This shouldn't be a controversial statement. The Ariane 5 is one of the more expensive launch vehicles on the market right now. It's telling that CNES/ESA has brought the Soyuz to Guiana for launches, because it is massively cheaper than the Ariane 5.
2013 is going to be the defining year for SpaceX, I think. They've already proven that they are rather uniquely capable in banging out rockets and spacecraft that work at a tremendously low cost, but 2013 will prove their operational mettle, especially for commercial launches. It will show whether or not they can meet schedules, launch reliably, and maintain their existing cost structures. And if they do all of that, they will gain the trust of the people who hold the purse strings of the world's satellite launch budgets (although they already made a tremendous first effort in that regard).
More so, the Falcon Heavy and the Falcon 9 v1.1 are a much bigger deal than people give credit for. Things like the "grasshopper" Falcon 9 first stage reusability test-bed and the manned Dragon capsule development gain a lot of attention, but the v1.1 and the heavy are going to be the crowbars that utterly disrupt the spaceflight industry.
See, with Falcon 9 v1.0 they are already on a dramatically different cost structure. With v1.1 they will reduce their manufacturing costs, increase reliability, and increase the payload capacity by about 40%. This will make it a lot easier to do dual and multiple launches at extremely competitive prices. Also, it will allow them to underbid the competition incrementally while raking in massive profits. The Falcon Heavy will use just under 3x the components of a Falcon 9 v1.1 but it will have nearly 5x the payload capacity. This means that it can do multiple launches for crazy cheap. Also, it will be a pretty tempting target for governments to use for manned spaceflight. For example, it could be capable of sending a manned capsule into lunar orbit, which would be super useful for any sort of activities NASA decides to perform out there. Additionally, it might encourage folks to develop extremely massive payloads (next generation commsats or manned space station components) which are incapable of being launched by any other vehicle. SpaceX is rapidly moving into territory where they are untouchable. Already no other company (and no government either) can return large cargo from the ISS, for example. Soon they will be the only commercial company capable of sending astronauts into orbit. And just as soon they will be the only launch provider capable of putting 50 tonne payloads into LEO or 10 tonne payloads into GEO or on an interplanetary trajectory.
> it will allow them to underbid the competition incrementally while raking in massive profits
I never thought of SpaceX as being something Musk was in for the money (based on interviews with him that I've read), but it sounds like if he can significantly lower costs and keep his technology secret, incrementally underbidding the competition will make him extremely rich.
You have to think about it several ways. The more profit they rake in the easier it will be to stick around. Also, the more they'll be able to spend on R&D for manned spaceflight, reusable launchers, future redesigns, Mars missions, etc. Apparently they're working on a next gen rocket engine which will probably be much larger and powered by methane and oxygen, which they might use as the basis of a super heavy lift launcher which would make manned Mars missions almost easy.
The big picture for Musk and SpaceX is Mars. The more profitability yields more R&D. The more R&D yields more capable rockets. The more capable rockets yields a better pathway to Mars. It's pretty much spelled out at the SpaceX website.
While that's all true, a Mars mission can't possibly funded by SpaceX itself, which means he's going to have to convince Congress or some international consortium that it's worth doing at probably $1T.
I don't see that happening. Space buffs are all excited over SpaceX (with good reason), but the general public has pretty much lost interest in manned space. Manned launches to the ISS don't even make the general news anymore despite NASA's rather formidable PR machine. The first manned Dragon launch will make the news, but only the first.
Politicians (particularly presidents) keep proposing Mars missions but always push funding decisions far enough into the future someone else is going to have to deal with paying for it. The public has caught on by now, so every new Mars mission proposal is greeted with a collective yawn.
The idea that a Mars mission would cost on the order of $1T is absurd. More reasonable estimates place it around $50 billion. The rest of your comment is ridiculous as it's based on such an absolutely outrageous estimate. SpaceX could probably do it alone if they have to. For example, Apple has enough in the bank to afford it alone right now. And we're talking about 10-15 years of SpaceX development and revenue before a Mars mission. Also note that most Mars mission costs include R&D to build a rocket to go there, of which SpaceX has already done huge amounts.
Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive.
>Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive.
This is what I hate about space enthusiasts. You do a back-of-the-envelop calculation ignoring all the political wrangling, the on-again, off-again political support, the inevitable development setbacks, etc. In other words, you ignore the cost drivers of every single other space program in history and come up with a number that's an order of magnitude (at least) too low. If you actually got political approval for such a thing taxpayers would (justly) feel hoodwinked as program costs spiral upwards. It would be lucky to survive to completion.
Based on other big government projects (like the F-22, for instance), the $1T figure is probably a little on the low side. The idea you could send people to Mars and bring them back for $50Bn, less than it costs to build a HSR line from LA to San Francisco, is sheer stupidity.
The mission we're talking about does not require political support. All of your arguments stem from big government waste, taxpayer indecision, etc. And you'd be right, if we were talking about NASA. But we're not. Why are you comparing daring space missions to rail or airplanes?! How about comparing to other space missions? Take the Apollo program. The entire program, with six moon landings, cost about $100 billion in 2010 dollars, and it was done half a century ago.
We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a half a century of technology and advancement. Yes, Mars is tougher than the Moon - but not that much tougher. Space travel just isn't as expensive as you think it is. Not anymore.
When you look at the itemized breakdown of the Apollo program costs, and realize that much of the work is already done were we to attempt it again, the picture looks even better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost
The launch vehicles that SpaceX would/will be using will be already completed and tested, as will most required facilities. The DSN is pretty mature these days, and could probably handle a manned mission to Mars without much overhauling.
As a stupidly simplified analysis, assuming that the 125million estimated cost of a Falcon Heavy remains the same wherever you point it, 1 trillion USD will get you 8 thousand launches. Assuming you use one thousand Falcon 9 launches for the initial setup and manned mission to get there, which is absurd, you would still have enough money left over to do more than 10 support flights a month for the next 50 years. (I think it is fair to say that if you need that many support flights, you shouldn't be on Mars anyway. The ISS needs a fraction of that.)
Again, stupidly simplified, 8000 Falcon Heavy flights would get you 112,000,000 kg into trans-Mars orbit. That is something like one and a half RMS Queen Mary's or almost two and a half Titanics.
Of course the R&D/materials for the manned spacecraft itself, the continuous mission support, the R&D/materials of any habitat, etc are all going to be very expensive.
>We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a half a century of technology and advancement.
That's a pipe dream. For private industry to do this there has to be a profit motive, and in this case there isn't. There's no way you can make money going to Mars, and getting sponsored by Red Bull isn't going to defray the costs much. When Elon Musk says Mars is the goal, he means he's intent on providing a capability the rest of us will be expected to pay for.
>Yes, Mars is tougher than the Moon - but not that much tougher. Space travel just isn't as expensive as you think it is. Not anymore.
There's a hell of a lot more to a Mars mission than getting everything to Mars. We couldn't do it today even if the rocket was free. And it won't be.
Even beyond the obvious engineering problems there are still a lot of things we just don't know how to do in the constraints of the vessel. We have no practical way of protecting the crew from the radiation they'll be exposed to, for example. We don't know how to build an environmental system that guaranteed (more or less) to work for five years. We don't know how to keep astronauts in good physical and mental condition over those kinds of time frames. The list is endless.
Mars is like Apollo in the same way an Everest ascent is like camping in your back yard. You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of what you're proposing, which is why you find your tiny cost estimate credible.
> That's a pipe dream. For private industry to do this there has to be a profit motive, and in this case there isn't.
A ridiculous proposition. Anyone who can not think of a potential profit motive for going to Mars isn't thinking very big or very long. Making a list is left as an exercise to the reader.
> When Elon Musk says Mars is the goal, he means he's intent on providing a capability the rest of us will be expected to pay for.
For colonization, yes. But that's fair - and it ties to a profit motive ("Live on Mars, for the price of a middle-class home!" the ad campaigns may go). But for the initial trip, whereby he proves his company and technology? Surely not.
> Even beyond the obvious engineering problems there are still a lot of things we just don't know how to do in the constraints of the vessel. We have no practical way of protecting the crew from the radiation they'll be exposed to, for example. We don't know how to build an environmental system that guaranteed (more or less) to work for five years. We don't know how to keep astronauts in good physical and mental condition over those kinds of time frames. The list is endless.
That's what the $50 billion and more-than-a-decade is for.
> Mars is like Apollo in the same way an Everest ascent is like camping in your back yard.
I'm not going to even answer that. So absurd.
> You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of what you're proposing, which is why you find your tiny cost estimate credible.
You are the only one on the planet who I have heard of who suggests the cost would approach anything near $1T. It is you who is way off the mark when compared to professional estimates.
> But for the initial trip, whereby he proves his company and technology? Surely not.
So far, he hasn't even proven an ability to do that in earth orbit without taxpayer money: SpaceX is almost entirely funded by government contracts. Wouldn't you want to see them prove financial independence there first, before speculating on whether they can get to Mars without taxpayer money? It might be possible, but so far the evidence for SpaceX being a viable concern purely on private-sector funding is weak imo.
> So far, he hasn't even proven an ability to do that in earth orbit without taxpayer money
So far, no human has been put in orbit without taxpayer money, anywhere. That's the past, though. It would be silly to suggest that because that's the way things used to be, that things will always be that way. Or else, everyone could make that argument about every endeavour by every company, and you'd be stuck in an argument that ONLY governments will ever be able to put humans into orbit. And of course that's nonsense.
> SpaceX is almost entirely dependent on government contracts.
False. Wouldn't you want to see their launch manifest first, before speculating on where their money comes from?
Bills aren't paid by counting up numbers of customers. Of those customers listed, most are small-fry, kicking in a few million here and there, while NASA is the main source of cash. Over the 10 years of SpaceX's existence, NASA has put in approximately as much money as all other funders (Musk, his investors, and every non-NASA customer) combined. Private-sector customers account for less than 30% of revenues.
In this case the money they're receiving is closer to grant money than payment from a customer. But in any case, the further-up-the-thread post was just arguing that whether SpaceX will go to Mars (or anywhere else) depends in significant part on convincing their one dominant "customer", the U.S. Federal Government, to spend taxpayer money on the goal. The alternative, funding a trip to Mars entirely from private-sector funds and private-sector customers, does not appear so far to be close to materializing, considering that they haven't even successfully funded a trip to low-earth orbit via that means.
A ridiculous proposition. Anyone who can not think of a potential profit motive for going to Mars isn't thinking very big or very long.
Um, do you have any experience in scientific exploration, or even terrestrial expeditions of any kind? This reads like too much like armchair warrior, sorry....
Do you expect only astronauts to speak about travelling to other planets? Be real. I've been to as many different countries and places on Earth as I can afford (on the order of maybe 15 or so). Regardless, obviously when it comes to space exploration I have little to no experience (I have been through many interviews at SpaceX but do not yet have a job there). Shouldn't we be encouraging people to speculate about profit in the planets and the stars, rather than belittling them with the idea that we are "armchair warrior"s?
As for scientific exploration: I have collected more than ten million individual measurements of atmospheric pressure across the whole globe over the last year. I intend to use this data to learn more about short-term weather patterns and to generally improve humanity's understanding of the atmosphere.
So there's some physical exploration of Earth in my past, and some scientific exploration of Earth in my present, while working my ass off to attain the goal of space exploration in my future.
It is not so much an as-hominem attack as a reality check on the level of abstraction. The rocks that came back from the moon are (for insurance purposes) "priceless", but yet the moon was not a for-profit expedition. On the contrary, why not sell some "priceless" rocks for an infinite sum and alleviate world hunger? But somewhere in-between what sounds logical and what is reasonable to expect there intervenes some other considerations.
Why do so many founders build things no one wants? Because they begin by trying to think of startup ideas. That m.o. is doubly dangerous: it doesn't merely yield few good ideas; it yields bad ideas that sound plausible enough to fool you into working on them.
At YC we call these "made-up" or "sitcom" startup ideas. Imagine one of the characters on a TV show was starting a startup. The writers would have to invent something for it to do. But coming up with good startup ideas is hard. It's not something you can do for the asking. So (unless they got amazingly lucky) the writers would come up with an idea that sounded plausible, but was actually bad.
None of this is to discourage. Its more to get the dialogue on a track where what is actually hard is actually at least given some respect.
>A ridiculous proposition. Anyone who can not think of a potential profit motive for going to Mars isn't thinking very big or very long. Making a list is left as an exercise to the reader.
Right, right. Because there's... well, and there's... Hmmmmm. My list is surprisingly empty beyond the Red Bull thing.
>But for the initial trip, whereby he proves his company and technology?
Again, nobody is going to piss away a trillion dollars to "prove his company and technology". Even Musk doesn't have that kind of money.
>That's what the $50 billion and more-than-a-decade is for.
I'm beginning to think you've never worked on a project bigger than cleaning the garage.
>You are the only one on the planet who I have heard of who suggests the cost would approach anything near $1T. It is you who is way off the mark when compared to professional estimates.
Every credible estimate I've seen is around the $1T mark, so I'm far from the "only on on the planet".
What you are describing are "problems with manned spaceflight to Mars", but not "problems with manned spaceflight to Mars.. that would be solved by political involvement, and could only be solved with political involvement."
Actually, the political involvement makes the engineering much more difficult. That's why the shuttle turned out so badly. But the taxpayers are where the money comes from for projects that don't make any sense from an economic standpoint, so you're pretty much stuck with the politics.
Hardly. The big cost of any manned space mission is launch, and SpaceX already has that licked. Even if they were to use the Falcon Heavy as the basis for a Mars mission they could easily do a several landing mission for less than $20 billion, this is well within the costs that various studies have shown is possible for a Mars mission. And that's potentially within their long-term accumulated profit margin over a period of several years. If they manage to bring costs down further, which is something they've already demonstrated competency at, then the idea of a $5 billion or cheaper Mars mission is well within the realm of possibility.
From what I have read, it looks like the core of the spaceX program is built around super-efficient merlin 1-D engine still around development. They will undercut and profit, if they are able to beat the NK-33 which is in use under various other names.
While he is probably not doing it for the money, he has to answer to investors and they are definitely in it to make a profit. Also he has repeatedly said (lacking source, can't remember) that SpaceX has to be, first and foremost, a profitable company focused on developing their business. If SpaceX is not around for the long haul, how is he going to execute all of his ideas?
I would like to promote the "shareholder value myth" as a meme. I would love it if one day people will reply with "shareholder value myth" as reflexively as they reply with "broken window economics!" or "correlation != causation!".
Minority shareholders do have rights, but the board of SpaceX can, within reason, damn well do what they please.
The duty of a publicly held company (which SpaceX is not, yet) is to do what its shareholders desire. Which may be to maximize "shareholder value" but may not be. We tend to think of corporations as money engines, money goes in and more money comes out. But that's an oversimplification. Look at kickstarter as an example of how investment need not always be about strict financial return but also about creation and other goals.
> Minority shareholders do have rights, but the board of SpaceX can, within reason, damn well do what they please.
But not without repercussions, unless they don't care about lawsuits which, if entirely ignored, would result in default judgements that would forcibly liquidate the company in the extreme case.
His initial plan was to stick a greenhouse on Mars with an ICBM; no profit whatsoever.
Obviously his plan has evolved and grown in ambition since then, he seems to want to turn a profit now, but I think it is fair to say he didn't originally decided to get into spaceflight to get rich.
Its hopeless for the ESA. On one hand you have a super nimble startup vs a nationalized industry whose decisions makers span different countries, all of whom have a political dog in this fight. SpaceX's biggest advantage isn't Musk or its team, its that its not hamstrung by the Congress and Senate on how to do things and historically their demands to move pork into their home states.
Nor is the air force demanding design requirements like they did with the shuttle.
This comment would be a lot more worthwhile if you could point to specific instances.
It's not that I find it terribly implausible, but I really get sick of rhetoric thrown around without any supporting details. As is it's just an anti-government rant.
I wouldn't make of it a shallow "government is incompetent by nature" argument, of course. For instance, the Apollo program was a complete success. It just turns out that massive, complex "enterprisey" projects lacking both focus on a clearly defined objective, and strong leadership with a vision, go badly. Not that unexpected in hindsight, I guess.
Have you ever wondered why Mission Control is in Houston rather than where the rockets take off from? It's inconvenient, but they needed the vote of a Texan senator who was on an important committee, so they moved mission control to Texas.
I'm sure it's mentioned in Moon Shot[1]. Most books about the space race mention it. Houston was just one of several proposed locations which met NASA's official specifications for a mission control site.
One of those specifications was the minimum distance between mission control and the launch site. That specification was revised upward so that it just barely excluded the then-leading site after Rice University agreed to donate the land. It doesn't take a Von Braun to figure out what happened.
That's completely different than what the other poster (Symmetry) claimed -- that they otherwise would have been in the same location.
That politics plays into the decision making process of which site to use isn't too shocking, but Symmetry was claiming that the very creation of that site was political.
IIRC, parts of the shuttle were manufactured in about 400 different electoral districts of the USA. It's extremely unlikely all the best prices were that evenly distributed.
I believe this is incorrect. If I remember correctly, transport was not the only issue with building the solid rocket boosters in one piece: physically pouring a solid rocket motor of that size was infeasible.
I of course don't remember the details so I looked them up. Here's an interesting document that doesn't actually go into the fundamental question of why the engines were built in one place, partially assembled in another, then snapped together in a third:
The point being that if the rockets were welded and fueled near the launch pad there would have been no need for o-rings. The reason for o-rings was that cylinders full of fuel needed to be shipped around and welding them together would have meant too big a lump of explosives. Casting a big engine had nothing to do with it.
It's true. Just look at the state of NASA's next generation space architecture. Instead of designing an architecture based on performance and economics, they are building a large rocket that will keep employees at Kennedy Space Center and Johnson Space Center working, even though there are neither the funds or demand for such a rocket. Space Agencies are less concerned about the market than they are satisfying the policymakers that fund them.
France, which has traditionally led the launcher effort in Europe, wants development on a next-generation Ariane - often dubbed Ariane 6 - to start immediately. This would incorporate cheaper components and fabrication methods.
But Germany, the other major player within Esa, wants the current vehicle upgraded first before moving to a completely fresh design.
Boeing Commercial is essentially multinational for production (especially on the 777 and even more so 787). Huge amounts of work are done in Japan, other parts from other places.
For now at least, I wish SpaceX success. I also wish some nationalist scumbag in US Congress do not try to control this industry with some type of weapon regulation.
In all fairness, regulating rockets that can put something in orbit is probably a good idea. A Falcon 9 is basically an ballistic missile that can drop a nuclear weapon (even a giant, heavy north korean nuke) anywhere on the globe (from any direction, see Fractional Orbital Bombardment). The ability to buy falcon 9's on the open market would greatly decrease the cost of developing a nuclear deterrent (since you don't need to develop a delivery system and you don't have miniaturize your warhead) likely leading to a large number of states starting nuclear weapons programs.
This is the reason the US and USSR worked so hard to kill cheap commercial space flight in the 1980's.
Fair point, but what I was trying to say, and did not said because I only wrote a single small paragraph, is that I fear a nationalistic bill passing in American congress that basically only allows american companies/scientific projects using SpaceX services.
About scientific projects I doubt it will ever happen because you can simply find a group of American researchers to collaborate who probably would be open if the research advance their field, about companies I'm less sure, they can simply put extra regulations because of idiotic nationalism, for example do not allow a German company to use a Falcon rocket because it has sold some type of cheap telecommunications equipment to Cuba for example.
I think no one that is sane will enjoy SpaceX doing clearance sales of old rockets to warlords in Somalia.
EDIT: As I understand SpaceX do not intend to sell rockets but just the service of having rockets and selling launches. But I can be wrong about that.
My understanding is they're already regulated under export control. SpaceX would probably need an export license from Congress to ship Falcon 9s out of the country. This is highly unlikely to ever happen for the reasons you state.
What about something that looked like a regular comms satellite but in fact was something completely different? Does SpaceX get to inspect the guts of what they launch?
I think it is highly unlikely that spacex or anyone else disassembles and reverse engineers the satellites they are paid to launch.
Maybe they look for a reentry shield and radioactive emissions or something, but I don't think it is much of a risk since the blowback from trying to sneak a weapon into space would immense, the risk of discovery is high (satellites weight much less than nukes or kinetic weapons) and you will have just given the world community all the evidence it needs to prove you did it (nuclear weapons and satelite payloads are very traceable).
Of course someone could get a satellite launched that maybe has enough fuel to change orbits slightly and could be used as a weapon against the space station or other orbital assets. The difference between a satellite and an orbital missile is software and maybe a small delta in fuel.
Well, the difference in this case is a) Airbus provided a in it's early days a way for carriers to put presure on Boeing and b) that Airbus is a defacto french company (forget about all the crap of being french-german blablabla), Airbus is french.
But when you see hiw much damage was done by to-little-to-late political infighting going on in and around Airbus / EADS the situation would be a lot different without it. Examples include the wiring issues on the A380, engine issues on the A400M, redundant fighter development with the Eurofighter and the Rafale and various issues regarding the multinational helicopters like the Tiger and the NH90 (which mean NATO Helicopter of the 90s, 1990 to be exact...).
What makes the situation even more difficult for Ariane Space and ESA is the fact that space transportation is to a huge part a state run business, one example includes the european satellite navigation system Gallileo. And the very much extends to ESA and Ariane. In most of this cases it boils down to two different, yet closly related things: culteral difference and political powerplays. The later on all levels, management and politics.
Just as an example, germans (I'm german) tend to somewhat over-engineer things. A prime exaple in this case is the gradual evolution of Ariane 5. Projects like this a great for the industry implementing them (in the old market place without any feasable alternative, or very few of them). And it's german engineer speaking. Intheory he might be right since it reduces risk. But the main assumption this concept builds on is the existance of the political commitment to it over the long run. It could be there at the beginning, but then culteral differences will kick in.
And this how it most likely will play out (if Ariane 5ME gets its go):
Big start, Ariane Space, EADS and ESA all working together (at least as far as PR goes). Then there will be a lot of behind the door bickering about work-share (which the franch will certainly win since Germany is only concerned with building cars that go fast in a straight line). To make it not to obvious, the German part will get some work that might even look great on paper, but the actaul decisions will be met in France (and since the french and germans have the trouble understanding each other, these decisions will miss some important points, like wiring...).
Once this setting is is put in place (read in around 2 - 3 years after the launch) Ariane 5ME will be to late, so it will more be like Ariane 6 in disguise (that won't be comunicated like this, of course. It will more likely be put as anecessary adaption to changed sircumstances or somethuing like that). The main reason why it wouldn't be reset is that a reset would require a new battle to get the same power balance, but right now you already have the green light to go ahead. Plus, even if a reset would yield the more or less same french-german balance, the people will be different. So everybody stick to his chair.
And then, the franch are going to get there Ariane 6 with some years of delay and a different naem in the worng programm with around half the people working on a different rocket. And since the franch are very much content with ahvning won yet another political battle without the other side realizing it there will be a lot of cheers and champagne and stuff.
Only the you end up with a late, over budget, under spec rocket and expensive launch costs.
And now compare that to SpaceX ( as an example) using state funded launches to develop state-of the art rockets in a much shorter time frame and yields much cheaper launch costs.
I will go even further than Musk and say no matter what Ariane Space is doing (Ariane 5ME or Arinae 6), they will loose as long as it is a franch-german-pan-euorpean endeavour. And this will even further marginalize the euopean space industry, which is the last thing both France Germany want.
It's cute that ESA tries to claim SpaceX will get more expensive and less reliable as they scale up to (sort of) mass production. Uh, no. If you're going for FUD, at least be plausible.
More likely would be "SpaceX might go out of business if the market softens or they hit serious technical problems, whereas EADS can guilt European governments into funding it indefinitely" (true) or "SpaceX won't customize launchers for unique European requirements" (wtf) or "EADS allows Europeans to maintain employment and skills in critical launch industries in the event ICBMs become necessary" (I really hope this is never the reason...).
> "EADS allows Europeans to maintain employment and skills in critical launch industries in the event ICBMs become necessary"
EADS is the world's 2nd-largest producer of missiles, and produces a pretty large proportion of European militaries' missiles, so not entirely implausible. Of course, they could refocus: most of the missiles (the French Exocet, the British ASRAAM, etc.) are not ICBMs and don't share all that much technology with space launches.
To be fair, the claim isn't that they will get less reliable with time. It is that time will show how much they are really reliable, and the costs of possible failures would have to be included in the cost structure.
I can definitely see EADS getting more subsidies from the government to keep themselves afloat. Playing the "national security" angle is usually pretty effective.
> It's cute that ESA tries to claim SpaceX will get more expensive and less reliable as they scale up to (sort of) mass production. Uh, no. If you're going for FUD, at least be plausible
I wonder why they put that shot of his hands in the video. In any case, the look in Elon's eyes when he says Ariane 5 has no hope is very telling, in SpaceX's favor.
It may be a bold claim, but he is making a falsifiable statement.
(yet IMHO he is right - things are quite messed up in Europe at the moment - in France mostly)
However matching french Guyana launch site geographical advantage and infrastructure, and European funding, to Elon Musk ships could be a winning move.
I was really pretty pessimistic about space travel when NASA announced they would shift some of their duties to the private sector, but Elon Musk has really made this idea exciting in the same way he did with electric cars. It really makes me believe that companies need a strong personality like his or Jobs' to get the public excited about new/revitalized sectors.
"I don't want to be so old that I can't go" (to mars)
This guy does so much, so right. Unlike most people in high positions he doesn't seem to have a negative side at all. (not that it really matters too much if he did, its just really interesting.)
ESA is in a difficult situation to compete with a privately owned, agile, startup in spirit company. I suspect ESA is not much different to NASA in operation. And as Musk pointed out, the latter has two major problems: 1) fear of innovation and 2) inefficient production. First is a catch 22 where no components can be used in space unless proven to work in space. Second is multiple chains of subcontractors until you reach a manufacturing process. It's fine tuned to cash extraction, not product efficiency.
I looked up some numbers. Falcon 9 costs about $5k per kg to launch. Falcon Heavy is expected at almost $2k. While competitors run at $10k and more. The only viable competitor seems to be the Russians with their trusted Soyuz and Angara series, currently in development.
This is slightly off topic, but I would just _love_ to know how Musk manages his time. He has the same number of hours as the rest of us - how does he divide them between his personal research and actually getting stuff done? What percentage does he spend on marketing versus engineering, PR versus logistics, and on and on... Man I would love to have a drink with that guy. There has been no other contemporary person in any sphere of human endeavour I have been so fan-boyish about.
With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the cost of rocket fuel, which is 1% of the total cost of the flights currently going into orbit. That is 100x cost savings.
If he pulls off grasshopper, expect every space program with an R/D budget to start a crash program to develop it. It is a complete game changer in both technology and cost. Rockets would get far more expensive and sophisticated since being truly reusable the capital cost can amortized over the multiple launches.
Of course no one has managed to develop a reusable launch system system so far so it is likely far more difficult than at appears at face value. The successful development of grasshopper is a low probability, high pay off event.
They are mostly fuel and wages of (frequently unionized) employees. For example, numbers for Southwest for the last quarter, of the total $4.2 bil expense:
Fuel: $1.5 bil
Salaries: $1.2 bil
Depreciation + Maintenance: $0.5 bil (basically all airplane related expenses)
So, maintenance expenses are only 12% of the total, while fuel is 35% and salaries 28%.
If the cost of fuel in orbit launches was indeed just 1% of the total cost, then compared to air travel those launches are very inefficient and there may be a huge room for improvement.
>> With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the cost of rocket fuel...
>Even my car costs significantly more than just the fuel.
yes, but the cost of using your car for a drive from home to work is basically the cost of car fuel. As opposed to the cost of a full car + fuel because you decide to blow your car up once you get to destination, like we now do for rockets.
> yes, but the cost of using your car for a drive from home to work is basically the cost of car fuel.
No, it isn't. Insurance, license, registration, annual inspection, tires, wear-and-tear, maintenance, depreciation... and imagine if I needed a fully-staffed mission control at my house every time I took a ride.
Reusable rockets may reduce costs, but chances are it won't be by 100x.
If we assume two things: the current cost of fuel is 1% of the total launch cost, and launching a reusable rocket is similar to operating an aircraft, then we can use numbers from commercial aviation:
- the cost of fuel is 35% of the total cost.
The total cost of the rocket launch then will be 3 times its fuel cost, or 3% of the _current_ expense. That's savings of 97%. Even if the analogy is not perfect and we make numerous allowances, the potential for cost-cutting by 80-90% is not inconceivable.
Again, this is based on the two assumptions above. If they are totally off, so are these calculations.
I would assume that air traffic control is similar to ground control for the purposes of this analogy. Does that 35% number take into account the costs of air traffic control? I'm assuming that the airport (and not the airlines) covers those costs.
As far as I know air traffic control is part of FAA and it's covered by taxpayers (or perhaps, it's an extra charge in the ticket?). In any case, ground control will probably be a lot less expensive since it's just one team in one location, while air traffic control covers the entire country.
My understanding is that one of the key advantages that Ariane has over it's rivals is it's launch site near the equator (http://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-intro/overview.asp). Is this saving negated by other factors, when compared to SpaceX?
That's only an incremental advantage. Note that SpaceX also has an equatorial launch site but they haven't used it since the Falcon 1 because it's just not as practical as operating out of Florida/California.
Comparatively, SpaceX is operating a much simpler rocket that is manufactured much less expensively than the Ariane 5, by about a factor of 10 or so.
As far as centrifugal advantage, SpaceX gets 88% as much launching from KSC in Florida. There's also an advantage for geostationary satellites (you avoid an inclination burn) but I'm not sure how large that would be.
How about the ESA just starts using Falcons - then the prices will go down even further and they can focus more on actually putting good stuff in space rather on how to do it...
2013 is going to be the defining year for SpaceX, I think. They've already proven that they are rather uniquely capable in banging out rockets and spacecraft that work at a tremendously low cost, but 2013 will prove their operational mettle, especially for commercial launches. It will show whether or not they can meet schedules, launch reliably, and maintain their existing cost structures. And if they do all of that, they will gain the trust of the people who hold the purse strings of the world's satellite launch budgets (although they already made a tremendous first effort in that regard).
More so, the Falcon Heavy and the Falcon 9 v1.1 are a much bigger deal than people give credit for. Things like the "grasshopper" Falcon 9 first stage reusability test-bed and the manned Dragon capsule development gain a lot of attention, but the v1.1 and the heavy are going to be the crowbars that utterly disrupt the spaceflight industry.
See, with Falcon 9 v1.0 they are already on a dramatically different cost structure. With v1.1 they will reduce their manufacturing costs, increase reliability, and increase the payload capacity by about 40%. This will make it a lot easier to do dual and multiple launches at extremely competitive prices. Also, it will allow them to underbid the competition incrementally while raking in massive profits. The Falcon Heavy will use just under 3x the components of a Falcon 9 v1.1 but it will have nearly 5x the payload capacity. This means that it can do multiple launches for crazy cheap. Also, it will be a pretty tempting target for governments to use for manned spaceflight. For example, it could be capable of sending a manned capsule into lunar orbit, which would be super useful for any sort of activities NASA decides to perform out there. Additionally, it might encourage folks to develop extremely massive payloads (next generation commsats or manned space station components) which are incapable of being launched by any other vehicle. SpaceX is rapidly moving into territory where they are untouchable. Already no other company (and no government either) can return large cargo from the ISS, for example. Soon they will be the only commercial company capable of sending astronauts into orbit. And just as soon they will be the only launch provider capable of putting 50 tonne payloads into LEO or 10 tonne payloads into GEO or on an interplanetary trajectory.