17 October, 2024
Rosotics wants to manufacture massive orbital shipyards using 3D printing
Mesa, Arizona-based Rosotics has kept a low profile. From the startup’s website, one would think they are solely focused on selling large metal 3D printers to aerospace and defense customers.
For the past three years, the company’s been quietly architecting plans that involve launching multiple massive spacecraft, each containing dozens of smaller spacecraft, that would manufacture 3D-printed orbital shipways and propellant depots in low Earth orbit (LEO). Rosotics is betting on a future where orbital infrastructure is not just launched to space but built there, too.
“Halo is essentially the culmination of years of research and development on a very long-term play that we’ve kept quite secret for a while,” Rosotics CEO Christian LaRosa said in a recent interview. “Halo is designed to print what we describe as carrier vessels. They are essentially our direct-to-market move for on-orbit manufacturing.”
Rosotics is developing these carrier vehicles, large spacecraft it refers to as “motherships,” that would measure five meters in diameter. They are being designed to carry over a dozen smaller autonomous spacecraft called R2, which would be constructed from massive aluminum “stations,” that could be propellant depots, shipyards or even power generation infrastructure.
Secrecy, as LaRosa noted multiple times throughout our interview, was paramount: “Globally, the number of people who knew the full scope of this equation was maybe three or four, and we had been consulting, developing, testing for quite a while to get there.” But with Halo making its debut on the commercial market and the company bringing in revenue, LaRosa decided now was the time to come out with its plans.
LaRosa says the company has developed a unique, highly efficient approach for in-space 3D printing, a process that’s notoriously difficult to translate from its terrestrial applications. It’s an approach that uses induction, via a printer the company calls Reaper, and a process called “cold welding,” in which metals are joined together using little to no heat.
It’s a phenomenon that has been observed in space before — much to the peril of some space missions — because it can occur when two metals touch without a surface layer of oxides between them. (On Earth, those oxides come from the atmosphere.) For space missions, engineers do things like coat the metals with oxides, but Rosotics’ process exploits this chemical process to larger ends.
“Cold welding is something we believe to be the missing link that has prevented [on-orbit servicing, assembly and manufacturing] and effectively anything regarding architecting heavy infrastructure in orbit,” LaRosa said.
The idea is that R2s would, almost in a swarm-like fashion, manufacture structures in orbit and periodically return to the mothership for additional aluminum feedstock. LaRosa said materials could be resupplied to the motherships directly via third-party launch providers or other companies. The mothership could also be used for raising orbits or station-keeping the final structures, or stations, once they’re complete.
Each aluminum structure would be heavy and comparable in size to the ISS or larger, he added. LaRosa said the company is 12 to 18 months from production of an integrated spacecraft, which would be built in a yet-to-be-established spacecraft production facility in Boulder, Colorado. It will be two to three years before a spacecraft sees space.
All of this will be costly, but LaRosa credits the company’s ability to do so much on just $2.6 million in funding, from Tim Draper and others, due in part to its location in Mesa, far from the more popular (and expensive) aerospace hubs. The company also plans to fund its plans by selling the Halo printers, which LaRosa likened to the way SpaceX launched its Starlink satellite internet constellation to fund its massive Starship rocket.
“This is not something you could have done on just investment. You need stability of finance and of revenue. Halo is the platform that will, by proxy, fund ‘station’ and the way we are going to build that.”
Google loses massive antitrust case over search, will appeal ruling
Google will appeal a U.S. District Court judge’s opinion Monday that found the technology giant acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search.
The decision from Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a major defeat for Google that could alter the way it does business and even change the structure of the internet as we know it, should the decision stand.
Mehta said that Google abused its monopoly power over the search business in part by paying companies like Apple to present its search engine as the default choice on their devices and web browsers. The Justice Department and states filed the antitrust suit against Google in 2020, which kicked off in court in September 2023.
Google pays companies, including Apple, Samsung and Mozilla, billions of dollars for prime placement in web browsers and on smartphones. In 2021 alone, Google spent $26 billion to be the default search engine across Apple and Android platforms. According to The New York Times, about $18 billion of that spend went to Apple alone. Google shares 36% of search ad revenue from Safari with Apple. The government has argued that paying for the dominant position effectively kneecapped competitors from being able to build up their own search engines to a scale that would give them the data and reach to stay competitive.
“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his opinion filed Monday. “It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it illegal for any person or business to monopolize, attempt to monopolize or conspire to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.
Kent Walker, Google’s president of Global Affairs, told TechCrunch the company plans to appeal the decision. Walker doubled down on Google’s previous arguments that it has used its dominant position to make the best and most useful search engine, which has benefited consumers and advertisers alike.
“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” Walker told TechCrunch. “We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users’, that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices’, ‘has continued to innovate in search’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’”
The opinion caps off a years-long case — U.S. et al. v. Google — that resulted in a 10-week trial last year. The Department of Justice and a group of attorneys general from 38 states and territories, led by Colorado and Nebraska, filed similar but separate antitrust suits against Google in 2020, alleging that Google unfairly blocked out would-be search rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo. The Department of Justice estimated that Google had a 90% share of the search market, a figure that Google disputed.
The outcome of the case is a significant win for the Justice Department in an election year when former president Donald Trump would, should he win a second term in office, almost certainly take a decidedly more hands-off, deregulatory approach to tech. President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, has garnered a reputation for coming after big tech, particularly in regards to antitrust law, that many of those companies have not taken kindly to.
This case could set precedent for the raft of other antitrust lawsuits making their way through the courts today. The DOJ has sued Apple for making it difficult for consumers to switch away from the iPhone. The FTC has also recently sued Meta for stamping out early competitors and Amazon for squeezing sellers on its online marketplace.
Judge Mehta’s decision Monday may also impact the outcome of the Justice Department’s second antitrust suit against Google, which alleges that Google illegally monopolized the digital ads market. Arguments for that case are scheduled to begin September 9.
The judge has yet to decide remedies for Google’s behavior. He could force the company to change the way it runs its search business — or order it to sell off parts of that business. The opinion could be appealed, of course, and the final verdict may differ significantly, as happened with Microsoft’s famed antitrust case in the dot-com era.
In that case, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft violated antitrust laws and ordered the company to be split into two entities. Microsoft appealed the decision, and an appeals court overturned the breakup order, but Microsoft still had to take certain steps that experts today say might influence Mehta’s behavioral remedies for Google. As part of Microsoft’s settlement, the company had to share its APIs with third-party companies and appoint a panel to monitor its compliance.
Update: This article was originally published August 5 at 12:20 p.m. PT. It has been updated with more context and information from Google.
Last day for massive ticket savings to TechCrunch Disrupt 2024
Time is running out! These are the last hours to save up to $600 on TechCrunch Disrupt 2024 tickets — offer ends tonight at 11:59 p.m. PT.
Join 10,000+ startup and VC leaders from October 28-30 at Moscone West in San Francisco. Be part of one of the year’s most anticipated tech events.
Reserve your last-minute ticket savings here.
Why attend Disrupt 2024?
Gain invaluable insight from industry giants
Our agenda is brimming with prominent figures from the tech, startup, and VC worlds, eager to share their knowledge. These industry giants will take the stage to explore topics in AI, SaaS, fintech, startups, investment, space, and much more.
Alex Pall and Drew Taggart from the Chainsmokers, Partners and Co-Founders, Mantis Venture CapitalBridgit Mendler, CEO, Northwood SpacePeter Beck, Founder and CEO, Rocket LabMartin Casado, General Partner, Andreessen HorowitzMary Barra, Chair and CEO, General MotorsVinod Khosla, Founder and Partner, Khosla Ventures
View the full agenda.
Deep-dive discussions
Engage in over 300 Roundtable and Breakout Sessions led by industry leaders, designed to facilitate in-depth conversations on today’s key issues with industry experts and fellow entrepreneurs.
Unmatched networking
Cultivate powerful connections with exceptional networking experiences. From 1:1 and small group Braindates to the lively Expo Hall, receptions and Side Events — you’ll discover countless ways to network and boost your brand.
Startup Battlefield
Secure your front-row seat to one of Disrupt’s highlight events: Startup Battlefield. Watch as top pre-Series A startups pitch their innovative ideas to a panel of elite VC judges, competing for a $100,000 equity-free prize and the coveted Disrupt Cup.
Get an insider’s view as leading VCs provide expert feedback, revealing the key factors they consider when evaluating a startup’s viability.
Don’t miss these discounts!
The clock is winding down to save up to $600 on Disrupt 2024 tickets. Don’t wait — secure your discount before this offer ends tonight at 11:59 p.m. PT! Grab your discount here.
Google loses massive antitrust case over search, will appeal ruling
Google will appeal a U.S. District Court judge’s opinion Monday that found the technology giant acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search.
The decision from Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a major defeat for Google that could alter the way it does business and even change the structure of the internet as we know it, should the decision stand.
Mehta said that Google abused its monopoly power over the search business in part by paying companies like Apple to present its search engine as the default choice on their devices and web browsers. The Justice Department and states filed the antitrust suit against Google in 2020, which kicked off in court in September 2023.
Google pays companies including Apple, Samsung and Mozilla billions of dollars for prime placement in web browsers and on smartphones. In 2021 alone, Google spent $26 billion to be the default search engine across Apple and Android platforms. According to The New York Times, about $18 billion of that spend went to Apple alone. Google shares 36% of search ad revenue from Safari with Apple. The government has argued that paying for the dominant position effectively kneecapped competitors from being able to build up their own search engines to a scale that would give them the data and reach to stay competitive.
“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his opinion filed Monday. “It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it illegal for any person or business to monopolize, attempt to monopolize or conspire to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.
Kent Walker, Google’s president of Global Affairs, told TechCrunch the company plans to appeal the decision. Walker doubled down on Google’s previous arguments that it has used its dominant position to make the best and most useful search engine, which has benefited consumers and advertisers alike.
“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” Walker told TechCrunch. “We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users’, that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices’, ‘has continued to innovate in search’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’”
The opinion caps off a years-long case — U.S. et al. v. Google — that resulted in a 10-week trial last year. The Department of Justice and a group of attorneys general from 38 states and territories, led by Colorado and Nebraska, filed similar but separate antitrust suits against Google in 2020, alleging that Google unfairly blocked out would-be search rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo. The Department of Justice estimated that Google had a 90% share of the search market, a figure that Google disputed.
The outcome of the case is a significant win for the Justice Department in an election year when former president Donald Trump would, should he win a second term in office, almost certainly take a decidedly more hands-off, deregulatory approach to tech. President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, has garnered a reputation for coming after big tech, particularly in regards to antitrust law, that many of those companies have not taken kindly to.
This case could set precedent for the raft of other antitrust lawsuits making their way through the courts today. The DOJ has sued Apple for making it difficult for consumers to switch away from the iPhone. The FTC has also recently sued Meta for stamping out early competitors and Amazon for squeezing sellers on its online marketplace.
Judge Mehta’s decision Monday may also impact the outcome of the Justice Department’s second antitrust suit against Google, which alleges that Google illegally monopolized the digital ads market. Arguments for that case are scheduled to begin September 9.
The judge has yet to decide remedies for Google’s behavior. He could force the company to change the way it runs its search business — or order it to sell off parts of that business. The opinion could be appealed, of course, and the final verdict may differ significantly, as happened with Microsoft’s famed antitrust case in the dot-com era.
In that case, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft violated antitrust laws and ordered the company to be split into two entities. Microsoft appealed the decision, and an appeals court overturned the breakup order, but Microsoft still had to take certain steps that experts today say might influence Mehta’s behavioral remedies for Google. As part of Microsoft’s settlement, the company had to share its APIs with third-party companies and appoint a panel to monitor its compliance.
Update: This article was originally published August 5 at 12:20 pm PT. It has been updated with more context and information from Google.
SpaceX aiming to launch massive Starship for the third time early Thursday
SpaceX will attempt to send the massive Starship rocket to orbit for the third time early Thursday morning after U.S. regulators gave the green light for launch.
The company is aiming to complete the launch within a 110-minute window that opens at 7:00 a.m. CT. Starship testing is conducted from SpaceX’s sprawling Starbase campus near Boca Chica, Texas, though the company will livestream the launch on its website and on the social media site X starting at 6:30 a.m. CT.
SpaceX has conducted two test flights of the 400-foot-tall rocket so far. The first took place last April, and ended with both the upper stage (which is also called Starship) and the Super Heavy booster exploding mid-air. The company made considerable progress during the second orbital test flight, though it too eventually ended in the destruction of the vehicle.
These events are considered anomalies — a polite industry term that includes everything from minor component failures to, in the case of the Starship launches, spectacular explosions. Anytime an anomaly occurs during a rocket launch, the Federal Aviation Administration steps in to oversee a company-run investigation. The investigation into the second Starship launch closed last month, so the only thing left was for the regulator to issue a launch license for the test flight.
SpaceX implemented a number of hardware changes and upgrades as part of that investigation, and as part of its more general approach to iterative hardware design.
This test raises the stakes in a few different ways. The company is aiming to demonstrate new capabilities, including a fuel transfer demonstration, the opening and closing of the upper stage’s payload door and relighting a Raptor engine in space for the first time. Due to the in-space engine burn, the company is also targeting a new flight trajectory, with the upper stage splashing down in the Indian Ocean.
Starship is integral both to SpaceX’s business plans and NASA’s ambitious Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon by the end of the decade.
Xaira, an AI drug discovery startup, launches with a massive $1B, says it's 'ready' to start developing drugs
Advances in generative AI have taken the tech world by storm. Biotech investors are making a big bet that similar computational methods could revolutionize drug discovery.
On Tuesday, ARCH Venture Partners and Foresite Labs, an affiliate of Foresite Capital, announced that they incubated Xaira Therapeutics and funded the AI biotech with $1 billion. Other investors in the new company, which has been operating in stealth mode for about six months, include F-Prime, NEA, Sequoia Capital, Lux Capital, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Menlo Ventures, Two Sigma Ventures and SV Angel.
Xaira’s CEO Marc Tessier-Lavigne, a former Stanford president and chief scientific officer at Genentech, says the company is ready to start developing drugs that were impossible to make without recent breakthroughs in AI. “We’ve done such a large capital raise because we believe the technology is at an inflection point where it can have a transformative effect on the field,” he said.
The advances in foundational models come from the University of Washington’s Institute of Protein Design, run by David Baker, one of Xaira’s co-founders. These models are similar to diffusion models that power image generators like OpenAI’s DALL-E and Midjourney. But rather than creating art, Baker’s models aim to design molecular structures that can be made in a three-dimensional, physical world.
While Xaira’s investors are convinced that the company can revolutionize data design, they emphasized that generative AI applications in biology are still in the early innings.
Vik Bajaj, CEO of Foresite Labs and managing director of Foresite Capital, said that unlike in technology, where data that train AI models is created by consumers, biology and medicine are “data poor. You have to create the datasets that drive model development.”
Other biotech companies using generative AI to design drugs include Recursion, which went public in 2021, and Genesis Therapeutics, a startup that last year raised a $200 million Series B co-led by Andreessen Horowitz.
The company declined to say when it expects to have its first drug available for human trials. However, ARCH Venture Partners managing director Bob Nelsen underscored that Xaira and its investors are ready to play the long game.
“You need billions of dollars to be a real drug company and also think AI. Both of those are expensive disciplines,” he said.
Xaira wants to position itself as a powerhouse of AI drug discovery. However, some view bringing on Tessier-Lavigne as CEO as an unexpected move. Tessier-Lavigne resigned just seven months ago from his position as Stanford president following explosive reports — including in the Stanford Daily — that his laboratory at Genetech had manipulated research data.
Tessier-Lavigne was not himself accused of manipulating any data and denied knowing there was falsified research being published by his colleagues.
Indeed, after a special committee of Stanford’s Board of Trustees initiated a review related to Tessier-Lavigne’s scientific research, he let it be known that the panel concluded he “did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data.” Still, as he wrote in his last public communication from Stanford last summer, “[a]lthough the report clearly refutes the allegations of fraud and misconduct that were made against me,” the investigation itself had become so big a distraction that he decided to step down “for the good of the University.”
Investors don’t seem bothered by the events. They say they’re confident that Tessier-Lavigne — who left Genentech in 2011 to lead Rockefeller University, then joined Stanford in 2016 — is the right person for the job.
“I have known Marc for many years and know him to be a person of integrity and scientific vision who will be an exceptional CEO,” Nelsen said in an email. “Stanford exonerated him of any wrongdoing or scientific misconduct.”