Space Companies at Y Combinator
spacedotbiz.substack.com
spacedotbiz.substack.com
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/momentus
They went public via SPAC listed as MNTS
A classmate of mine was the founder, but he ran into issues being a Russian citizen dealing with restricted space tech.
So he left/divested and started a new space tech company in Switzerland.
Mikhael is a really sharp guy.
Painful to see :-)
YC should seriously consider going one level of abstraction up. Instead of YC being an investment firm that creates startups, it should be an investment firm that creates investment firms.
A space-focused YC could probably be a lot better than a generic YC. It would undoubtedly source and fund more than 5 space startups in a 375 company batch, for example.
Also, the batches are now large, but you're often grouped with similar companies during the batch. There's also sub-groups that organically form after the batch, which effectively achieves this goal. We're in groups for developer tools, chrome extensions and YC London startups.
It makes sense to not fragment the overall YC network, whilst allowing close groupings based on sector or Geography to just form organically.
Make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are definitely dumb; it does not matter who gave them to you. He notes that it’s particularly dangerous if an intelligent person gives you the requirements, as you may not question the requirements enough. “Everyone’s wrong. No matter who you are, everyone is wrong some of the time.” He further notes that “all designs are wrong, it’s just a matter of how wrong.”
Try very hard to delete the part or process. If parts are not being added back into the design at least 10% of the time, not enough parts are being deleted. Musk noted that the bias tends to be very strongly toward “let’s add this part or process step in case we need it.” Additionally, each required part and process must come from a name, not a department, as a department cannot be asked why a requirement exists, but a person can.
Simplify and optimize the design. This is step three as the most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize something that should not exist.
Accelerate cycle time. Musk states “you’re moving too slowly, go faster! But don’t go faster until you’ve worked on the other three things first.”
Automate. An important part of this is to remove in-process testing after the problems have been diagnosed; if a product is reaching the end of a production line with a high acceptance rate, there is no need for in-process testing.
https://everydayastronaut.com/starbase-tour-and-interview-wi..."Perfection is achieved not when there's nothing left to add but when there's nothing left to take away." -Saint-Exupéry
or more recently, "no code means no bugs."
SpaceX has built on top of lots of existing ideas - commerce instead of government services, simplicity instead of performance, vertical integration instead of spreading orders, testing philosophy, re-use...
Everything is built on top of lots existing ideas, nothing is created in vacuum.
Example: https://orbitalindex.com/archive/2021-11-03-Issue-141/
No affiliation, just a fan.
There are certain bottlenecks that have developed based on our use of space in the last half century as well. I'm definitely biased here (working on such a problem), but abstracting some of our space-based capabilities to other existing and established formats will free up some much needed room and support bigger endeavors. It is and will continue to be a very complementary industry IMO.
I am playing the devil’s advocate and writing that the main issue is materials materials materials, ala Steve Ballmer’s developers developers developers?! So that all these five startups seem just ancillary or toooooo long a shot (imho).
You need to use materials to make something, and that thing needs to fulfil a purpose. But until you have an objective and try to make the thing and work out what the thing is, you don’t even know what your requirements are. That’s why engineering projects like Apollo and the shuttle drove materials science advances.
If you put the materials first you run the risk of creating a carbon fibre composites company to make giant space rocket hulls, just as the people actually making the rockets decided for their project they’d use steel.
There is also a question of costs: for deep space missions, beyond LEO you need real rad-hardened electronics. Rad-hardened electronics exists. Cheap rad-hardened electronics doesn't. And there is pleny of other examples. Ion engines is mature enough technology. Cheap ion engines on the other side...
> Varda Space Industries is building the world's first commercial zero-gravity industrial park at scale.
Much like each and every climate change related tech.
There is no guarantee that the public will be interested in space or climate change 10 or 20 years from now, and space missions which are not telecommunications satellites entirely depend on the goodwill of taxpayers to keep providing the financing.
The alternative model to taxpayers money has been private investors believing that space would somehow change and start yielding some more standard ROI after decades of atypical ROI (mostly morale boost for the nation every time a rocket went up). But that's just the financial capital part, the revenue of the aforementioned companies still comes from Government contracts.
Do people really just think space is sending people to the moon and/or mars and not realize what we do right above our heads?
[0] https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/10/economic-benef...
The fact that it's worth that much doesn't mean that the companies sending those up there would make a fortune.
I can give you the example of concrete. Don't people realize how vital concrete is for the modern economy? It's worth 100T, matter of fact it's unvaluable, putting a figure on it would be lowballing it.
Do you want to start a concrete company though? Do you want to invest in it?
NO! You want to start/invest the Microsoft, Google and Facebook of the world.
Operating rockets and satellites, and using them to provide services back on Earth—is about $400 billion industry and is only going to grow. There will be plenty of companies that make a fortune in a market that size with relatively few players.
That's the revenue, if you look at profits they made 1B in 2019 with 57,000 employees.
Also it was founded in 1874...
I also remind you that the year of incorporation was 1874
I'm not sure what the year of incorporation means here? That they have clearly been profitable for a long time and been making a lot of people a lot of money for that time? I'm sorry, everything you've been saying just keeps suggesting to me that this is profitable and good business.
This company has failed to give the opportunity to retire early to its owners ever since 1874.
The original founders didn't retire early for sure, and the 2nd generation and 3rd generation failed to do so as well.
And for sure this concrete company isn't giving a chance to retire early to those who own its stock today, because 1 billion split among the many millions of individual who own the stock makes the individual gains a non-life changing amount.
The only way you can retire early with this cement company is via betting on the stock using some insane 1000:1 leverage and trade its daily up&down movements.
Now take a second and just compare this cement company against the many thousands of millionaires that Microsoft minted over the years and that it continues to mint.
Some people have made millions from dividends and on top of that millions from the sheer stock appreciation, all that with an investment in the thousands or dozen of thousands at most.
You might want to tell Musk and Bezos that. Or any movie star. Really there's thousands of people you could tell this to that have amount of money that could live in luxury indefinitely. This is certainly true for any billionaire. It is also certainly true for anyone with over $50m.
As for the manned space programmes, they stop looking wasteful and start looking surprisingly beneficial when you consider externalities (from cochlear implants to memory foam), but that's the ultimate example of it being a social benefit of throwing enormous amounts of money at very smart people solving new problems, not a VC-friendly commercial proposition.
If it only costs $1 million to immigrate to Mars, you might be surprised how many people would give it a try and how many billionaires would sponsor whole colonies. Like when Europeans colonized North America.
At that point the market becomes basically infinite: it'll be a standard rite of passage to see Earth from space, much like how people go to Disneyland.
Maybe soon you'll pop open the window on one of these new suborbital flights and skydive from the black back to Earth!