Elon Musk out of cash?

[ua_vt_ae]

This can't be good for SpaceX or Tesla:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/28/autos/tesla_elon_musk/

 

[stevekk]

I believe Telsa has been a huge cash drain for him. I don't believe he would have done the Toyota deal if the company didn't need the money.

SpaceX probably isn't consuming much of his personal funds, but they do need to start launching actual rockets to enable real cash flow and profitability. They have plenty of business booked, and the potential for success, but they also have the same potential to end up like Sea Launch.

Of course, Musk could be saying he's out of cash just as part of the divorce proceedings. I thought I saw there was a pre-nup, which means the amount of cash / assets she gets should be pre-determined, but it probably makes it difficult for Musk to buy out any shares of the 2 companies she receives as part of the settlement.

 

[danhezee]

this is a quick reply because i am at work. Musk is going through a divorce, his wife wants so many millions of cash and 10% of his share of tesla and 5% share of spacex. Supposely, tesla has been operating on government loans from the DOT, I believe. And we all know that spacex has the cots contract. So it seems both companies can exist and operate while Mr. Musk finalizes the divorce. My source is venturebeat. Later in the day, I can search for the links if no one beats me to it.

 

[rockett]

He claims that this won't affect SpaceX operations:

SpaceX set for rocket roulette
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/03/4457427-spacex-set-for-rocket-roulette

Musk founded SpaceX in 2002, using an estimated $100 million of the fortune he earned in the dot-com industry. Since then, other investors have entered the picture, and SpaceX says its financial picture is healthy despite recent reports about Musk's personal troubles (including a messy divorce).

 

[Shpaget]

The $200,000 in monthly spending has gone toward living expenses and supporting his wife and children, according to the filing.

How many kids you need for your monthly "living expenses" bill to be more than normal people earn in 10 years?

 

[mj1]

With today's HUGE success, I don't think cash flow will be a big problem for SpaceX. Now that they have proven that the Falcon 9 can successfully get to orbit, the contracts will come rolling in. That's not even counting the 1.6 billion that NASA already has queued up for SpaceX's participation in the COTS program. If SpaceX foes public and I'm buying stock, I'm taking a look at some shares in SpaceX.

 

[hansolo0]

I don't think it's an accident this story came out the day Falcon 9 successfully launched. His detractors will do everything possible to see SpaceX go down. After all, if SpaceX succeeds Nasa almost becomes irrelevant. Doing things faster and cheaper and getting everyday people maybe someday soon a ride into space...

 

[SteveCNC]

I can understand why he would want to appear as if he is broke right now having been through a divorce myself , in california no less (rough on men) even if there was a pre-nup . So it's really hard to say where he really is or will be in the future from anything you can read about . Only Elon Musk knows that kind of thing and maybe a couple lawyers and it will stay that way for a long time I can assure you . As for SpaceX bringing in future cash , there's not much doubt that will happen after yesterdays launch ( was great to see a successful launch !) . I was a bit nervous till it finally went up , what a relief , I can only imagine what was going thru Elon's head .

 

[frodo1008]

Umm, I do not want to rain on anybodies' parade here, but even a single very successful launch does not guarantee reliability in this particular business, much less profitability. And nobody throughout the world has been able to establish that pure profitability in the space launch business ,without governmental contracts and other direct help, the space launch business has never ever been very "profitable".

Personally, I do hope that spacex and the other alt.space groups can indeed still be profitable while reducing dramatically the cost of placing a pound of materials or human beings into LEO. But until that at least starts to happen (and I become far more wealthy than I am anyway) I do not think that I would buy stock in such enterprises just yet.

And by the way, some here and in other places have put the costs of a pound to LEO at about $10,000 per pound, and that may very well be for some older systems. But the newer EELV systems have totally broken at least that barrier. The latest Delta IV and Atlas V launches (especially being able to launch the far heavier military spy satellites on the Heavy version of the Delta IV) for the government have been contracted at about $4,000 per pound. And while this is still far too high, it is just exactly the kind of progress over the older systems such as the Titan IV that the Air Force sought out when they originally started these programs.

But, it would seem that none of the more enthusiastic alt.space supporters here want to hear about that kind of success.

So Elon Musk and spacex do have other far more experienced competition, other than NASA that is!

 

[EarthlingX]

SpaceX price is around 4 500 $/kg to LEO, or about 2200 $/lb.
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

That is cheaper than Zenit 3SL, i think :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenit_(rocket_family)

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/zenit.htm

at around 6 500 $/kg to LEO.

Looks like a good deal cheaper than $10 000 per pound to LEO (20 000 $/kg).

 

[frodo1008]

I went out to the following site:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm

And somewhat down the page I find the following:

Launches: 2. First Launch Date: 2004-12-21. Last Launch Date: 2007-11-11. LEO Payload: 25,800 kg (56,800 lb). to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.50 degrees. Payload: 10,843 kg (23,904 lb). to a: Geosynchronous transfer, 27deg inclination trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 8,670.000 kN (1,949,090 lbf). Total Mass: 733,400 kg (1,616,800 lb). Core Diameter: 5.00 m (16.40 ft). Total Length: 70.70 m (231.90 ft). Span: 15.00 m (49.00 ft). Development Cost $: 500.000 million. in: 2002 average dollars. Launch Price $: 254.000 million. in: 2004 price dollars. Cost comments: The originally estimated launch price in 1999 was $170 million. Due to the collapse of the commercial launch market, this was revised by the USAF in November 2004 to $ 254 million.
•
Now, the math is relatively simple here,

Price per pound = (Total cost of launch) / (number of pound launched)

Price per pound = ($254,000,000) / (56,800 lbs)

Price per pound = $4,472.83 / lb

Now that was not a projected cost, it was for an actual Air Force satellite(s) delivered to LEO.

And the reasonably stated reason for the increase from the original projected price of $177 million per launch of the Delta IV Heavy (with a price per pound to LEO of $3,116.20) was the collapse of the commercial satellite market. This collapse is continuing into this very year with fewer launches than ever before going to be needed this year (one of the reasons for the collapse of Sea Launch).

Now IF spacex can indeed keep its costs down to the projected $2,000 per pound to LEO, and establish a very good reliability record (such as the established launch systems have already done) then his company should certainly do very well. In fact I also see that if he can do that then all the other launch systems will be forced to reduce their prices also.

Remember, what people say they can do (projected costs for instance) and what they can actually do (actual costs) are sometimes not quite the same thing.

The REAL problem comes to the fact that with the current needs for launches, humanity is not going anywhere, and that low launch rate itself is one of the biggest causes of the high cost of launches.

Which is why I prefer the approach of Burt Rutan and Virgin Galactic, which is to slowly but far more certainly, establish a need for more launches by introducing the wonders of space flight to more and more people (even if in the beginning they are the relatively wealthy of the world).

In the meantime I do wish both NASA and spacex all the great success in (or out of for that matter) the world!

It is just that (like a whole lot of such efforts in the past) I am not holding my breath in the meantime!

An understandable position?

 

[aaron38]

After all, if SpaceX succeeds Nasa almost becomes irrelevant.

SpaceX does not make NASA irrelevant. SpaceX frees NASA to focus on Moon and Mars bases instead of running a taxi service. NASA has better things to do.

But that said, if NASA now doesn't do the bigger and better things we expect of them, if they refuse to think past LEO, then I hope SpaceX and others pass them by.

NASA will only become irrelevent if they let themselves be.

 

[Valcan]

After all, if SpaceX succeeds Nasa almost becomes irrelevant.

SpaceX does not make NASA irrelevant. SpaceX frees NASA to focus on Moon and Mars bases instead of running a taxi service. NASA has better things to do.

But that said, if NASA now doesn't do the bigger and better things we expect of them, if they refuse to think past LEO, then I hope SpaceX and others pass them by.

NASA will only become irrelevent if they let themselves be.

Yes Nasa should focus on "space" not LEO and on Technological development and exploration. I also believe they should encourage the industrialization of space but thats another topic.

 

[hansolo0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wymbcXc ... r_embedded

Here is the latest (as of 6-7-10 ) this week in space episode. O'brien interviews Elon Musk.

In brief, Musk says SpaceX will be ok, his wife is suing for divorce and trying to clean him out...not a good time obviously.
Again, it's no accident this comes out now. It's a valid point , but many in Nasa and many in congress think the gov't should control spaceflight. I think fortunately some realize how insane it is to keep doing the same thing over and over (the definition of insanity?) and expecting a different result, i.e. do apollo over and over and have it be cheaper, just isn't going to happen directly throught the gov't. Gov't people have no competition or incentive to do it better or more economically so they don't. In fact it has been getting more and more expensive.

Nasa may not be totally irrelevant, but they sure seem like it, they're certainly going to do a lot less. Listen to what Musk says about how idiotic it was for them to continue with Aries. They would have had to cancel the ISS and pay around 50b to get it going. A lot more than SpaceX. I still don't understand why the Jupiter/Direct plan was never really considered though. SpaceX could possibly launch robotic probes as well....