Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Starting Rocket Lab without $100M "We knew that we could never outspend our competitors. That was just never ever going to be a thing. The reason why the Rutherford engine is named after Ernest Rutherford is because he had a very famous saying: "We have no money, so we... have to think." At the start of Rocket Lab...I would go to junkyards and crawl over old machines to unscrew all of the Swagelok fittings because we couldn't afford to buy them. So the first few vehicles all used second hand fittings. That kind of hardship really cemented part of the culture at Rocket Lab. If you look across the space industry, especially amongst companies that went public, most of them are toast. If money could solve space problems then there would be a lot of success — money does not solve this problem." $RKLBshow more

Ti Morse

21,702 subscribers

18,401 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

$RKLB New Peter Beck interview today on Bloomberg: Does SpaceX's dominance threaten Rocket Lab? "No, I don't think so. The reality is SpaceX is a space company, but also very much an AI company and a bunch of other things as well. Rocket Lab is a very squarely focused pure play space company. I think it draws investors into the sector. And when they go looking, Rocket Lab is really the clear number two with respect to launch frequency and those kinds of things. So no, I'm not too worried about that.” "So do you find yourself complementary to SpaceX? Or are you in direct competition with Elon Musk?" "In some cases we are in direct competition, but also very complementary. We are an end-to-end space company. We're the second most frequently launched US rocket in the world behind SpaceX, so the rocket bit is competitive. But two-thirds of our business is building satellites and spacecraft and supplying components to the rest of the space industry. So in that sense, not really a competitor at all."

$RKLB New Peter Beck interview today on Bloomberg: Does SpaceX's dominance threaten Rocket Lab? "No, I don't think so. The reality is SpaceX is a space company, but also very much an AI company and a bunch of other things as well. Rocket Lab is a very squarely focused pure play space company. I think it draws investors into the sector. And when they go looking, Rocket Lab is really the clear number two with respect to launch frequency and those kinds of things. So no, I'm not too worried about that.” "So do you find yourself complementary to SpaceX? Or are you in direct competition with Elon Musk?" "In some cases we are in direct competition, but also very complementary. We are an end-to-end space company. We're the second most frequently launched US rocket in the world behind SpaceX, so the rocket bit is competitive. But two-thirds of our business is building satellites and spacecraft and supplying components to the rest of the space industry. So in that sense, not really a competitor at all."

ValueOverPrice

48,871 views • 1 month ago

.President Donald J. Trump: "The CHIPS Act was a ridiculous thing because that doesn't get them to build. All we did was hand very wealthy companies money... If you weren't woke, you couldn't even use the money. You had to have a certain percentage of this and that."

.President Donald J. Trump: "The CHIPS Act was a ridiculous thing because that doesn't get them to build. All we did was hand very wealthy companies money... If you weren't woke, you couldn't even use the money. You had to have a certain percentage of this and that."

Rapid Response 47

168,513 views • 1 year ago

$RKLB Neutron will be the largest carbon fiber structure to ever fly once it's completed. Some critics say it's not realistic because it would be the first carbon fiber structure of that size to fly, but I'd argue Rocket Lab is pretty good at firsts: "We were the first to 3D print a rocket engine and put it into orbit. We were the first to do an all carbon composite rocket and put it into orbit. We were the first to do all fiber optically networked avionics suite on a launch vehicle and put it into orbit." — Sir Peter Beck, Rocket Lab CEO

$RKLB Neutron will be the largest carbon fiber structure to ever fly once it's completed. Some critics say it's not realistic because it would be the first carbon fiber structure of that size to fly, but I'd argue Rocket Lab is pretty good at firsts: "We were the first to 3D print a rocket engine and put it into orbit. We were the first to do an all carbon composite rocket and put it into orbit. We were the first to do all fiber optically networked avionics suite on a launch vehicle and put it into orbit." — Sir Peter Beck, Rocket Lab CEO

ValueOverPrice

27,984 views • 27 days ago

Apple's Eddy Cue reveals the logic behind charging $0.99 a song when the company launched iTunes Store in 2003, despite the fact that Apple would lose money at that price: "There were two keys to $0.99 that we really believed in, and people didn't see." "Number one is when the price is $0.99, and it's consistent, you never have to think about price." "The second thing was that people could never do that, because at $0.99, if you're charging a credit card, you would lose money. Because credit cards have a fixed fee and a percentage that you pay." "Well, the fixed fee and the percentage you pay on a $0.99 song was like a quarter, and the vast majority of the [rest of] the money went to the labels. So every time we'd sell a song, we'd lose money. Nobody wanted to do that." "What we decided to do is, as we were building this — and it was a huge discussion, because we would lose a ton of money — we said, 'Look, this thing is amazing. You're not going to buy just one song, you're going to buy a lot of songs.'" "'And when you do that, instead of closing the transaction on every single one, why don't we just combine them over a period of time? Let's keep the transaction open for a period of time — let's call it 24 hours, or 8 hours. And everything you buy, we're just going to give you, then we're going to charge you at the end.'" "And that's exactly what happened. Very few transactions were just $0.99. Most of the transactions were multiple dollars. And the fixed fee didn't matter."

Apple's Eddy Cue reveals the logic behind charging $0.99 a song when the company launched iTunes Store in 2003, despite the fact that Apple would lose money at that price: "There were two keys to $0.99 that we really believed in, and people didn't see." "Number one is when the price is $0.99, and it's consistent, you never have to think about price." "The second thing was that people could never do that, because at $0.99, if you're charging a credit card, you would lose money. Because credit cards have a fixed fee and a percentage that you pay." "Well, the fixed fee and the percentage you pay on a $0.99 song was like a quarter, and the vast majority of the [rest of] the money went to the labels. So every time we'd sell a song, we'd lose money. Nobody wanted to do that." "What we decided to do is, as we were building this — and it was a huge discussion, because we would lose a ton of money — we said, 'Look, this thing is amazing. You're not going to buy just one song, you're going to buy a lot of songs.'" "'And when you do that, instead of closing the transaction on every single one, why don't we just combine them over a period of time? Let's keep the transaction open for a period of time — let's call it 24 hours, or 8 hours. And everything you buy, we're just going to give you, then we're going to charge you at the end.'" "And that's exactly what happened. Very few transactions were just $0.99. Most of the transactions were multiple dollars. And the fixed fee didn't matter."

TBPN

2,403,748 views • 4 months ago

$RKLB Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck on the mindset behind competing with SpaceX and Blue Origin: "My two competitors in this industry are Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. So I'm not going to outspend those people. We have to out-innovate them. That's the only way that we can be successful. And that's why we've been successful to date." "If you stand still, you just get run over. You have to be on the steamroller, not in front of the steamroller." Brilliant CEO.

$RKLB Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck on the mindset behind competing with SpaceX and Blue Origin: "My two competitors in this industry are Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. So I'm not going to outspend those people. We have to out-innovate them. That's the only way that we can be successful. And that's why we've been successful to date." "If you stand still, you just get run over. You have to be on the steamroller, not in front of the steamroller." Brilliant CEO.

ValueOverPrice

31,232 views • 26 days ago

Elon Musk: I started reading about rockets to understand why they're so freaking expensive. “I started reading quite a bit about rockets to try to understand why they're so freaking expensive. Where does the $60 million go for the Delta II? Now Delta II, I think, is $100 million or something, some crazy number. And Delta II is a relatively small rocket. If you go to one of the bigger rockets, it's anywhere from $200 to $400 million. Anyway, so I came to the conclusion that there wasn't really a good reason for rockets to be so expensive, and that they could be a lot less. Even in an expendable format, they could be less. And that if one could make them reusable, like airplanes, then the cost of rocketry would drop dramatically, the cost of space travel would drop dramatically. Because the cost of the fuel was maybe anywhere from 0.2% to 0.5% of the cost of the rocket. It's like a plane. How much is the cost of the fuel in the plane versus the plane itself? It's at least a two-order-of-magnitude difference. But nobody had really been able to make a reusable rocket work. So I thought, if we can do that, then that would really be the key breakthrough for space travel.” Interview at the Computer History Museum, 2013

Elon Musk: I started reading about rockets to understand why they're so freaking expensive. “I started reading quite a bit about rockets to try to understand why they're so freaking expensive. Where does the $60 million go for the Delta II? Now Delta II, I think, is $100 million or something, some crazy number. And Delta II is a relatively small rocket. If you go to one of the bigger rockets, it's anywhere from $200 to $400 million. Anyway, so I came to the conclusion that there wasn't really a good reason for rockets to be so expensive, and that they could be a lot less. Even in an expendable format, they could be less. And that if one could make them reusable, like airplanes, then the cost of rocketry would drop dramatically, the cost of space travel would drop dramatically. Because the cost of the fuel was maybe anywhere from 0.2% to 0.5% of the cost of the rocket. It's like a plane. How much is the cost of the fuel in the plane versus the plane itself? It's at least a two-order-of-magnitude difference. But nobody had really been able to make a reusable rocket work. So I thought, if we can do that, then that would really be the key breakthrough for space travel.” Interview at the Computer History Museum, 2013

ELON CLIPS

1,208,721 views • 1 year ago

🚨 NOW: President Trump takes huge VICTORY LAP on the success of Space Force — which some Democrats MOCKED Space Force is now vastly improving the accuracy of our weapons on the ground. And we're leading China and Russia, easily 🔥 "I'm very proud of the Space Force because that was a branch that a new one that came up, and we were losing to Russia and to China in space." "Space Force is now leading the other countries, China, Russia, and there is no fourth, really, and leading them by, we saw numbers the other day, leading, we're leading in space by so much it's, we're never going to be caught. So I'm very proud of Space Force!" "I think it's going to be one of our most important as time goes by. A lot of the things that you see, a lot of the accuracy of the weapons is caused because of what we created with Space Force, so we're very proud of that."

🚨 NOW: President Trump takes huge VICTORY LAP on the success of Space Force — which some Democrats MOCKED Space Force is now vastly improving the accuracy of our weapons on the ground. And we're leading China and Russia, easily 🔥 "I'm very proud of the Space Force because that was a branch that a new one that came up, and we were losing to Russia and to China in space." "Space Force is now leading the other countries, China, Russia, and there is no fourth, really, and leading them by, we saw numbers the other day, leading, we're leading in space by so much it's, we're never going to be caught. So I'm very proud of Space Force!" "I think it's going to be one of our most important as time goes by. A lot of the things that you see, a lot of the accuracy of the weapons is caused because of what we created with Space Force, so we're very proud of that."

Eric Daugherty

15,034 views • 3 months ago

"What is P vs NP and how does it relate to human knowledge?" Avi Wigderson (Turing Award & Abel Prize winner): "In a very basic way, all the problems we want to solve are really NP problems. A subset of it is the problems we can solve. So the question of P versus NP is whether we can solve all the problems we want to solve, whether we can know everything we want to know. This is basically about the limits of our knowledge. You can think there is no limit to what we may want to know but I claim that essentially in any human endeavor, what people are searching for have the property that when a solution is found, it is easily recognized. NP are all problems that we can honestly say we really want to solve and P are those that we can solve. Whether they are equal is just the very fact that a solution can be easily recognized would imply that it can be efficiently found. That means that we can know everything we ever want to know, it's a fundamental question about human knowledge."

"What is P vs NP and how does it relate to human knowledge?" Avi Wigderson (Turing Award & Abel Prize winner): "In a very basic way, all the problems we want to solve are really NP problems. A subset of it is the problems we can solve. So the question of P versus NP is whether we can solve all the problems we want to solve, whether we can know everything we want to know. This is basically about the limits of our knowledge. You can think there is no limit to what we may want to know but I claim that essentially in any human endeavor, what people are searching for have the property that when a solution is found, it is easily recognized. NP are all problems that we can honestly say we really want to solve and P are those that we can solve. Whether they are equal is just the very fact that a solution can be easily recognized would imply that it can be efficiently found. That means that we can know everything we ever want to know, it's a fundamental question about human knowledge."

Ryan Peterman

20,069 views • 2 months ago

No one swindles #America out of more money than #Israel If we want to make America great again we have to get rid of the leaches sucking us dry. I'm optimistic because I never thought we would be having this conversation. Now that we all know what the problems are, we can address them. #Goodluck to you all #LongLiveTheRepublic

No one swindles #America out of more money than #Israel If we want to make America great again we have to get rid of the leaches sucking us dry. I'm optimistic because I never thought we would be having this conversation. Now that we all know what the problems are, we can address them. #Goodluck to you all #LongLiveTheRepublic

The Artist known as Jess

61,324 views • 9 months ago

How a single, obvious question led Elon Musk to create SpaceX and changed space travel forever: “I came to the conclusion that there wasn’t really a good reason for rockets to be so expensive, and that they could be a lot less Even in an expendable format they could be less" From day one, Elon's mission has been crystal clear: make rockets fully reusable, just like commercial airplanes "The cost of space travel would drop dramatically, because the cost of the fuel was maybe anywhere from 0.2 to 0.5 percent of the cost of the rocket But nobody had really been able to make a reusable rocket work. So I thought, ‘Okay, if we can do that, then that would really be the key breakthrough for space travel’”

How a single, obvious question led Elon Musk to create SpaceX and changed space travel forever: “I came to the conclusion that there wasn’t really a good reason for rockets to be so expensive, and that they could be a lot less Even in an expendable format they could be less" From day one, Elon's mission has been crystal clear: make rockets fully reusable, just like commercial airplanes "The cost of space travel would drop dramatically, because the cost of the fuel was maybe anywhere from 0.2 to 0.5 percent of the cost of the rocket But nobody had really been able to make a reusable rocket work. So I thought, ‘Okay, if we can do that, then that would really be the key breakthrough for space travel’”

X Freeze

14,066 views • 4 months ago

The reason why Elon Musk started working on reusable rockets "I started reading quite a bit about rockets to try and understand why they're so freaking expensive If one could make them reusable like airplanes, then the cost of rocketry would drop dramatically The cost of the fuel was maybe anywhere from 0.2% to 0.5% of the cost of the rocket I came to the conclusion that there wasn't really a good reason for rockets to be so expensive and that they could be a lot less even in an expendable format "Nobody had really been able to make a reusable rocket work... but if we can do that, then that would really be the key breakthrough" - Elon Musk

The reason why Elon Musk started working on reusable rockets "I started reading quite a bit about rockets to try and understand why they're so freaking expensive If one could make them reusable like airplanes, then the cost of rocketry would drop dramatically The cost of the fuel was maybe anywhere from 0.2% to 0.5% of the cost of the rocket I came to the conclusion that there wasn't really a good reason for rockets to be so expensive and that they could be a lot less even in an expendable format "Nobody had really been able to make a reusable rocket work... but if we can do that, then that would really be the key breakthrough" - Elon Musk

X Freeze

458,307 views • 5 months ago

Russian State Duma MP Gurulev on the critical state of Russia’s budget and emergency housing: "Today, the budget simply can’t cope. We have a massive budget deficit. They say everything is fine, that revenues are strong. But just look at the size of the deficit. It becomes absolutely clear that there is simply not enough money. The federal emergency housing program has been suspended since the start of the so-called 'special military operation.' So to say that we will solve the emergency housing problem tomorrow would be untrue. Until we can breathe a little after the 'special military operation,' until some money appears, we won’t solve this problem at all. I’m telling you how things really are."

Russian State Duma MP Gurulev on the critical state of Russia’s budget and emergency housing: "Today, the budget simply can’t cope. We have a massive budget deficit. They say everything is fine, that revenues are strong. But just look at the size of the deficit. It becomes absolutely clear that there is simply not enough money. The federal emergency housing program has been suspended since the start of the so-called 'special military operation.' So to say that we will solve the emergency housing problem tomorrow would be untrue. Until we can breathe a little after the 'special military operation,' until some money appears, we won’t solve this problem at all. I’m telling you how things really are."

Anton Gerashchenko

134,547 views • 6 months ago

Elon Musk: Starship is next-level. It's the first rocket that can take us to Mars. “Starship is the most complex and advanced rocket that's ever been made by, I don't know, an order of magnitude or something like that. It's a lot. It's really next-level. The fundamental optimization of Starship is minimizing cost per ton to orbit and ultimately cost per ton to the surface of Mars. This may seem like a mercantile objective, but it is actually the thing that needs to be optimized. There is a certain cost per ton to the surface of Mars where we can afford to establish a self-sustaining city, and then above that we cannot afford to do it. Right now, you couldn't fly to Mars for a trillion dollars. No amount of money could get you a ticket to Mars. So, we need to get that to something that is actually possible at all.” From: Interview with Lex Fridman, December 28, 2021

Elon Musk: Starship is next-level. It's the first rocket that can take us to Mars. “Starship is the most complex and advanced rocket that's ever been made by, I don't know, an order of magnitude or something like that. It's a lot. It's really next-level. The fundamental optimization of Starship is minimizing cost per ton to orbit and ultimately cost per ton to the surface of Mars. This may seem like a mercantile objective, but it is actually the thing that needs to be optimized. There is a certain cost per ton to the surface of Mars where we can afford to establish a self-sustaining city, and then above that we cannot afford to do it. Right now, you couldn't fly to Mars for a trillion dollars. No amount of money could get you a ticket to Mars. So, we need to get that to something that is actually possible at all.” From: Interview with Lex Fridman, December 28, 2021

ELON CLIPS

1,190,681 views • 11 months ago

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

David Senra

154,426 views • 1 month ago

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

David Senra

518,747 views • 3 months ago

.DHH says successful founders have a moral obligation to buy a Ferrari: “You have an obligation, if you sell a product or service and you make a lot of money on it, to put that money back into the system. Send some of that money to the craftsmen of Italy to create you a beautiful Ferrari.” “I think that's a good part of capitalism.” “We want to better our lot and some of that is material, and there's no shame in that whatsoever.” “We would not have Ferraris to pine for if no one bought them. And who can buy them? The people who've been successful in other parts of business.” “Therefore it is your moral obligation to buy a Ferrari if you do really well (or Lamborghini or Pagani or whatever floats your boat).” “You should be sending this forward. This is how we get to have nice things. “Not everything can just be boiled down to needs. Man needs more than just bread to live. We need beautiful Ferraris, even if we don't own them.”

.DHH says successful founders have a moral obligation to buy a Ferrari: “You have an obligation, if you sell a product or service and you make a lot of money on it, to put that money back into the system. Send some of that money to the craftsmen of Italy to create you a beautiful Ferrari.” “I think that's a good part of capitalism.” “We want to better our lot and some of that is material, and there's no shame in that whatsoever.” “We would not have Ferraris to pine for if no one bought them. And who can buy them? The people who've been successful in other parts of business.” “Therefore it is your moral obligation to buy a Ferrari if you do really well (or Lamborghini or Pagani or whatever floats your boat).” “You should be sending this forward. This is how we get to have nice things. “Not everything can just be boiled down to needs. Man needs more than just bread to live. We need beautiful Ferraris, even if we don't own them.”

David Senra

371,970 views • 12 days ago

Trump: I hope we get cooperation from the courts because you know, we have thousands of people that are ready to go out. And you cannot have a trial for all of these people. The system was not meant that not -- we don't think there is anything that says… We are getting them out. And a judge cannot say no, you have to have a trial. The trial is going to take two years. No, we are going to have a very dangerous country if we are not allowed to do what we are entitled to do.

Trump: I hope we get cooperation from the courts because you know, we have thousands of people that are ready to go out. And you cannot have a trial for all of these people. The system was not meant that not -- we don't think there is anything that says… We are getting them out. And a judge cannot say no, you have to have a trial. The trial is going to take two years. No, we are going to have a very dangerous country if we are not allowed to do what we are entitled to do.

Acyn

327,595 views • 1 year ago