Remix.run Logo
zbentley 2 hours ago

And with $160MM in funding at a $1.1B valuation? I don't know about their debt, but to get to LEO in 8 years on that little money is extremely impressive.

helsinkiandrew 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> And with $160MM in funding at a $1.1B valuation? I don't know about their debt, but to get to LEO in 8 years on that little money is extremely impressive.

Interestingly that's $5 million less than the the movie Interstellar cost to make.

appplication an hour ago | parent [-]

It’s interesting that this is less funding/valuation than hundreds of other random B2B Series C/D companies that may not even exist in 5 years.

No point, just perspective.

Imustaskforhelp 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

Indian VC's don't really have the same appetite for deep tech as compared to America/Europe. R&D within Indian Enterprises is significantly less as compared to its peers.

From what I know, its partially because of how taxation structures incentivize research as R&D tax breaks or similar don't particularly exist in India

All of this makes founders more likely to move abroad where such research is more valued which makes even less Indian deep tech startups and successes exist. This creates a vicious cycle.

I would also consider that Indian VC scene as compared to America undervalues quite decently even for B2B or even supposing identical companies and even then, Sequoia and some other American VC firms are still the most valued and I feel as if that given their expertise and contacts (other companies that the VC's have invested in being in America), there would be a slight push towards Europe/America in general. Another argument could very well be that in India CS engineer labour costs much less which is honestly some of the largest expertise for any company.

Though Indian VC scene is thriving and Bangalore is interesting but still Silicon valley is different.

There was a blog post which talked about VC dynamics and VC's value your product not on how much the real value they really see in the project is but rather on how much money you would require. So ironically, projects which require larger budgets/funds for researching, larger salaries to work would then have larger valuations.

puszczyk a minute ago | parent [-]

Thank you for sharing that perspective; I'm from Eastern Europe and have had many Indian colleagues over the years (both in the EU and working remotely). I always wondered, given the super deep talent pool and many founders originally from India, why we don't see that many Indian companies on the global stage.

I guess Eastern Europe is a bit similar (in the fact that it had a brain drain; although maybe less so since my country joined the EU), but also have a unique challenges, i.e., the EU market is fragmented and the companies need to break into a market by market.

londons_explore an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder what their cost-per-launch will end up being?

Can they compete with reusable American rockets for $/kg by just building disposable but very cheap rockets?

After all, plenty of other disposable things have outcompeted non disposable versions... Diapers... Pens... Lighters... Vapes...

Abh1Works 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Other than whats publicly available, an interesting thought about this is how they were able to launch and create something within the highly corrupted political system. Every launch, stage and approval probably required sometype of bribe (even with the current governments focus on deep tech and scientific development)

londons_explore 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you do all the work in India, you have low materials costs and low labour costs.

zbentley an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Somewhat, but rocket engineering has some upward cost pressures that offset the savings from being in India: expertise is expensive even adjusting for the cost of labor (many staff are likely competing on salary with the rest of the world--rocket engineers/scientists are in high demand with lots of likely sponsors for immigration); aerospace materials/fabrication have a pretty global supply and patent chain even given how big and diverse India's industrial base is; safety and engineering tolerances are incentivized to meet global standards (many prospective launch/payload customers and investors are international), and so on.

I'm no expert, but I suspect that even if you apply a generous discount for being in India, Skyroot's economics are still quite impressive.

Edits: clarity

literalAardvark an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Rocketry is tightly controlled by ITAR, so mobility is lower than you'd expect for a high value field.

Imustaskforhelp an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My cousin is an aerospace engineer and works in ISRO (Indian space research organization), its impressive what they are doing but I'd like to chime in on a few things.

I am unsure about private salaries but in govt. jobs, because it follows a rigid structure, the salary is still lower than what you might expect and is around the mark of 20-25 thousand dollars per year. It's similar to administrative services or depending on the position, equal to teachers/professors .

I have heard my cousin say that its hard for people to move outside because for example SpaceX/NASA couldn't hire non-American person because of laws and regulations due to security purposes.

From what I know, my cousin actually got some job offers when he had gone to give a speech recently from Management companies

20-25k$ in India isn't bad but strictly speaking, Computer science earns comparable in India at the same level.

The value of the job is mostly in govt rather than private and the benefit of it is that the work is much less stressful rather than private companies stress and just like how NASA has some prestige attached to it in America, same way goes for ISRO in India.

devnonymous an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> rocket engineers/scientists are in high demand with lots of likely sponsors for immigration

I wouldn't be too sure about the immigration part, when even a software engineer hire for a defence/defence adjacent job requires jumping through a number of bureaucratic hoops of security clearances. Even the companies with deep pockets don't always get the best people in the world -- they just get the best people that HR can actually hire.

zbentley 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

That's often true, but less true than it was a decade ago. Private, commercial space companies are a lot more numerous now. Sure, most of them have military contracts/oversight as well, but there are more opportunities with them that don't require military/government certification/authorization of immigrant hires than there were previously.

Also, there are plenty of space companies that aren't in the US/UK/China who are hiring (and more willing to work with non-domestic employees since they're playing catch-up), and plenty of companies in US/UK/China who employ contractors that aren't subject to the same hiring restrictions as the first-party/defense-contracted company.

There are a lot more specialized/high-expertise roles here than the ones critical to a nation's space program (or fungible with making weapons). Random examples off the top of my head include crew/life support expertise, launch facility engineering, LEO consumer telecommunications, and more. Space hasn't been fully commodified/detached from government interests--not by a long suborbital burn--but it's moving that direction enough to thaw out the ability to immigrate for work a bit.

bell-cot an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

True, but:

Consider how many rocket development efforts squandered 10X to 100X the money, and >8 years, without making it to orbit.

Using solid fuel for their first 3 stages also makes it far easier. I'd take that as evidence of their management wisely picking a good shape for the org's learning curve. Vs. chasing the long-odds bragging rights & likely heartbreaks of a liquid-fuels-only version 1.0.