I would like to take some time to compare and contrast Rocket Lab and Astra's technical strategies for developing their rockets.
For the sake of this post, let's say that in order to be successful, both companies need a rocket which can lift 300kg to LEO at a cost of $2.5MM per launch.
Currently, Rocket Lab's Electron can lift 300kg to LEO but costs a hefty $5-6MM per launch. In comparison, Astra's Rocket 3.3 costs 2.5MM per launch but can only lift a paltry 50kg to LEO.
So as you can see, the two companies are starting from opposite ends of the problem. Rocket Lab designed a rocket which had the desired performance from the start, but is too expensive. For Rocket Lab to succeed, they need to find a way to drive down the cost of the Electron. They are doing this by optimizing their manufacturing process and increasing the amount of automation in their facility, as well as by pursuing a project to make the Electron's first stage reusable.
On the other hand, Astra designed a rocket which had the desired cost from the start, but the performance is not high enough. For Astra to succeed, they need to increase the performance of the Rocket series. They are doing this by pivoting from Rocket 3 to their upcoming Rocket 4 design, which should have higher performance. Rocket 4 will be significantly larger than Rocket 3 and use Firefly's higher-performance Reaver engines.
At first glance, both of these approaches seem to be perfectly reasonable ways of solving the same problem from opposite directions. But does one approach make more sense than the other? Let's dive in!
From an engineering perspective, I think Rocket Lab's approach is sound. Rocket Lab started with something that works, and is optimizing it to make it more cost efficient. This seems much less risky since after all, their rocket already has the desired performance characteristics. Rocket Lab will also be able to take most of what they've learned from making the Electron reusable and
apply that to their next generation Neutron rocket. So not only does investing in reusability help Rocket Lab make the Electron more cost effective, but it also helps them to develop the very same technologies that they need for Neutron. Two birds with one stone!
Astra, on the other hand, started with something that costs less but lacks the desired performance characteristics--and not by a little, but by a huge margin. For Astra to reach their own stated goal of 500kg to LEO, they need to increase their performance by ten times. In order to match Electron's performance, they need to increase by six times. In order for them to achieve this, they basically have to redesign a brand new rocket! Sure, Astra will be able to apply much of what they've learned building Rocket 3 into building Rocket 4, but Rocket 4 is still a brand new rocket with different engines. This is a huge change--you can't just swap out the engines on a rocket and keep everything else the same. Plus, Astra needs to do all of this redesign and performance increase without increasing the cost of their rocket, which seems like quite a bit to ask for. If Astra upgrades their rocket to match Electron's performance, but it also ends up costing as much, then what did Astra truly achieve? So basically, Astra is starting with something that doesn't work but costs a certain amount, and then needs to redesign a brand new rocket which works but still costs the same as the rocket which doesn't work. From an engineering perspective, this development strategy seems fraught with risk.
Astra's technical strategy for cost efficiency also relies on reaching economies of scale by mass producing their rockets, which seems difficult to do if they are in the middle of rapidly iterating towards their performance goal. How can you set up a production line to mass produce a rocket when the design isn't even finalized? It seems that Astra will have to do a lot of iteration on prototypes before they can truly kick off mass production.
Anyway, what do you guys think about Rocket Lab vs Astra's technical approaches for developing rockets with the desired performance and cost? I think that Rocket Lab's approach is much more sound from an engineering perspective, while Astra's approach is very risky. When you build and iterate on something, you always want to start with something that works, and optimize it afterwards! Trying to optimize something which doesn't work to begin with is questionable, to put it lightly. Chris Kemp likes to criticize the Electron and its high-performance carbon fiber body as a Ferrari of rockets which is too expensive to be practical. But I think he's missing the key point--the Electron has the desired performance characteristics, while his Rocket 3 design does not. The already working Electron design can be optimized for cost--exactly how much is up for debate. But what isn't up for debate is that the Rocket 3 design is not performant, and won't be so until it is evolved into the new Rocket 4 design.
