Connect with us

Published

on

Margins — Chris Kemp unpluggedAstras CEO dishes on the space companys struggles “Im a public company, I cant make this shit up.”

Stephen Clark – Aug 21, 2023 9:31 pm UTC Enlarge / Chris Kemp, founder and CEO of Astra.David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images reader comments 28 with

Chris Kemp is a fighter. That’s the price of admission if you want to compete in the brutal small launch industry. He is the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Astra, founded in 2016 with a goal of essentially commoditizing small satellite launch services, or at least getting a lot closer to that than anyone else.

But there are a lot pressure points for Astra in 2023. The company abandoned its first orbital rocket design, called Rocket 3, last year after a string of failures. With higher interest rates, raising money in 2023 isn’t as easy as it was a few years ago. And calling Astra’s competition stiff is definitely an understatement.

Kemp argues that Astra finds itself in a different position than, say, Virgin Orbit, a small satellite launch company that went bankrupt earlier this year. Astra has diversified, and can lean on a separate source of revenue in a promising business building electric thrusters for small satellites. This business, which Astra calls spacecraft engines, was made possible by the acquisition of a company called Apollo Fusion in 2021.

SpaceX is achieving great success in aggregating large numbers of small satellites onto its Falcon 9 rocket, significantly bigger than vehicles like Rocket Lab’s Electron launcher or anything on Astra’s drawing board.

That has pushed Rocket Lab and Relativity Space to prioritize developing larger rocketsthe Neutron and Terran Rthat are partially reusable to better compete with SpaceX’s Falcon 9. Astra, on the other hand, is still betting what an inexpensive, mass-produced, expendable small rocket can be successful in winning business to haul lightweight satellites into orbit, either one at a time, or in small groups. The argument there is that a small rocket can deliver payloads to optimal orbits, instead of releasing them at an undesirable altitude or inclination.

Whether or not that’s the right business strategy, the predicament that Astra currently finds itself in is that the first iteration of its small launch vehicle, Rocket 3, failed to become a reliable option for customers. In seven orbital launch attempts, Rocket 3 failed five times. To be fair, Kemp points out that some of these launches were test flights without functioning satellites on board. Astra moved on from Rocket 3 after a launch failure in June 2022 destroyed two NASA hurricane research satellites. Advertisement

Ars published a story last week about the headwinds facing Astra, which recently announced layoffs of about 25 percent of its workforce. It is now staffed at between 200 and 250 employeesquite a lean operation compared to peers in the small launch industry. Around 50 of those employees were shifted from working on Astra’s new rocket, called Rocket 4, to devote their time to satellite propulsion systems.

Astra has a big challenge ahead, but it’s obvious Kemp isn’t ready to throw in the towel. Hespoke with Ars on Friday from Astra’s rocket factory in Alameda, California. Here are some highlights. Is it fair to say Astra is in a fight for survival?

Chris Kemp: “It is a little unfair … We have a very profitable source of revenue, which is our spacecraft engine. Weve sold hundreds of them at great margins.

“This is our rocket facility. This is a quarter of a million square feet. You can see the rocket production line behind me. There are people down there making rocket stuff. Its real. Thats a Rocket 4 stage on the production line … I could characterize the launch business at Astra as fighting for its survival, but I wouldnt characterize Astra as fighting for its survival. Astra has always had the option of just stopping the launch business. The reason why we havent is we have already largely completed the development and the capex [capital expenditures] required to manufacture the vehicles two years ago, when we started the Rocket 4 program, hundreds of millions of dollars ago, before we had engines and stages and a giant $100 million production line. Weve now done so much work toward this program that the next step is just testing things and going out and doing some test flights. Then the Space Force has some flights. We have some NASA flights. We have a backlog of launch contracts. In the case of the Space Force contract, thats an $11.5 million contract, millions of dollars of cash comes in, in advance of launch, because of the milestones were achieving.

“So I look at it and I say, well, if I were not to do launch, we simply wouldnt be able to bill the Space Force for these milestones. So what it does it cost me to continue running launch versus what would it cost me to shut down launch? Its kind of a wash, honestly, if we continue to get contracts and government support for launch, and the government has said that they really want to support it. I mean, there are three (private or venture-backed) companies right now operating that have put satellites in orbitSpaceX, Rocket Lab, and Astrafull stop. Fireflys stuff deorbited in a few days. ABL blew up everything, Relativity failed and scrubbed the program and wont fly again until 2027 [Relativity says Terran R’s first flight is scheduled for 2026]. Advertisement Enlarge / Astra revealed a prototype of its Rocket 4 launch vehicle in May.Astra

“The way I look at it is there are three launch companies that can point to the sky and say weve put satellites in orbit, and were one of them. And were the only one of them that has already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in a production line. Were the only one of them that has a mobile system that we have already demonstrated. We can go to Cape Canaveral and set up in under a week. We have some Space Force people here right now walking the production line … We have folks that view what Astra has built and demonstrated, and they say, ‘This has value to us, you guys have a mission control with two people in it, you guys have a system that last year deployed at Cape Canaveral in six days.’

“Its only going to get better from here with a 600-kilogram class vehicle (Rocket 4’s planned payload capacity to low-Earth orbit), and I think that puts Astra in a position where just killing launch, given we have customers and cash and revenue coming into that business, isnt an obvious choice for us. Its a risky choice for us.

“But weve got this public company now with stock trading at 25 cents per share. That makes it nearly impossible for us to raise any meaningful amount of capital in public markets. So that basically means that we need to take the revenue coming in, the cash coming in from our spacecraft engines business, and whatever cash comes in from our launch business, and kind of make it work.” Page: 1 2 3 Next → reader comments 28 with Stephen Clark Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the worlds space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet. Advertisement Channel Ars Technica ← Previous story Next story → Related Stories Today on Ars

Continue Reading

Sports

The lesson of Pete Rose and ‘Shoeless’ Joe? History is messy.

Published

on

By

The lesson of Pete Rose and 'Shoeless' Joe? History is messy.

Now that Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred has removed Pete Rose, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson and other deceased players from the game’s “permanently ineligible list,” whatever former stars deemed deserving based on their on-field accomplishments should, at first opportunity, be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

In a bombshell, if long overdue, reversal of policy, first reported by ESPN’s Don Van Natta Jr. on Tuesday, Manfred removed bans for Rose (who bet on games while managing the Cincinnati Reds) and members of the 1919 Chicago White Sox (who fixed the World Series), among others.

After all, banishment was meaningless once they all had died — a life sentence, if you will, for whatever their transgression. Most died decades ago and were on the list for gambling-related offenses.

“Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game,” Manfred wrote in a letter to the attorney who petitioned for Rose.

The only remaining purpose of the ban was to keep them from the immortality of being inducted into Cooperstown, which bills itself officially as the “National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.”

The last word is the most important.

Museums exist to tell about history, and history is always messy — including in sports. They shouldn’t be solely designed for the sanitized, establishment-approved version of events, or allow outside considerations to overshadow actual accomplishments. They certainly shouldn’t serve as part of some carrot-and-stick approach to desired behavior.

Should Rose and the others have done what they did? Of course not. Should they have been subject to any potential criminal or civil recourse for their actions? Absolutely. Was MLB within its rights to suspend or punish them in other ways? Definitely.

Rose, for example, should never have been allowed to work in baseball again after it was determined he bet on the Reds to win games while he was the manager.

But that doesn’t mean his record 4,256 hits, his three World Series titles, his MVP award (1973), his 17 All-Star appearances (including when he barreled over catcher Ray Fosse in the 1970 game), his “Charlie Hustle” nickname, or that epic head-first slide — shown so many times on “This Week in Baseball” that a generation of kids either crushed their chests or chipped their teeth trying to emulate it — didn’t occur.

So did his gambling scandal, a 1990 guilty plea for filing false tax returns that cost him five months in a federal prison and a 2017 sworn statement from a woman that he had committed statutory rape back in the 1970s, an allegation for which he was never criminally charged. Throughout his life, he could be indefensibly crude, difficult and confrontational.

It’s all part of the story of Pete Rose.

So let him in, then tell the good, the bad and the ugly so the public can decide what to think. This is the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the pearly gates. It’s about a nice day in central New York State with your family, complete with a gift shop.

If the museum is there to tell the history of the sport, well, how do you do it without Pete Rose? If Hall of Fame induction is reserved for the greatest players, then how could Rose not be among them? His foolishness as a manager shouldn’t have eclipsed his impact as a player.

This is where baseball’s policy was always wrong. It used the prospect of barred entry to the Hall as a deterrence. That isn’t what a museum should be about. The risk of criminal charges, lost wages from suspension and general shame should be enough. If it isn’t, so be it.

Manfred isn’t ready to release those still living from the ineligible list. He’s clinging to the concept of scaring current players straight. “It is hard to conceive of a penalty that has more deterrent effect than one that lasts a lifetime with no reprieve,” he wrote in the letter.

Perhaps, but should that be the point?

The Hall is already filled with assorted louts, drunks and racists who just happened to be able to either hit or throw a baseball really well. So what? Their personal disgrace is part of their history.

In fairness, their personal failings didn’t affect baseball the way Rose might have as a managerial gambler, and certainly not as the Black Sox did back in the day.

Still, there are owners and commissioners in the Hall who worked for decades to stop baseball from racial integration. That’s a far more widespread impact on the integrity of the game than betting on your team to beat the Dodgers.

Yes, sports wagering is always a concern and was once a major taboo. But public opinion and business realities changed. There are sportsbooks inside MLB stadiums these days, including, for a stretch, with Rose’s old team in Cincinnati.

History is history. The game is the game. The museum is the museum. Tell the story, the whole story, with all the best players and best teams and best tales, no matter how colorful, criminal or regrettable.

America can handle it. Our real national pastime is scandal, after all.

Continue Reading

Business

Burberry to cut 1,700 jobs after multi-million pound loss

Published

on

By

Burberry to cut 1,700 jobs after multi-million pound loss

Burberry, the UK’s only global luxury brand, is to cut around 1,700 jobs worldwide over the next two years after reporting a steep financial loss.

The company lost £66m in pre-tax profit in the year ended in March as luxury goods sales fell across the world and the company weathered an “uncertain” environment and a “difficult macroeconomic backdrop”.

A year earlier, it recorded £383m in profit.

Money blog: £30 broadband rule explained

It’s suffered in recent years with the share price falling to such an extent the business was removed from the FTSE 100, the index of most valuable companies listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Despite the financial performance, the company was upbeat, with chief executive Joshua Schulman saying “I am more optimistic than ever that Burberry’s best days are ahead and that we will deliver sustainable profitable growth over time”.

What cuts are being made?

More on Retail

The retailer did not specify any shop closures – in the past year, it closed 26 and also opened 26 stores – but did highlight shift cuts and consolidations.

“We don’t have a store closing programme, per see,” Mr Schulman told investors

The night shift at Burberry’s Castleford factory will be cut, it proposed, saying the shift has resulted in overproduction.

“Significant” investment in the facility will be made, however, as the ambition is to scale up British production “over time”, Mr Schulman said.

Changes to the retail network across the world will be made with shop staff being scheduled around “peak traffic”.

Burberry will be “realigning” shop staff, he said, “so that we can offer the best service” at the busiest times.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

There will also be a “simplification” of Burberry’s regional structure and a “rebalancing” of central and regional responsibilities to reduce duplication and “accelerate decision making” through the retail network.

But the majority of changes will be made to “office space teams” around the world, the CEO said.

Commercial and creative teams have already been consolidated, Burberry’s annual results said.

What’s gone wrong?

Aside from the global slowdown in luxury goods sales over recession fears, additional headwinds have come in the form of President Trump’s tariffs.

“Clearly, the external environment has become more challenging since mid-February”, Mr Schulman told investors.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump’s tariffs: What you need to know

Tariff risks were higher than first planned, the annual results said.

It led the US market to be described by Mr Schulman as “choppy” since February when Mr Trump began announcing tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, as well as on goods such as steel and cars.

Sales also fell in the Asia Pacific region by 16%, the results showed.

Criticism was levelled at the 2021 British government decision to withdraw VAT refunds for overseas visitors, “which has made the UK the least competitive destination in Europe for tourist shopping”, the results read.

“Business in our UK home market continues to be seriously impacted” by the move.

Continue Reading

Politics

Bitcoin more of a ‘diversifier’ than safe-haven asset: Report

Published

on

By

Bitcoin more of a ‘diversifier’ than safe-haven asset: Report

Bitcoin more of a ‘diversifier’ than safe-haven asset: Report

Bitcoin’s fluctuating correlation with US equities is raising questions about its role as a global safe-haven asset during periods of financial stress.

Bitcoin (BTC) exhibited a strong negative correlation with the US stock market when analyzing the short-term, seven-day trailing correlation, according to new research from blockchain data provider RedStone Oracles, shared exclusively with Cointelegraph.

Bitcoin more of a ‘diversifier’ than safe-haven asset: Report
Bitcoin, S&P 500, 7-day rolling correlation. Source: Redstone Oracles

However, RedStone said that the 30-day indicator signals a “variable correlation” between Bitcoin price and the S&P 500 index, with the correlation coefficient ranging from -0.2 to 0.4.

This fluctuating correlation suggests that Bitcoin “doesn’t consistently function as a true hedge for equities” due to its lack of a strong negative correlation below -0.3, which is needed for “reliable counter movement during market stress,” the report said.

Bitcoin more of a ‘diversifier’ than safe-haven asset: Report
Bitcoin, S&P 500, 30-day rolling correlation, 1-year chart. Source: Redstone Oracles

Related: $1B Bitcoin exits Coinbase in a day as analysts warn of supply shock

The research suggests that while Bitcoin may not be a dependable hedge against stock market declines, it offers value as a portfolio diversifier.

This fluctuating dynamic signals that Bitcoin often moves independently from other assets, potentially offering additional returns while other assets are struggling. Still, Bitcoin has yet to mirror the safe-haven dynamics of gold and government bonds, RedStone suggests.

Related: Nasdaq-listed GDC plans to buy Bitcoin and TRUMP memecoin for $300M

Bitcoin needs to “mature” before decoupling from stock market

While Bitcoin is poised to grow into a safe-haven asset in the future, the world’s first cryptocurrency still needs to “mature” as a global asset, according to Marcin Kazmierczak, co-founder and chief operating officer at RedStone.

“Bitcoin still needs to mature before decoupling from stock markets,” Kazmierczak told Cointelegraph, adding:

“Increased institutional adoption will absolutely help — we’re already seeing this effect with corporate treasury investments reducing Bitcoin’s 30-day volatility and with BlackRock repetitively praising BTC as an asset in a portfolio.”

Meanwhile, Bitcoin will see growing recognition as a portfolio diversifier, with an annualized return of over 230% for the past five years, which “significantly outperformed” both stocks and traditional safe-haven assets, Kazmierczak said, adding that “even a small 1–5% Bitcoin allocation can meaningfully enhance a portfolio’s risk-adjusted returns.”

Bitcoin more of a ‘diversifier’ than safe-haven asset: Report
Source: Vetle Lunde

Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s declining volatility supports BTC’s growing maturity as a global financial asset. Bitcoin’s weekly volatility hit a 563-day low on April 30, a development that may signal more stable price action.

Bitcoin’s price volatility fell below the realized volatility of the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100, signaling that investors are increasingly treating Bitcoin as a long-term investment vehicle, Cointelegraph reported on May 13.

Magazine: Uni students crypto ‘grooming’ scandal, 67K scammed by fake women: Asia Express

Continue Reading

Trending