I imagine it's dependent on domain expertise and ability to execute. You need to be able to break it down into smaller problems in lieu of an aggressive weekly growth goal.

If you haven't already check out Chad Rigetti's talk from last year's Startup School. Excellent perspective on the challenges and rewards of working on "hard tech"

Funny, watched that video right after I posted the question.

I think the problem can be broken down into specific steps fairly easily.

Executing those steps is not easy though - it is rocket science after all.

YC doesn't seem to shy away from ideas that are really out there. I'm wondering if the lack of rocket "startups" is due to something from YC's end or if it's a matter of numbers.

That is, the number of people with skills to build a rocket ship startup is so small that there isn't a critical mass of founders starting these companies. As a result, people are not seeing enough of them to be accepted into YC.

Yes, a few.

Yes, they have funded

or

Yes, they have reasons not to back them

go on...

Does Boom count?

I guess. I'm more curious about "rocket science" specifically.

The applications, outside of Space X (and friends), are still being figured out.

So for non-human flight, it's kind of like where drones were about 5 years ago. It is possible, it's expensive, regulations are unknown but there is a huge potential that seems to be there.

However, no one seems to be able to quantify it.

Also, the costs are quite hight, as things stand right now, to launch a satellite into orbit.

I'm curious, what do you see as the potential?

It costs ~ $100k / lb and takes ~ 2 years to get a nanosat into space. But you can't have just one, you need a constellation, so how long does it take to get 6 satellites up and how much will it cost in the end?

What if you could get a nanosat into the orbit you want, when you want it for about the same price?