2019, first Starship mockup 150m flight mid 2020, first integrated test flight early 2023. Getting Archimedes from 1st product test fire to 1st launch in a year would be really fast.
Yeah, even the first generation Merlin 1A engine for Falcon 1 Took from 2002 to 2004 for have complete engine test. And all the way to 2006 to have first launch. And 2007 was first successful launch for Falcon 1 first stage (second stage failed). I guess most of the slowdown with Raptor has been the design changes to the ship and booster, so they have not had the opportunity to test flights, although the engine was ready. But then again, Merlin and Raptor mostly had the problem of not having proper launch vehicle ready for them. And now Rocketlab has a working engine that's being pushed into mass production, meanwhile they've also completed a lot of the modules for the booster. So there's no reason why they couldn't make it in a year really if they can just put it all together and test everything well.
5% can also mean the amount of work required to turn around a flown stage 1 is significant. Not all recovery plans are apples to apples comparison. The payload mass penalty for recovery for a small launch vehicle is a lot more impactful than a medium class vehicle such as a F9. Makes the recovery proposition a lot more complex to implement successfully
I love hearing them talk about putting their own assets in space. I also feel like if they can pull off the 1 stop shop the business will explode, very bullish and makes me want to add more even at this current price.....😅
From my understanding, from previous news releases, is that they have a complete recovered rocket, which has passed most key testing requirements to be recertified for flight. So, as you alluded to, most of the R&D into reusability for the electron might be done. If that’s the case, while not tantalizing right now compared to Neutron development and the cash flow that will come with that, a 5% margin improvement on electron is still better than a swift kick in the pants. Plus, proving their success in a reusable small launcher would put Neutron customers spending millions more to launch on the very first reused Neutron rocket at ease.
Yeah sure, a 5% margin improvement is probably worth doing considering most of the R&D is done. I understand why it isn't the priority right now though.
I agree the more expensive the launch asset the more you save in reusability. Reusable Electron would benefit from really increase Rocket Lab perception more than the occasional 5% savings.
Yeah, I've been waiting for something more solid about their future after Neutron and this kinda is giving it clearly away, that they have something planned and most likely customers in talks too. Makes sense that once they have reusable launch vehicle, or even launch vehicle with more payload capacity, they can start pushing a lot more systems out there to be operated by them for their customers.
The labor cost on the reusable Electrons takes a huge part of the total cost since the rocket is relatively small with a lower cost to manufact. But for bigger rocket, the advantage of usability will be significant.
Good segment. Spice implied Electron could get into as much as 30s/yr- but, I dunno; I throw a small yellow flag on that. They clearly have given up on Electron reusability (no one can blame them for that, in all honesty). The only company in the entire space econosphere that ever starts out from square one with true mass production ramp up capability in mind, is SpaceX. If he saw orders for say 2026 coming in that looked like it might hit 30 launches, he would have some serious capex (in my opinion) to spend that he hasn’t admitted to- and yet on a realistic timeline, Neutron wouldn’t have started to being accretive yet. I’m not being super-critical; I like the majority of what he’s saying; and I like the path that the company is on- including the fact they have space systems! But saying that the more flights they do that “ a lot just flows to bottom line” is a little simplistic. But all in all a good report. He’s pretty much signaled that they are looking for just the right type of acquisition to round out their in-house expertise; can’t wait to find out what it will be. - Dave Huntsman
I think you are looking at a couple things. With the first being risk reward. Do you risk a customer satellite for a small add back to the bottom line of just fly a new reliable rocket and push the margin on success rate. The second is - how much is gamesmanship. When you show your already struggling competitors that you are recovering and potentially using a recovered rocket when they are just trying to get a rocket into orbit could have been purely a competitive move to deflate the competition.
Dave, I love your videos, however you under estimate of long term value of your personal holdings in Rocket Lab. ( in the 1940,s my father bought 600 shares of Martin Marietta for $20 per share. Those original share are now 8,000 shares of LMT) or 4 nice homes 80 years later. The hardest thing is not to sell for decades.
All eyes on Nuetron is correct. Any news on when the landing barge will be built? The Nuetron is limited to 8 tonne, and limits its attraction until it is ready and they can deliver 13 tonne.
I haven't heard about the barge yet but I assume it is something they will buy and refurbish to their needs. No point in spending the capital too early though if they don't need it quite yet...
Reusability isn't a solution. Rocket Lab should work on airship based launch pads. Such pad can provide start from 40-50km with existing rockets. Same rocket but bigger payload.
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tnlxo79cAqY/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey Dave I’m a Rocket Lab engineer been working there for about a year your coverage is on point
Thank you, that is nice to hear!
U invested in it?
Hey Dave thanks for the shout out. Happy to support the great content here on your channel.
Even if electron reusability doesn’t end up being worth the small gain in margin, I’m sure the lesson’s learned to take into neutrons development were more than worth it.
Thanks Barb!
Great to combine these two SPICE chats .. and hear your thoughts too Dave.. bravo from down under…
Interesting on Archimedes engine. SpaceX Raptor 1st test fire was 2016, 1st product-like test fire Feb 2019, first Starhopper test mid 2019, first Starship mockup 150m flight mid 2020, first integrated test flight early 2023.
Getting Archimedes from 1st product test fire to 1st launch in a year would be really fast.
Yeah, even the first generation Merlin 1A engine for Falcon 1 Took from 2002 to 2004 for have complete engine test. And all the way to 2006 to have first launch. And 2007 was first successful launch for Falcon 1 first stage (second stage failed). I guess most of the slowdown with Raptor has been the design changes to the ship and booster, so they have not had the opportunity to test flights, although the engine was ready. But then again, Merlin and Raptor mostly had the problem of not having proper launch vehicle ready for them. And now Rocketlab has a working engine that's being pushed into mass production, meanwhile they've also completed a lot of the modules for the booster. So there's no reason why they couldn't make it in a year really if they can just put it all together and test everything well.
5% can also mean the amount of work required to turn around a flown stage 1 is significant. Not all recovery plans are apples to apples comparison. The payload mass penalty for recovery for a small launch vehicle is a lot more impactful than a medium class vehicle such as a F9. Makes the recovery proposition a lot more complex to implement successfully
I love hearing them talk about putting their own assets in space. I also feel like if they can pull off the 1 stop shop the business will explode, very bullish and makes me want to add more even at this current price.....😅
Nice job! As usual, Dave.
From my understanding, from previous news releases, is that they have a complete recovered rocket, which has passed most key testing requirements to be recertified for flight. So, as you alluded to, most of the R&D into reusability for the electron might be done. If that’s the case, while not tantalizing right now compared to Neutron development and the cash flow that will come with that, a 5% margin improvement on electron is still better than a swift kick in the pants. Plus, proving their success in a reusable small launcher would put Neutron customers spending millions more to launch on the very first reused Neutron rocket at ease.
Yeah sure, a 5% margin improvement is probably worth doing considering most of the R&D is done. I understand why it isn't the priority right now though.
I agree the more expensive the launch asset the more you save in reusability. Reusable Electron would benefit from really increase Rocket Lab perception more than the occasional 5% savings.
Yep, it will be a much bigger deal for Neutron.
You can tell spice is keen to get going on space applications as soon as Neutron is done
Definitely!
Yeah, I've been waiting for something more solid about their future after Neutron and this kinda is giving it clearly away, that they have something planned and most likely customers in talks too. Makes sense that once they have reusable launch vehicle, or even launch vehicle with more payload capacity, they can start pushing a lot more systems out there to be operated by them for their customers.
The labor cost on the reusable Electrons takes a huge part of the total cost since the rocket is relatively small with a lower cost to manufact. But for bigger rocket, the advantage of usability will be significant.
What is meant by organic vs inorganic?
Good segment. Spice implied Electron could get into as much as 30s/yr- but, I dunno; I throw a small yellow flag on that. They clearly have given up on Electron reusability (no one can blame them for that, in all honesty). The only company in the entire space econosphere that ever starts out from square one with true mass production ramp up capability in mind, is SpaceX. If he saw orders for say 2026 coming in that looked like it might hit 30 launches, he would have some serious capex (in my opinion) to spend that he hasn’t admitted to- and yet on a realistic timeline, Neutron wouldn’t have started to being accretive yet. I’m not being super-critical; I like the majority of what he’s saying; and I like the path that the company is on- including the fact they have space systems! But saying that the more flights they do that “ a lot just flows to bottom line” is a little simplistic. But all in all a good report. He’s pretty much signaled that they are looking for just the right type of acquisition to round out their in-house expertise; can’t wait to find out what it will be. - Dave Huntsman
I think its pretty clear by this point that they have abandoned making Electron reusable.
I think you are looking at a couple things. With the first being risk reward. Do you risk a customer satellite for a small add back to the bottom line of just fly a new reliable rocket and push the margin on success rate. The second is - how much is gamesmanship. When you show your already struggling competitors that you are recovering and potentially using a recovered rocket when they are just trying to get a rocket into orbit could have been purely a competitive move to deflate the competition.
Dave, I love your videos, however you under estimate of long term value of your personal holdings in Rocket Lab. ( in the 1940,s my father bought 600 shares of Martin Marietta for $20 per share. Those original share are now 8,000 shares of LMT) or 4 nice homes 80 years later. The hardest thing is not to sell for decades.
Next share price drop, I'm buying...
Reusability on electron does not seem viable….
Thanks Dave
All eyes on Nuetron is correct. Any news on when the landing barge will be built? The Nuetron is limited to 8 tonne, and limits its attraction until it is ready and they can deliver 13 tonne.
I haven't heard about the barge yet but I assume it is something they will buy and refurbish to their needs. No point in spending the capital too early though if they don't need it quite yet...
He oddly sound very similar to Abcellera CEO Dr. Carl Hansen
Merge, Rocket Labs with AST space Mobile and Blacksky.
Long investor here
Reusability isn't a solution. Rocket Lab should work on airship based launch pads. Such pad can provide start from 40-50km with existing rockets. Same rocket but bigger payload.
are the claps in 12:34 something usual in this kind of acts? cause they sound to me out place, but at the same time, so contained
Dave share the links please. And can we change your name to Diamond Dave?
They are in the description! Haha sure if you want.
Long $rklb
More SPACE SECTOR STOCK
Click bait old news, and conjecture using disingenuous sources
Not helping my buying back in.
Adam spice needs to stop saying “ya know” so much. No, I don’t know, Adam Spice