Discussion
Beati Dogu said:
I guess that hard point on the Tristar is what they adapted to carry the Pegasus rocket. Maybe not, looks looks it was attached to the belly.
As you say, it was modified to carry the Pegasus on the centre line. Was quite a bit of work!Edited by Beati Dogu on Saturday 14th January 13:05
“Virgin Orbit pauses operations for a week, furloughs nearly entire staff as it seeks funding.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/15/virgin-orbit-pause...
It’s not looking good.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/15/virgin-orbit-pause...
It’s not looking good.
It's because it is a flawed approach to placing items in LEO.
It may be a great (when it works) contingency for say replacing a single Starlink satellite in the train, to keep up guaranteed levels of coverage, but for anyone/anything else, way too costly and too small a payload for a disproportionate price.
It may be a great (when it works) contingency for say replacing a single Starlink satellite in the train, to keep up guaranteed levels of coverage, but for anyone/anything else, way too costly and too small a payload for a disproportionate price.
We were talking about this on the SpaceX thread here: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
but I thought this answer was more appropriate here to avoid derailing that thread.
Let's assume they can make 1% net margin on operating at $12m a launch - they'd need over 8k launches to recoup the investment so far. Given it has taken them so very long to get this far, is there any confidence they could innovate their way to future success? Rocket Lab are moving from Electron (300kg payload) to Neutron (8000kg).
Likewise, Relativity's Terran 1 (same launch price as LauncherOne, but carrying 3x the payload) is a precursor to their Terran R (20 tonnes payload).
Is LauncherOne a realistic stepping stone to the future? VO have talked about putting a potential LauncherTwo on the back of a 747 (in homage to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, perhaps?). So I guess so. But their progress so far suggests developing air-launch capabilities is more expensive and slower than conventional approaches, and does not reduce the per-launch cost. And LauncherTwo is just, as it were, a "larger LauncherOne."
The bottom line seems to be this: VO spent $500-$800m to get to the same place as people like Rocket Lab spent $100m to get to. They've burned money hand over fist, and lost their early-mover advantage. Why?
Many seem to argue because they ended up hiring a risk-averse former Boeing executive. But also because their air-launch approach adds a lot of complexity - and human risk - in return for the benefits of flexibility. There's a real danger in trying to use something that seems simple / expedient / economical, without (as Musk would suggest) going back to first principles.
In this case, the whole air-launch premise was designed to take advantage of potential spare capacity on the White Knight air-launch platform. The problem? It was never right. WK2 came along, but still couldn't carry a large enough rocket - did Branson forget that getting to actual orbit is rather more fuel-intensive than getting to the edge of space for a tourist ride. WK2 cost more money and turned out to be - perhaps unsurprisingly, as a basically one-off plane - rather maintenance-heavy. So along came Cosmic Girl, adding an estimated additional $30m+ to the budget.
The rocket, meanwhile, was another problem. Ordinary rockets just go up to start with. They don't need to worry too much about bending loads from being slung under a 747's wing - so they can carry more payload for a given total mass. They don't have to cope with aerobatics at 35,000 feet - most rockets don't have to turn in such dense air. Liquid rockets need cold fuel - normally that's pumped-in on the ground, where temperatures can be controlled. LauncherOne has to cope with (literally) hanging around for a few hours between fuelling and deployment, adding cryogenic complexity.
And then there's human risk. A Rocket Labs rocket can be launched from a safe distance - if it goes wrong, it will be far from people. LauncherOne is under a 747 - if something goes wrong it will take out the plane and the people. So there's much less freedom to "move fast and break things."
Frankly, it really does feel like a bit of a dead end - a huge amount of cost to pursue an objective that is pretty niche. Remember, SpaceX got all the way to Falcon 9 flying for (according to many sources) rather less money than VO has consumed.
Quite how it got so bad, I don't know. Maybe the old Douglas Adams line - "why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - applied? Maybe.
Today, of course, VO have run out of money. This was predicted by some analysts almost 3 months ago. Is that the end?
Again, maybe. Because the last tranche of cash put in by Branson was $20m in senior secured debt, secured (it seems) over the entirety of the IP, assets, etc. of Virgin Orbit and any/all subsidiaries. I don't know if there's any other secured debt. It is a touch hard to tell what security there really is, but it definitely covers all the aircraft owned by VO, and I'm not sure I see the IP being pledged elsewhere.
Virgin Group has been providing tranches of cash on increasingly-robust terms:
- a $25m senior unsecured convertible note at 6% pa in Nov '22
- a $20m senior secured convertible note at 6% pa in Dec '22
- a $10m senior secured convertible note at 12% pa in Jan '23
- a $5m senior secured convertible note at 12% pa in Feb '23
albeit that the conversion prices aren't very attractive. But the security seems effective. And the Jan note turned the Nov note into a secured one.
So that's $60m of secured, convertible lending. For all that Virgin Group may not be as robust as Branson might like, his ability to conjure up $60m of liquidity is always impressive. As is, frankly, the $1bn put in so far. The question is, however, has he blown all his cash "chasing the loss" as it were? He put in $60-$100m in 2021 to prop up the SPAC merger, before the $60m in 2022/23. How much cash does Virgin throw off each month? (the answer is about $90m a year in licensing revenues, plus whatever profits / distributions comes from the many holdings, plus of course sales of assets such as Virgin America and the stake in Galactic).
So now that VO says it has run out of cash, and is furloughing everyone for a week, what's going to happen? The current market cap of VO is less than $250m right now. Press reports suggest Branson is refusing to provide more money (refusing? or unable, given how much sunk so far?). Everything is going to hinge on whether Branson actually does have more money available - and is simply playing hardball. My gut says he just doesn't have - potentially - $50m a quarter in spare cash right now, nor does he feel comfortable (or his executives are screaming "enough!" at him). After all, his estimated net worth is "only" a bit over $3bn - in effect, he's punted 1/3 of his entire wealth into this venture.
Is there a place for a buyout? What's VO worth right now? Will Branson really take a $1bn bath, or is there a new rabbit to be pulled from the hat?
but I thought this answer was more appropriate here to avoid derailing that thread.
Arnold Cunningham said:
Perhaps not fundamentall wrong tech - maybe, but I can also see the benefits. But Space-X, I agree, are so far ahead of anyone now that it's going to be hard for anyone to compete unless/until Space-X have a major whoopsie of some sort.
By fundamentally wrong tech, I mean investing $1bn+ in something for which there is a (potentially) a vanishingly-small market.Let's assume they can make 1% net margin on operating at $12m a launch - they'd need over 8k launches to recoup the investment so far. Given it has taken them so very long to get this far, is there any confidence they could innovate their way to future success? Rocket Lab are moving from Electron (300kg payload) to Neutron (8000kg).
Likewise, Relativity's Terran 1 (same launch price as LauncherOne, but carrying 3x the payload) is a precursor to their Terran R (20 tonnes payload).
Is LauncherOne a realistic stepping stone to the future? VO have talked about putting a potential LauncherTwo on the back of a 747 (in homage to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, perhaps?). So I guess so. But their progress so far suggests developing air-launch capabilities is more expensive and slower than conventional approaches, and does not reduce the per-launch cost. And LauncherTwo is just, as it were, a "larger LauncherOne."
The bottom line seems to be this: VO spent $500-$800m to get to the same place as people like Rocket Lab spent $100m to get to. They've burned money hand over fist, and lost their early-mover advantage. Why?
Many seem to argue because they ended up hiring a risk-averse former Boeing executive. But also because their air-launch approach adds a lot of complexity - and human risk - in return for the benefits of flexibility. There's a real danger in trying to use something that seems simple / expedient / economical, without (as Musk would suggest) going back to first principles.
In this case, the whole air-launch premise was designed to take advantage of potential spare capacity on the White Knight air-launch platform. The problem? It was never right. WK2 came along, but still couldn't carry a large enough rocket - did Branson forget that getting to actual orbit is rather more fuel-intensive than getting to the edge of space for a tourist ride. WK2 cost more money and turned out to be - perhaps unsurprisingly, as a basically one-off plane - rather maintenance-heavy. So along came Cosmic Girl, adding an estimated additional $30m+ to the budget.
The rocket, meanwhile, was another problem. Ordinary rockets just go up to start with. They don't need to worry too much about bending loads from being slung under a 747's wing - so they can carry more payload for a given total mass. They don't have to cope with aerobatics at 35,000 feet - most rockets don't have to turn in such dense air. Liquid rockets need cold fuel - normally that's pumped-in on the ground, where temperatures can be controlled. LauncherOne has to cope with (literally) hanging around for a few hours between fuelling and deployment, adding cryogenic complexity.
And then there's human risk. A Rocket Labs rocket can be launched from a safe distance - if it goes wrong, it will be far from people. LauncherOne is under a 747 - if something goes wrong it will take out the plane and the people. So there's much less freedom to "move fast and break things."
Frankly, it really does feel like a bit of a dead end - a huge amount of cost to pursue an objective that is pretty niche. Remember, SpaceX got all the way to Falcon 9 flying for (according to many sources) rather less money than VO has consumed.
Quite how it got so bad, I don't know. Maybe the old Douglas Adams line - "why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - applied? Maybe.
Today, of course, VO have run out of money. This was predicted by some analysts almost 3 months ago. Is that the end?
Again, maybe. Because the last tranche of cash put in by Branson was $20m in senior secured debt, secured (it seems) over the entirety of the IP, assets, etc. of Virgin Orbit and any/all subsidiaries. I don't know if there's any other secured debt. It is a touch hard to tell what security there really is, but it definitely covers all the aircraft owned by VO, and I'm not sure I see the IP being pledged elsewhere.
Virgin Group has been providing tranches of cash on increasingly-robust terms:
- a $25m senior unsecured convertible note at 6% pa in Nov '22
- a $20m senior secured convertible note at 6% pa in Dec '22
- a $10m senior secured convertible note at 12% pa in Jan '23
- a $5m senior secured convertible note at 12% pa in Feb '23
albeit that the conversion prices aren't very attractive. But the security seems effective. And the Jan note turned the Nov note into a secured one.
So that's $60m of secured, convertible lending. For all that Virgin Group may not be as robust as Branson might like, his ability to conjure up $60m of liquidity is always impressive. As is, frankly, the $1bn put in so far. The question is, however, has he blown all his cash "chasing the loss" as it were? He put in $60-$100m in 2021 to prop up the SPAC merger, before the $60m in 2022/23. How much cash does Virgin throw off each month? (the answer is about $90m a year in licensing revenues, plus whatever profits / distributions comes from the many holdings, plus of course sales of assets such as Virgin America and the stake in Galactic).
So now that VO says it has run out of cash, and is furloughing everyone for a week, what's going to happen? The current market cap of VO is less than $250m right now. Press reports suggest Branson is refusing to provide more money (refusing? or unable, given how much sunk so far?). Everything is going to hinge on whether Branson actually does have more money available - and is simply playing hardball. My gut says he just doesn't have - potentially - $50m a quarter in spare cash right now, nor does he feel comfortable (or his executives are screaming "enough!" at him). After all, his estimated net worth is "only" a bit over $3bn - in effect, he's punted 1/3 of his entire wealth into this venture.
Is there a place for a buyout? What's VO worth right now? Will Branson really take a $1bn bath, or is there a new rabbit to be pulled from the hat?
When I heard that the problem had been a dislodged fuel filter, I immediately thought that it might have come loose due to the 747/rocket combination encountered some turbulence in its journey out to the launching area.
I don't think that they have disclosed the reason why the filter might have come loose. Perhaps they'll never know.
I don't think that they have disclosed the reason why the filter might have come loose. Perhaps they'll never know.
Eric Mc said:
When I heard that the problem had been a dislodged fuel filter, I immediately thought that it might have come loose due to the 747/rocket combination encountered some turbulence in its journey out to the launching area.
I don't think that they have disclosed the reason why the filter might have come loose. Perhaps they'll never know.
As a mechanical engineer by background, with experience working on aerospace problems (although I haven't practiced for many years now), I'd say that anything that gets "dislodged" is either (a) badly designed (the design itself, or the load case), or (b) insufficiently tested, or (c) badly installed.I don't think that they have disclosed the reason why the filter might have come loose. Perhaps they'll never know.
After $1bn of development spend, and all these years, any of those situations would be pretty poor, TBH.
Any problem in aerospace has a vibration component to contend with. In solid fuel rocketry, this is usually longitudinal, caused by "thrust oscillation." Liquid-fuelled rockets - such as LauncherOne - suffer similar effects: combustion that gives pressure fluctuations at random intervals. If they're large enough, they're called "rough combustion." In addition, there can be periodic oscillations in thrust, termed "combustion instability."
Obviously, one aim of rocket design is to design and test out these fluctuations. But it is very hard to get rid of them completely. So you have to design everything else to deal with a fair degree of vibration.
Returning to the "dislodged" fuel filter, that means either (a) it wasn't properly designed / tested to be secure in the face of real-world vibrations, or (b) it wasn't properly installed likewise (a missing retainer, for instance).
If we assume that isn't the case, then there must be another cause - some loads that weren't expected.
For instance, if the real root cause was a high degree of rough combustion / combustion instability setting up a very-far-from-nominal degree of vibration. I can imagine it being possible that somebody doesn't want to say that (because it speaks to the engine), and instead highlights an effect rather than the cause
How would that lead to a fuel filter being "dislodged"? Well perhaps there's a (relatively) low cycle fatigue problem with a retainer, or the fuel filter components themselves, which led to a failure caused by the excess vibration?
As regards turbulence under-wing? At one level, instinct says that the amplitude, frequency and/or duration are unlikely to be large in comparison to expected vibrations, and so unlikely to cause an actual component-level failure. But sometimes it isn't the how much / how long, but which direction. If such turbulence created a lateral vibration (which would be entirely different to the longitudinal vibrations against which the fuel filter might have been tested), might that be sufficient to have introduced an unplanned load?
But that would take me right back to the "bad design" premise - the whole system is designed from scratch to be slung under the wing of a carrier aircraft, operating in an environment in which turbulence is expected and normal.
There is another potential scenario, however. LauncherOne arrived in Cornwall having been transported across the Atlantic in a C-17. All previous launches have set off from Mojave Air and Space Port. I'd be looking hard at the differences - everything from ground handling, in-transit movement / vibration, atmospheric conditions, and so on. It's quite possible that the underlying damage was done before LauncherOne ever hung beneath the 747. I'd *hope* that LauncherOne was instrumented during its journey from Long Beach to Cornwall, so at least some data is available to help the analysis.
Reuters: Virgin Orbit near deal to raise $200 mln from Matthew Brown
Promising "news" for those employed by the firm. I hope that VO is able to continue to operate.
Promising "news" for those employed by the firm. I hope that VO is able to continue to operate.
jingars said:
Reuters: Virgin Orbit near deal to raise $200 mln from Matthew Brown
Promising "news" for those employed by the firm. I hope that VO is able to continue to operate.
$200m for a controlling stake is a good deal for Brown - a $400m valuation, down from (IIRC) $3.5bn at SPAC. Probably underscores that Branson just doesn't have the cash any longer. Assuming "controlling" means 51% (say), and assuming it is new equity, Branson will be left with about 37%.Promising "news" for those employed by the firm. I hope that VO is able to continue to operate.
Well that didn't last long.
CNBC: Virgin Orbit extends unpaid pause as Brown deal collapses, ‘dynamic’ talks continue
CNBC: Virgin Orbit extends unpaid pause as Brown deal collapses, ‘dynamic’ talks continue
I received an email about this last night whihc added:
FTA:
“On the same day that Hart told employees that Virgin Orbit was pausing operations, its board of directors approved a “golden parachute” severance plan for top executives, in case they are terminated “following a change in control” of the company.”
FTA:
“On the same day that Hart told employees that Virgin Orbit was pausing operations, its board of directors approved a “golden parachute” severance plan for top executives, in case they are terminated “following a change in control” of the company.”
jingars said:
Well that didn't last long.
CNBC: Virgin Orbit extends unpaid pause as Brown deal collapses, ‘dynamic’ talks continue
Best guess, Brown demanded Branson release his security; Branson refused.CNBC: Virgin Orbit extends unpaid pause as Brown deal collapses, ‘dynamic’ talks continue
The problem with VO is that you need deep pockets to be sure about committing to it right now. Does Branson have enough friends in the billionaires club right now?
jingars said:
SpaceNews: Virgin Orbit lays off most employees.
Notable that Branson is putting in the money to pay severance (>$10m), presumably to try to ensure that the company at some level remains solvent in case something else can be managed.If Branson is canny, he could mothball VO for 12-24 months, save up his pennies, and then have another go. Sure there are others pushing ahead with plans, but the funding climate may be no more favourable to them than to VO.
skwdenyer said:
jingars said:
SpaceNews: Virgin Orbit lays off most employees.
Notable that Branson is putting in the money to pay severance (>$10m), presumably to try to ensure that the company at some level remains solvent in case something else can be managed.If Branson is canny, he could mothball VO for 12-24 months, save up his pennies, and then have another go. Sure there are others pushing ahead with plans, but the funding climate may be no more favourable to them than to VO.
If so (personally) I think it may be more than 2 years away.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff