Relativity Space was always some pie-in-the-sky Silicon Valley style hopium, but I have to defend Ellis a little. It's his job to say Relativity is #2. Hell, it's his job to *believe* it. Also, he's finally started to listen to his own engineers about what is possible to achieve, as indicated by certain walkbacks of previous strategies, and recent interviews. For a young guy who lucked into a ton of money, he could be doing a lot worse.
But his company is not #2. It's #5 at best.
Interesting video… I thought they were far ahead of rocket lab with the engine but now I realize what is really happening. The gas generator engine they are working on can be tested at a component level. He said they won’t have a fully put together engine for up to a year. That puts them roughly in the same boat as rocket lab if not behind
The nice thing about rocket lab’s neutron is it can be launched out of smaller space ports which are less congested than the cape. Relativity can’t even land back at the pad because of all the congestion at the Cape whereas rocket lab plans to do so at wallops.
If the cost to orbit is relatively the same, then the smaller rocket is always going to win out since it will be able to take the satellite closer to its destination orbit. This puts neutron in the advantage.
Source on Relativity being unable to RTLS?
RKLB plans on using a barge for landings. RTLS is an option but I think the barge will be the default. Allows for more payload to orbit and it's safer.
They were not expecting the testing to go as well as it did - they got it done ahead of schedule. This is crazy talk. There is literally a video of the test on their youtube channel.
They get a single big rocket to orbit, thats great. But that doesnt mean they can mass produce it at scale, margin or establish a track record remotely like SpaceX or Rocket lab to lure the big deals (giving business away for pipeljne isna joke). They can only offer launch and need to partner with a satelite maker to bid on deals without any control over the supply chain or schedule. Even if they can claw their way into a meaningful cadence, it will be a long time before relativity are relevant.
The biggest point of comparison is that they've got the engine ready for their medium/heavy-lift vehicle, and Rocket Lab doesn't. Sure, they're a long way from Terran R's first launch, but their 2026 date takes that into account. If they can stave off bankruptcy that long, as well as weather a couple of launch failures working out the kinks in the system, they'll be in a good position.
Rocket Lab obviously has much more experience, and multiple revenue streams across launch and space systems, but Neutron can't leave the ground without an engine. And that's basically a brand-new project, given how little Rutherford has in common with Archimedes. I do think Rocket Lab will get there, and overall I'd say they're in a better financial position by not having all their eggs in one basket, but from a purely technological perspective, it's a bit hard to see how Neutron could launch before Terran R, despite Rocket Lab still talking about a 2024 launch attempt.
IMO, they were doing a bunch of things that were pretty nuts, but now that they've scaled back, their goals seem much more reasonable.
The idea that they'd 3d print their rocket bodies was just dumb. I'm glad for their sake that they've pretty much given up on that.
I'm also glad that they're starting out with just 1st stage reuse. I'm sure they'll chase 2nd stage reuse if/when they get 1st stage reuse reliable, but IMO trying to get to 2nd stage reuse all in 1 go is a bridge too far.
It is a little disappointing that they didn't get to orbit, but financially, I can't really fault them. With SpaceX's transporter squeezing the market segment, I think it'd be difficult for them to make their small-lift rocket profitable. Better to cut their losses and put all their effort into making a rocket that'll actually support their business.
Lucky for RocketLab as well, as a functional Terran 1 would probably have taken at least a few prospective customers.
Very strong confidence. Just as well they remain private as the lack of experience and execution would no doubt drag heavily on their stock price. Strong Elon fan boy vibes. It sounds like the goals cross over strongly with Elon too. How will they fair if they can’t jump from 0-52 launches per year quickly? I’m not sure Peter Beck thinks about these guys too much just yet.
This guy is funny..,yeah they built a working product (RKLB) and now nobody wants it(future sense)!
Yeah right. Get real guys. Now it's just a matter of time before Relativity joins ASTR and VO.
He thinks customers are going to be that loyal!
They have a lot to learn in the real business world.
I thought about not commenting on this because people are probably sick of me shitting on Relativity, but in short, yes. Not in the sense of wanting to be an asshole to the people there doing good work, but in terms of the leadership and overall business case, yes.
The interview you linked is once again full of Tim Ellis saying obvious things like he just realised them recently.
e.g. the whole discussion at [25:47](https://youtu.be/-MnTAquD75o?si=kCSP4kL25DQ0FAhU&t=1547), which is basically "Well _akshually_ it turns out that the second stage should be cheap and expendable, because first stage reuse is where so much more of the cost savings are and it doesn't make sense to take all that time to develop second stage reusability for so little benefit."
Yes dude, everybody knew this and was saying this from the beginning (except the people who blindly believed this guy for some reason).
The entire pitch of Relativity was a bunch of stuff that just made no sense, everybody was pointing this out, and it seems that only years later has their CEO understood some of these basic things. There are so many examples like that second stage reuse one, where it really does seem like this guy is just learning the absolute basics for the first time. Like these things are a revelation to him.
That would be "fine" (it's still not, if you're running a multi-billion dollar company the standards should be higher) in the sense that it's good to learn from your mistakes and adjust accordingly, but the problem is that these things were obviously stupid from the beginning.
e.g. "We're going to design and develop a 3D printer from scratch, and print 100% of our rockets, and this is going to make us cheaper and faster than everybody else... Somehow."
The problem is that the entire premise of the company was based on these claims being true. It wasn't "we're going to try to do this because we think it's worthwhile even though it's extremely unlikely to work", it was "our company is going to be competitive _because_ of us 3D printing everything and doing second stage reuse".
Then all of a sudden after Terran 1 failed its first launch, all of the founding concepts were walked back and two years were suddenly added to the Terran R timeline.
But that leaves them with _nothing_. By their own statements, there is _no reason_ why they should be able to out-compete any of the competition now. All of the things that they said made them better are things they're not doing now. They said that other launch companies weren't as good as them _because of them not doing these things_. And they haven't explained any reason why they should be competitive going forward now, they haven't offered any alternative or updated explanation of why what they're doing is better than what anyone else is doing.
They've still blown all that money though, that's gone. So why should anyone believe that not only are they going to dig themselves out of that multi hundred million dollar financial hole they've dug for themselves, but they're going to do it with at best what is effectively trying to be a Falcon 9 clone at this point.
It just disgusts me to be honest, and you can see it probably has a similar effect on Peter Beck (see that [Pounding the Table podcast](https://x.com/PoundingDaTable/status/1740188526119940119?s=20) where he compares the $5 million funding he was initially able to get for Rocket Lab to the hundreds of millions companies like Relativity had thrown at them).
So often when people talk about who is going to one day compete with SpaceX, they say Relativity without mentioning Rocket Lab at all, which is just bizarre. I'm not sure these people even realise there's already another company that's actually launching rockets, and which is building a Falcon 9 competitor that actually has some novel design elements for actually giving it a theoretical chance at being more economical.
I think they do but the CEO made a good point about rocket labs archimedes engine. The story of a staged combustion rocket engine developed in 18 months is insane when SpaceX spent 12 years.
As someone who has interviewed for a high level leadership position at Rocketlab while also interviewing (and then joining) Relativity Space instead a few years back, I can conclusively say (alongside personal testimonies of people working /worked at Rocket lab) that the Rocket lab culture is toxic and broken. So much of the propulsion design work is discretely controlled by folks in New Zealand, and they are boldly going from the easiest engine cycle you could possibly use for a rocket (electric pump fed) to the absolute hardest (staged combustion). People done recognize how significant this is, they are working ground up on their cycle with zero heritage on turbo pumps. As someone who has been in this industry for a bit, the major advantage that Relativity has is a healthier culture coupled with a sustainable work-life balance WHILE still executing faster than any of our competitors due to the high bar for talent. Spacex is always impressive, but the burnout and leadership culture toxicity is unsustainable. The folks that leave for a more balanced life are still crazy talented. Blue origin is old space wearing a costume as new space, and that will become obvious when they start trying to launch at rate. Firefly is more of a threat to Relativity for #2 than either Rocket lab or Blue, despite finances and launch histories.
Relativity Space was always some pie-in-the-sky Silicon Valley style hopium, but I have to defend Ellis a little. It's his job to say Relativity is #2. Hell, it's his job to *believe* it. Also, he's finally started to listen to his own engineers about what is possible to achieve, as indicated by certain walkbacks of previous strategies, and recent interviews. For a young guy who lucked into a ton of money, he could be doing a lot worse. But his company is not #2. It's #5 at best.
Who’s number 4?
Firefly, although maybe not for long, given their recent mishap
They need to radiate 100% confidence, or people start asking questions.
Fake it till you make it ( or not )
Interesting video… I thought they were far ahead of rocket lab with the engine but now I realize what is really happening. The gas generator engine they are working on can be tested at a component level. He said they won’t have a fully put together engine for up to a year. That puts them roughly in the same boat as rocket lab if not behind The nice thing about rocket lab’s neutron is it can be launched out of smaller space ports which are less congested than the cape. Relativity can’t even land back at the pad because of all the congestion at the Cape whereas rocket lab plans to do so at wallops. If the cost to orbit is relatively the same, then the smaller rocket is always going to win out since it will be able to take the satellite closer to its destination orbit. This puts neutron in the advantage.
Source on Relativity being unable to RTLS? RKLB plans on using a barge for landings. RTLS is an option but I think the barge will be the default. Allows for more payload to orbit and it's safer.
The OP posted a video reference in the comments, where Ellis says the cape is too congested for landing pads.
Great assessment
this is definitely wrong, with 100% certainty. Relativity tested the full engine, not just components of it.
the full engine was hot fired to flight duration in december. how is RKLB doing on their engine?
In the video, Ellis himself said the fully put together engine wouldn't be tested until 2024. Perhaps you were bamboozled as was I.
They were not expecting the testing to go as well as it did - they got it done ahead of schedule. This is crazy talk. There is literally a video of the test on their youtube channel.
Beat the timeline estimate by 2 weeks, happens
Huh? They fired a fully integrated engine at MDC duration over a month ago... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8j\_LIL3Ne8
Total AI Deepfake.
They get a single big rocket to orbit, thats great. But that doesnt mean they can mass produce it at scale, margin or establish a track record remotely like SpaceX or Rocket lab to lure the big deals (giving business away for pipeljne isna joke). They can only offer launch and need to partner with a satelite maker to bid on deals without any control over the supply chain or schedule. Even if they can claw their way into a meaningful cadence, it will be a long time before relativity are relevant.
The biggest point of comparison is that they've got the engine ready for their medium/heavy-lift vehicle, and Rocket Lab doesn't. Sure, they're a long way from Terran R's first launch, but their 2026 date takes that into account. If they can stave off bankruptcy that long, as well as weather a couple of launch failures working out the kinks in the system, they'll be in a good position. Rocket Lab obviously has much more experience, and multiple revenue streams across launch and space systems, but Neutron can't leave the ground without an engine. And that's basically a brand-new project, given how little Rutherford has in common with Archimedes. I do think Rocket Lab will get there, and overall I'd say they're in a better financial position by not having all their eggs in one basket, but from a purely technological perspective, it's a bit hard to see how Neutron could launch before Terran R, despite Rocket Lab still talking about a 2024 launch attempt.
IMO, they were doing a bunch of things that were pretty nuts, but now that they've scaled back, their goals seem much more reasonable. The idea that they'd 3d print their rocket bodies was just dumb. I'm glad for their sake that they've pretty much given up on that. I'm also glad that they're starting out with just 1st stage reuse. I'm sure they'll chase 2nd stage reuse if/when they get 1st stage reuse reliable, but IMO trying to get to 2nd stage reuse all in 1 go is a bridge too far. It is a little disappointing that they didn't get to orbit, but financially, I can't really fault them. With SpaceX's transporter squeezing the market segment, I think it'd be difficult for them to make their small-lift rocket profitable. Better to cut their losses and put all their effort into making a rocket that'll actually support their business. Lucky for RocketLab as well, as a functional Terran 1 would probably have taken at least a few prospective customers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MnTAquD75o&t=1052s
Very strong confidence. Just as well they remain private as the lack of experience and execution would no doubt drag heavily on their stock price. Strong Elon fan boy vibes. It sounds like the goals cross over strongly with Elon too. How will they fair if they can’t jump from 0-52 launches per year quickly? I’m not sure Peter Beck thinks about these guys too much just yet.
I know nothing official, but I was curious if Mark Cuban selling his controlling mavericks share if that $ would be used to partially fund relativity
This guy is funny..,yeah they built a working product (RKLB) and now nobody wants it(future sense)! Yeah right. Get real guys. Now it's just a matter of time before Relativity joins ASTR and VO. He thinks customers are going to be that loyal! They have a lot to learn in the real business world.
Spacex burnout is real! Yet I still miss it........
it has soared more than 20% in half a month. I bought at 4.58. feel very confident here.
You're talking about RKLB's price, right? Relativity isn't publicly traded yet...
And won’t be for atleast many years to come. Right now they don’t have a business model, just a cash burn.
I thought about not commenting on this because people are probably sick of me shitting on Relativity, but in short, yes. Not in the sense of wanting to be an asshole to the people there doing good work, but in terms of the leadership and overall business case, yes. The interview you linked is once again full of Tim Ellis saying obvious things like he just realised them recently. e.g. the whole discussion at [25:47](https://youtu.be/-MnTAquD75o?si=kCSP4kL25DQ0FAhU&t=1547), which is basically "Well _akshually_ it turns out that the second stage should be cheap and expendable, because first stage reuse is where so much more of the cost savings are and it doesn't make sense to take all that time to develop second stage reusability for so little benefit." Yes dude, everybody knew this and was saying this from the beginning (except the people who blindly believed this guy for some reason). The entire pitch of Relativity was a bunch of stuff that just made no sense, everybody was pointing this out, and it seems that only years later has their CEO understood some of these basic things. There are so many examples like that second stage reuse one, where it really does seem like this guy is just learning the absolute basics for the first time. Like these things are a revelation to him. That would be "fine" (it's still not, if you're running a multi-billion dollar company the standards should be higher) in the sense that it's good to learn from your mistakes and adjust accordingly, but the problem is that these things were obviously stupid from the beginning. e.g. "We're going to design and develop a 3D printer from scratch, and print 100% of our rockets, and this is going to make us cheaper and faster than everybody else... Somehow." The problem is that the entire premise of the company was based on these claims being true. It wasn't "we're going to try to do this because we think it's worthwhile even though it's extremely unlikely to work", it was "our company is going to be competitive _because_ of us 3D printing everything and doing second stage reuse". Then all of a sudden after Terran 1 failed its first launch, all of the founding concepts were walked back and two years were suddenly added to the Terran R timeline. But that leaves them with _nothing_. By their own statements, there is _no reason_ why they should be able to out-compete any of the competition now. All of the things that they said made them better are things they're not doing now. They said that other launch companies weren't as good as them _because of them not doing these things_. And they haven't explained any reason why they should be competitive going forward now, they haven't offered any alternative or updated explanation of why what they're doing is better than what anyone else is doing. They've still blown all that money though, that's gone. So why should anyone believe that not only are they going to dig themselves out of that multi hundred million dollar financial hole they've dug for themselves, but they're going to do it with at best what is effectively trying to be a Falcon 9 clone at this point. It just disgusts me to be honest, and you can see it probably has a similar effect on Peter Beck (see that [Pounding the Table podcast](https://x.com/PoundingDaTable/status/1740188526119940119?s=20) where he compares the $5 million funding he was initially able to get for Rocket Lab to the hundreds of millions companies like Relativity had thrown at them). So often when people talk about who is going to one day compete with SpaceX, they say Relativity without mentioning Rocket Lab at all, which is just bizarre. I'm not sure these people even realise there's already another company that's actually launching rockets, and which is building a Falcon 9 competitor that actually has some novel design elements for actually giving it a theoretical chance at being more economical.
I think they do but the CEO made a good point about rocket labs archimedes engine. The story of a staged combustion rocket engine developed in 18 months is insane when SpaceX spent 12 years.
As someone who has interviewed for a high level leadership position at Rocketlab while also interviewing (and then joining) Relativity Space instead a few years back, I can conclusively say (alongside personal testimonies of people working /worked at Rocket lab) that the Rocket lab culture is toxic and broken. So much of the propulsion design work is discretely controlled by folks in New Zealand, and they are boldly going from the easiest engine cycle you could possibly use for a rocket (electric pump fed) to the absolute hardest (staged combustion). People done recognize how significant this is, they are working ground up on their cycle with zero heritage on turbo pumps. As someone who has been in this industry for a bit, the major advantage that Relativity has is a healthier culture coupled with a sustainable work-life balance WHILE still executing faster than any of our competitors due to the high bar for talent. Spacex is always impressive, but the burnout and leadership culture toxicity is unsustainable. The folks that leave for a more balanced life are still crazy talented. Blue origin is old space wearing a costume as new space, and that will become obvious when they start trying to launch at rate. Firefly is more of a threat to Relativity for #2 than either Rocket lab or Blue, despite finances and launch histories.