News Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.

[Urwumpe]

I hope this is supposed to be taken as a joke, otherwise it would be quite some hyperbole.
Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No.

The problem with it being not impossible is, that the economic circumstances in which it would be possible are really not nice at all. After all, rockets don't appear out of the air. They are build by real resources by people who need their own real resources.

 

[RGClark]

This interview with Elon Musk took place on July 12th, but just saw it today on HobbySpace.com:

http://new.livestream.com/pandodaily/elonmusk

The interviewer noted he has started three different billion dollar companies in three different fields.


Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

The interviewer noted he has started three different billion dollar companies in three different fields.

Doing the incredible does not mean one is capable of doing the impossible.

 

[Urwumpe]

The interviewer noted he has started three different billion dollar companies in three different fields.

Funny how much a billion is today.

Tesla Motors for example is "only" worth 700 million, and most of this is still from the initial investments and loans (Alone 465 million USD from the US DOE as interest-bearing loan), not by selling cars and car components. It actually still has a negative cash flow and has yet to turn a profit.

Same for SpaceX - no hard numbers known, it is estimated at 1.3 billion. 875 million are estimated to be Musks share of it, he invested $100 million at the start into it, then it started gathering loans from NASA in the context of the COTS programs. SpaceX is still in the same early phase of its existence as Tesla Motors: Negative cashflow, many loans and money from investors who wait for it to turn a real profit one day.

Musk had only one really big company, and that was Paypal. Which he sold for 1.5 billion at the height of the .com bubble, which was the really best that he ever did - he left it when it became a real multi-billion company.

PS: Musk himself says that $1100/kg is very possible. Which isn't far away from what I said before in the thread, and still a major achievement. $100 is just fantasy even for Musk, when he has to estimate its feasibility.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Funny how much a billion is today.

Tesla Motors for example is "only" worth 700 million, and most of this is still from the initial investments and loans (Alone 465 million USD from the US DOE as interest-bearing loan), not by selling cars and car components. It actually still has a negative cash flow and has yet to turn a profit.

Same for SpaceX - no hard numbers known, it is estimated at 1.3 billion. 875 million are estimated to be Musks share of it, he invested $100 million at the start into it, then it started gathering loans from NASA in the context of the COTS programs. SpaceX is still in the same early phase of its existence as Tesla Motors: Negative cashflow, many loans and money from investors who wait for it to turn a real profit one day.

Musk had only one really big company, and that was Paypal. Which he sold for 1.5 billion at the height of the .com bubble, which was the really best that he ever did - he left it when it became a real multi-billion company.

PS: Musk himself says that $1100/kg is very possible. Which isn't far away from what I said before in the thread, and still a major achievement. $100 is just fantasy even for Musk, when he has to estimate its feasibility.

Where are they excpecting to start shaving all these costs per mass unit from? I think they need to explain how thats going to happen for the media and the public to start taking them seriously.

 

[Urwumpe]

Where are they excpecting to start shaving all these costs per mass unit from? I think they need to explain how thats going to happen for the media and the public to start taking them seriously.

Well, it is pretty simple to see by other launch providers, how you can reduce costs: Simple proven technology with high confidence levels, continuous improvements to the business processes, strict design to costs.

Nothing you can do on manned flights though - on manned flights, you design to reliability, since even a gold plated spacecraft would be cheaper than loosing a single astronaut by an avoidable accident.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Well, it is pretty simple to see by other launch providers, how you can reduce costs: Simple proven technology with high confidence levels, continuous improvements to the business processes, strict design to costs.

Nothing you can do on manned flights though - on manned flights, you design to reliability, since even a gold plated spacecraft would be cheaper than loosing a single astronaut by an avoidable accident.

So, where are all of these inneficiencies in the Launch industry? Rocket designs can be improved, but that mostly happens on the drawing board, less on the launchpad, no?

the manned loss would be a killer in PR and legal I guess

 

[Urwumpe]

So, where are all of these inneficiencies in the Launch industry? Rocket designs can be improved, but that mostly happens on the drawing board, less on the launchpad, no?

the manned loss would be a killer in PR and legal I guess

Rocket design isn't really bad in terms of performance, you have to put it into relation... a new car model is not that much cheaper, even if you are having a problem free development.

You have to remember that not all rocket design problems come from the design process. You have political influence, where you should not have it. Uncertainties, where you better need certainties. Nobody sane would want to develop rockets, like NASA currently has to do it. No money, big requirements and then also congressmen without any engineering knowledge tell NASA how to solve design problems, instead of letting NASA do it properly and trust NASA to handle it. SLS and Orion should not be used as example of how rockets are always designed. Even the Space Shuttle was a better, though turbulent development.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Rocket design isn't really bad in terms of performance, you have to put it into relation... a new car model is not that much cheaper, even if you are having a problem free development.

You have to remember that not all rocket design problems come from the design process. You have political influence, where you should not have it. Uncertainties, where you better need certainties. Nobody sane would want to develop rockets, like NASA currently has to do it. No money, big requirements and then also congressmen without any engineering knowledge tell NASA how to solve design problems, instead of letting NASA do it properly and trust NASA to handle it. SLS and Orion should not be used as example of how rockets are always designed. Even the Space Shuttle was a better, though turbulent development.

Whats SLS? Orion I would assume is the orphaned piece of the constellation program that was more expensive to cancel than to finish? Is there any work being done on the ares launch vehicle? I thought that the Obama administration reccomended a Ares lite version to be developed that would be able to lift 100 metric tons to LEO, not too shabby IMHO.

 

[Urwumpe]

Whats SLS? Orion I would assume is the orphaned piece of the constellation program that was more expensive to cancel than to finish? Is there any work being done on the ares launch vehicle? I thought that the Obama administration reccomended a Ares lite version to be developed that would be able to lift 100 metric tons to LEO, not too shabby IMHO.

SLS = Ares V = ALS = NLS

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

SLS = Ares V = ALS = NLS

What do they actually plan to do with it? Sort of a undead constellation program where nobody in politics wants to fund it, but its too far ahead to stop it?

 

[Urwumpe]

What do they actually plan to do with it? Sort of a undead constellation program where nobody in politics wants to fund it, but its too far ahead to stop it?

Far worse. it is an "re-elect us because we only pay $850,000 for every job we protected, and that only every year"-program.

Instead of adapting the the changing world, politicians think they have the power to undo any change to it.

 

[John_L]

I really don't quite understand the cynical comments I read in any thread with SpaceX or Elon Musk in the title. Over and over again, the bar is set, and SpaceX meets it and moves on. Nothing really that he proposes is technologically not feasible, yet so many people seem to think they know better until the bar is raised, then, they say OK, I'll give him that but... and dive right into predicting doom for the next step.

Personally, I think musk really has a good chance at going down in history as the guy who lit the fire by showing it doesn't take these ungodly amounts of money to get this stuff done. The only reason the numbers are the way they are is because of the cost plus attitude that worked well when the country was on the line, but not now. NASA is finally making the change, and SpaceX is taking advantage of it by being out front with an ever increasing resume of successes. If we're takin' bets, my money's on Musk.

 

[Urwumpe]

I really don't quite understand the cynical comments I read in any thread with SpaceX or Elon Musk in the title. Over and over again, the bar is set, and SpaceX meets it and moves on.

It is like a swimming competition with one-legged. They nearly drown along the way, but they still get their applause if they finish the distance at all.

ESA needed 700 million Euro for developing their new VEGA launcher. A lot of money - and still they managed to also finance the basic engineering for the next generation technology for European solid rocket motors from it. Where is the applause for that?

 

[N_Molson]

I really don't quite understand the cynical comments I read in any thread with SpaceX or Elon Musk in the title.

Do you realize he is saying : "I'm going to put millions of people on Mars" ? If that isn't megalomania...

 

[Mikeol1987]

Do you realize he is saying : "I'm going to put millions of people on Mars" ? If that isn't megalomania...

I agree in some respects, and in others I believe its this same Megalomania that got man to the moon, and machines beyond the solar system.
Technical issues need to be addressed, but I think the vision is set on some basis of future events

 

[Urwumpe]

I agree in some respects, and in others I believe its this same Megalomania that got man to the moon, and machines beyond the solar system.
Technical issues need to be addressed, but I think the vision is set on some basis of future events

I wouldn't compare this to the moon landing. When Dryden suggested landing on the moon for beating the Russians, he had already enough information to provide a rough time schedule.

That is the difference to megalomania... Musk has not even put a single human into space, has no schedule how to even get a single human on Mars and no clue about the many problems that will await him for getting even just 100 to the Mars one day.

It makes a nice light-hearted joke, but some people here are too much fanboy of Elon Musk to get it.

 

[RGClark]

Funny how much a billion is today.
Tesla Motors for example is "only" worth 700 million, and most of this is still from the initial investments and loans (Alone 465 million USD from the US DOE as interest-bearing loan), not by selling cars and car components. It actually still has a negative cash flow and has yet to turn a profit.
Same for SpaceX - no hard numbers known, it is estimated at 1.3 billion. 875 million are estimated to be Musks share of it, he invested $100 million at the start into it, then it started gathering loans from NASA in the context of the COTS programs. SpaceX is still in the same early phase of its existence as Tesla Motors: Negative cashflow, many loans and money from investors who wait for it to turn a real profit one day.
Musk had only one really big company, and that was Paypal. Which he sold for 1.5 billion at the height of the .com bubble, which was the really best that he ever did - he left it when it became a real multi-billion company.
PS: Musk himself says that $1100/kg is very possible. Which isn't far away from what I said before in the thread, and still a major achievement. $100 is just fantasy even for Musk, when he has to estimate its feasibility.

Anticipating Big Growth at Tesla.
By RICHARD BEALES and ROBERT COLE
Published: October 23, 2011

Either outcome may be extreme. But Tesla’s stock price is still anticipating impressive growth. Its enterprise value of nearly $3 billion is more than five times the average analyst estimate of revenue for 2012, according to Thomson Reuters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/business/anticipating-big-growth-at-tesla.html

Also, Elon has said his ultimate goal is to bring down the costs to orbit to the $100 to $200 per kilo range through reusability.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------

Where are they excpecting to start shaving all these costs per mass unit from? I think they need to explain how thats going to happen for the media and the public to start taking them seriously.

Musk has said numerous times it will come from reusability. That's why there is a big push to test the elements of reusability with the "Grasshopper" scaled-down Falcon 9 first stage.

Bob Clark

 

[N_Molson]

Also, Elon has said his ultimate goal is to bring down the costs to orbit to the $100 to $200 per kilo range through reusability.

Musk has said numerous times it will come from reusability. That's why there is a big push to test the elements of reusability with the "Grasshopper" scaled-down Falcon 9 first stage

Wait and see, nothing has been proven yet...

 

[Urwumpe]

Anticipating Big Growth at Tesla.
By RICHARD BEALES and ROBERT COLE
Published: October 23, 2011

I anticipated a warm dinner tonight and what do I find...

Right, there are different quality levels for predictions.

The last number for Tesla was 700 million for total assets. I don't really care much about short term stock prices and predictions by stock market pundits, who usually only recommend, what makes them earn most of the money.