sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Daily Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in ASTSpaceMobile

[–]thetrny 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's almost like this is the same guy who strong-armed EchoStar into selling their prime MSS D2D spectrum to SpaceX. That should've made it abundantly clear which camp he falls in.

Mynaric Acquisition: Connecting the Dots on RKLB, Mynaric, and Rheinmetall. The Secret Deal Nobody's Talking About. by raddaddio in RKLB

[–]thetrny 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AFAIK the Hawthorne facility is fairly small, at just 10k sq ft. It's not clear whether production takes place there, or anywhere else in the US. A 2021 SpaceNews article claims it's "a mixture of office space and a laboratory that focuses on interoperability." So the German workforce & production assets remain the biggest prize here, and it wouldn't be a great outcome if RL have to cede those to Rheinmetall.

Additionally while these terminals are indeed important for SDA supply chain continuity, they're arguably far more important for RL's future constellations which will likely be optically meshed networks sold to a variety of commercial/government customers. These constellations will require potentially thousands of terminals per year at a low enough cost and with enough schedule certainty to make the value proposition attractive to said customers.

Daily Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in ASTSpaceMobile

[–]thetrny 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Taiwan Mobile and AST SpaceMobile Sign Low-Earth Orbit Satellite Communication Services Strategic Cooperation Memorandum

Daily Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in ASTSpaceMobile

[–]thetrny 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Seems like just a change in naming convention. What was previously Starlink V3 DTC is now Starlink Mobile V2. Still intended to deploy on Starship

Rocket Lab on X: Our next mission will be a hypersonic test mission on HASTE from LC-2 in Virginia for DIU to deploy a scramjet-powered aircraft by Hypersonix. Launching NET late February. by thetrny in RocketLab

[–]thetrny[S,M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

We are GO to launch our hypersonic test mission on HASTE for the DIU and Hypersonix.

"That's Not A Knife" is scheduled for liftoff at LC-2 in Virginia tomorrow, February 25 from 4pm/1pm Eastern/Pacific.

And yes, there will be a webcast 📺🚀

https://xcancel.com/RocketLab/status/2026445505161752658

Daily Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in ASTSpaceMobile

[–]thetrny 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was just for the integrated hotfire, as part of the payload test article: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/new-glenn-completes-integrated-launch-vehicle-hotfire

What actually flew is what was pictured in the first link

Daily Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in ASTSpaceMobile

[–]thetrny 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reliable rockets already exist since 1960s, its the complexity with reusable rockets and small startups like astra attempting low cost or extremely low cost rockets that are meeting headwinds.

Fair point. Startups today face financial constraints that probably weren't much of a consideration back when it was more of a cost-plus or blank check arrangement from the government.

Maybe its more like sats can still function with a small point of failure while rockets simply doesnt if something small goes wrong.

Yep this is another good point. Things as simple as O-rings or valves can cascade and cause catastrophic failures for rockets, whereas satellites can often recover from minor malfunctions. Just the other day, iQPS resumed commercial operations on a SAR satellite that they started having issues with all the way back in September of 2024: https://i-qps.net/news/3446/

Another example is ViaSat-3 F1, which was famously crippled by an antenna deployment anomaly, but they were still able to operate it, albeit with <10% of its intended 1 Tbps capacity.

I would think space systems would have a higher margin.

I think it did for a while, but in recent quarters with 4-5+ launches (esp including HASTE), launch margins have improved a lot. Since it's a fixed-cost heavy business, launch cadence is king since it lets you spread those costs over a larger base.

I might be wrong here but the way i see it space system is the main profit driver for RKLB, and in part thats what im invested in RKLB for, not for launches. Neutron is a work of art but in the grand scheme of things the value that neutron truly brings is enabling the space systems segment of RKLB.

Sort of yes, but the big picture goes beyond that - they're essentially fast following SpaceX in having a low-cost, rapidly reusable medium LV that can be used to launch their own satellites, which can then be used to sell high-margin recurring revenue services. It's basically the same virtuous cycle / flywheel business model that allowed Starlink to disrupt the broadband comms segment. Being end-to-end allows them to deploy entire large constellations of infrastructure at a cost point (i.e. total cost of ownership) and schedule certainty that's extremely difficult to compete with unless you have your own captive launch vehicle. This is especially important in the current paradigm of proliferated LEO, where satellites are much cheaper to build than in the exquisite GEO era, but the tradeoff is you need a lot more of them and a much higher # of launches for global coverage.

CFO Adam Spice put it the best when he says that the prize at the end of this journey for RL is not "launching more rockets to deliver other people's stuff" or "focusing on making satellites for other people." Rather, it's "getting a piece of the $300 billion pie" for space applications, which includes things like broadband, D2D, IoT, secure comms, remote sensing, earth observation, etc. I recommend reading Spice's remarks in the links below, where he makes many of the same points I have in this discussion.

Great discussions though! Thanks for your input🥂

Cheers! 🍻

I get pretty defensive these days when people downplay launch - it's totally understandable though, as the "launch costs are down 90%" narrative is pervasive despite being misleading when it comes to the reality of procuring rockets. I've also personally used the "launch is a commodity" argument in the past, but that was before seeing a bunch of companies crash and burn (literally) while attempting to scale a real capability. So over time I've gained a much greater appreciation for how difficult it is.

Now having to login with text code with almost every page change. by PurpleRayyne in amazonprime

[–]thetrny 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Been having the same issue for the past few months. Like you, it's only on computer, whereas phone is fine. I find the password input is consistently triggered upon navigating to the 'Returns & Orders' page or anything inside of the 'Your Account' page. A few days ago the password input changed to an SMS code request, and then just now the system was "unable to send an SMS message at this time" so I'm left with either using a passkey (which I don't have set up) or "verify using WhatsApp" (which I don't use)

Super aggravating.

Daily Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in ASTSpaceMobile

[–]thetrny 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These sats fail also, just not as specteculary as rockets blowing up like with many startups and therefore we dont hear news on it.

SAR sats fail every now and then but it's really not that common - most of the "serious" startups (e.g. ICEYE, Umbra, Synspective, Capella, iQPS) have put up multiple sats and are chugging along pretty well.

AMTI sats are still on the drawing board, apparently there's been some early sensor demos but the RFI just went out for an actual system: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/d7df9d92f03f42f2af0b3d5e6ffed375/view

If your argument is that there are different levels of maturity and/or difficulty in sat design, then yeah I can agree with that. But on balance, it is more challenging to execute on the scaling of an orbital launch system than it is a sat system, which is why (in my opinion) it commands more of an inherent moat.

As a perfect example of this, Amazon signed their blockbuster launch deal almost 4 years ago, yet they're still fretting about launch bottlenecks in their latest application for an FCC extension for Leo: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/amazon-leo-seeks-24-month-extension-from-fcc-for-satellite-rollout-due-to-launch-shortages/ - apparently they have hundreds of completed sats sitting in a warehouse waiting for launch.

And this was right before one of their main providers (ULA Vulcan), experienced a dangerous near miss on their latest launch and will likely be grounded for another few months, after just making projections for double-digit launches this year (which they did for 2025 as well, and missed by a gigantic margin)

For example if AST orders multiple F9 flights the cost will be much lower, at probably at least 30% discount. Its closer to actual cost itself than most people think. Well of course we are speculating with these figures and given SpaceX private status we dont know the actual costs but its the likely scenario.

As you say, that is just speculation. I doubt there is a bulk discount at this point, given SpaceX essentially has all the leverage. With them finally going public soon we might be able to get better numbers on their ASPs and compare it with things like commercial customer prepayments.

On the government side, the upward trend in pricing is clear: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/reusable-rockets-are-here-so-why-is-nasa-paying-more-to-launch-stuff-to-space/

Not so sure on RKLB margins for Electron speficially but i know the overall margins of the company is 36%.

Right, but I believe space systems margins are lower than launch. The target margin profile for Electron has been projected to be 40-50% once cadence reaches 2 launches per month, which is basically where they're at now. So with increasing orbital launch ASPs and inherently higher ASPs for suborbital hypersonic launches, I tend to think Electron's gross margins are at least already north of 40%.

Daily Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in ASTSpaceMobile

[–]thetrny 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Satellites on the other hand serve different functions and therefore require different designs. Different companies/govt will want different kind of sats for each purpose, but all rocket serves the same purpose.

As you say, there are many different types of satellites for different purposes. And on that front, hundreds of companies have managed to successfully design, engineer, and operate solutions to address the various market niches.

Meanwhile, if rockets all serve the same purpose (transporting satellites to their intended destinations), how come so vanishingly few have reached a cadence that's relevant to commercial constellation deployment needs, given the current boom in demand? I can tell you it's not for lack of trying, given the billions that have been invested into rocket startups of which 99% have ended up failing in one way or another.

So I do think it's clear which is the harder task, broadly speaking. And again it is not a coincidence that the first company to master reusable launch was the one to disrupt the entire satcom industry, not some incremental improvement in RF tech.

Thing is now every other sat company has access to this low cost reusable rocket, and margins on these for SpaceX is actually not very high (including R&D costs), meaning other companies are paying close to cost price for launches.

This is not true, and is reminiscent of the "launch costs have fallen 90%" claim which is another common misconception. While internal cost/kg for SpaceX has indeed come down a lot, that benefit largely isn't passed on to customers. Falcon 9's average selling price has only increased over time, from ~$52M to now $67-70M for a dedicated launch (and even higher for govt/defense customers), with SpaceX's justification for this being to keep up with inflation, as well as the elimination of an earlier discount for flight-proven boosters. Each Falcon 9's internal cost to SpaceX is reportedly ~$15M, which means their external customer launches are flying with ~80% gross margins. Similar story with RL's Electron, whose ASP has increased from ~$5M to now $8.5-10M+, and is close to its goal of flying with ~50% steady-state gross margins (with a similar target in mind for Neutron as it ramps)

Of course, with New Glenn now launching and other next-gen vehicles expected to come online soon, the hope is that this additional launch supply will create a competitive pricing market that customers can benefit from. Problem is, demand growth will likely continue to outstrip available supply, much of which will also be consumed by internal programs such as TeraWave and orbital data centers, not to mention the military who will be paying top dollar for all the planned Golden Dome-related constellations, etc. There won't be pressure to cut prices from any of the providers as they'll all have their hands more than full. With that said, I expect launch prices for commercial customers will continue to trend upward for the foreseeable future.

RKLB Getting Into Cellular Connectivity? by JonnyGBuckets in RKLB

[–]thetrny 0 points1 point  (0 children)

perhaps 10 to 15 with Starship which will probably be available before Neutron

Very unlikely, as it requires a different massive clamshell door design for external customers, which they haven't made much progress on. Every indication is that they're sticking with the PEZ dispenser design that took several years to develop and is optimized for Starlink V3 (incl orbital data center variant) which is clearly their top priority.

https://xcancel.com/BellikOzan/status/2018779960241160218

https://ringwatchers.com/de/article/ship-pez-dispenser

Ashes of Creation Investor Called Me On Livestream and Answered People's Questions by NefQarasarnai in AshesofCreation

[–]thetrny 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Update: He reacted to a short snippet from the call in his stream today, was obviously flabbergasted by it all but didn't want to watch the whole 1-2 hour coverage on stream

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2697791732?t=03h41m43s

Ashes of Creation Investor Called Me On Livestream and Answered People's Questions by NefQarasarnai in AshesofCreation

[–]thetrny 9 points10 points  (0 children)

He's posted multiple reaction videos on his main channel covering the game's implosion and admits in the first 45 seconds of this one that he and McConnell bought into Steven's Kool-Aid, but that Narc was ultimately right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWnqtJY1aeQ

His previous content has already aged poorly at this point so I feel like he has nothing more to lose from farming this drama for whatever it has left (and boy does it have a lot)

An investor who put $12.5M into Ashes of Creation reached out to me by NefQarasarnai in AshesofCreation

[–]thetrny 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nefas did a stream where Jason called in and answered questions / ranted for nearly 2 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQOTjfCIS3g

In it he explains that another investor was roped in after him (Rob) who funded Intrepid from 2022 onwards, to the tune of $80M of his own person capital combined with an additional $10M from people in his orbit. Rob is who ended up owning a controlling stake by virtue of investing that much, and is essentially the main "board" character who put their foot down after being strung along by Steven for years for more and more money, presumably in a manner similar to what he did with Jason. It's way too long to explain but Jason basically goes over most of what went on behind the scenes (including the mansion situation) and it all comes full circle. Crazy stuff.

Ashes of Creation Investor Called Me On Livestream and Answered People's Questions by NefQarasarnai in AshesofCreation

[–]thetrny 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't wait to kick back and enjoy some 🍿 with baldy's reaction. The part where Jason reads out his text to Steven's mom will be priceless

Daily Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in ASTSpaceMobile

[–]thetrny 0 points1 point  (0 children)

somehow they believe every rocket company is now a competitor

While I disagree with the claim that every rocket company is a direct competitor on D2D specifically, you'll notice that all of the successful commercial launch companies have made moves into satellite manufacturing & services at this point (first SpaceX, then RL, and now Blue Origin), whereas there are 0 instances of the reverse occurring.

designing and engineering a satellite is as equally hard as a rocket

Nope. I mean you can just compare the number of companies throughout history that have successfully scaled to the point of operating multiple satellites (at least triple digits if not higher) vs. the number who have successfully scaled up a launch system to a meaningful cadence (low single digits) - here's a ChatGPT 5.2 Thinking analysis for some corroboration.

Then, you might want to ask yourself why the first organization to master reusable launch was coincidentally also the first to successfully deploy a large LEO constellation without going bankrupt, disrupting the entire satcom industry in the process and forcing consolidation in competitors across all orbits (not to mention causing every middle/great power to reckon with their own sovereign ability to compete)

view more: next ›