First SpaceX Launch Countdown

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Musk's wealth is estimated at 238million. How long is that going to last him</font>/i><br /><br />I heard an interview where I believe he said he could probably survive three initial failures (maybe it was just two). He also mentioned that he would use success of Falcon 1 to attact additional investors for Falcon V. He is his own angel investor, but he will may need external funds to get to the Falcon 9.<br /><br />He will not burn through all his money; he will throw in the towel before then. If the technology is good, there is a good chance that he could sell out to someone with deeper pockets.</i>

 

[mikejz]

Umm, I always thought he was a billionare. If it's only $200 Mill (I feel so strange saying that ) I would venture to say that he has outside investors or gov't money at this point. <br /><br />I'm guessing at this point that he has about $100 Million into SpaceX.

 

[spacefire]

oops it's $328 mil.<br /><br /><br />That guy is 31 and he looks like a teenager, yet he's made a fortune and now he's trying to make history.<br />Elon Musk is a hero! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I have $400 Million myself, but its all in a frozen paypal account <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[spacefire]

and a million suckers are still waiting for their talking-vibrating love-sheep? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">That guy is 31 and he looks like a teenager, yet he's made a fortune and now he's trying to make history. <br />Elon Musk is a hero!</font>/i><br /><br />By the way, the recently minted billionaire founders of Google are big supporters of the space elevator concept. Who knows?!</i>

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

Who'd of thought it. Google, the only decent space program we have in this country!

 

[spacefire]

I think they should join with SpaceX. The space elevator is loong ways in coming even if feasible. The problem is, all these moguls are individualists too so every one of them wants 'his' space program.<br />If only they all joined forces...OTOH that might create a monstruosity like Lockheed or Boeing which depend on government contracts to feed their immense workforces and thus are too afraid to push the limits of technology and cost after having ambitious programs like the X33 cancelled. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

The Biggest issue right now is that none of these space startups are focuing on a specific area.<br /><br />Everyone is so scared off from the exisitng suppliers that they do everything in house--which in the end leads to increased costs and greater risk of failure.<br /><br />What private space needs is a company that designs engines, guidence, ground support, etc. SpaceX spent way too much time and money to design the Merlin engine, it would of been a far better is a way to purcase an engine at resonable cost from another supplier was possible.

 

[propforce]

<i>".... SpaceX spent way too much time and money to design the Merlin engine, it would of been a far better is a way to purcase an engine at resonable cost from another supplier was possible...."</i><br /><br />How would that be less expensive unless this Merlin engine already exist? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I'm not saying now...Just saying that If someone decided to do a space-startup that did only engines, it would of worked out better. <br /><br />Right now we have Blue org, SpaceX, etc all working on engines, and there redundency that could be elimiated.

 

[tap_sa]

This redundancy is called a 'competition' and is an effective motivator to keep the costs down. Erase competition and you'll never have CATS.

 

[mikejz]

What I am saying that that there a bunch of upstarts that are streched too thin by trying to do everything themselves. While the existing aerospace suppliers are too expensive, there currently is not specialisation of space LV hardware in the new arena of space startups.

 

[dobbins]

It's the same pattern that aircraft companies followed in the dawn of aviation. Specialization came later, ie Wright stoped making aircraft and switched to just making engines.<br /><br />

 

[mikejz]

True, but the capital requirements were so much lower and barriers to entry were far less.

 

[tap_sa]

I see your point, but how many credible <i>orbital</i> wannabes there are except SpaceX? In suborbital business your vision is already happening, isn't it. AFAIK SpaceDev is going to deliver NOX-rubber hybrids to many startups, not just SS2. Although it's doubtful that we'll see other than Virgin Galactic flying anytime soon. Blue Origin might be the wild card with enough financial backing.

 

[dobbins]

So if startup A makes airframes and startup A makes engines, then what happens if one of them goes out of business, a common occurrence with startups. A finds itself without a supplier of the engines that it developed an airframe for or B finds itself without a customer. The result would be one startup's failure would set off a domino effect that would likely kill the other startups.<br /><br />Specialization is something that happens in a maturing market.<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"but the capital requirements were so much lower and barriers to entry were far less."</font><br /><br />Back then it was couple bicycle mechanics. Now we have IT-moguls with hundreds of millions burning their pockets, able to hire enough brainpower to make things happen.

 

[mikejz]

Ah, but there were plenty of mogels back then: Why did they not invent the airplane?

 

[mikejz]

That's assuming a single supplier for both.<br /><br />What I am saying is that there there needs to be startups with more defined products. <br /><br />The engine is the single most expensive part of the LV and benefits from economies of scale--Therefore it makes more sense to have several companies share the same engine (like different cars share the engine). <br /><br />All I am saying is that right now the mentality of startups is to do everything--and this will lead to most of them failing. A more productive path is to put into place the market place for parts and systems from the start.

 

[dobbins]

As few startups as there are now all would be single source suppliers if they tried to specialize.<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"but there were plenty of mogels back then"</font><br /><br />Were there many young moguls who had made preposterous sums of money in a short notice seemingly out of thin air? I doubt. Back then moguls were older, brick'n'mortal types with factories and other tangible assets being quite conservative as to what they invest in.

 

[josh_simonson]

>What I am saying that that there a bunch of upstarts that are streched too thin by trying to do everything themselves.<br /><br />Musk's goal is to be the cheapest launch vehicle in the US, and his approach is simplicity and integration. If he bought engines on the open market, the engine maker would get a markup, and Elon would have to mark it up as well to turn a profit. That's more expensive in the end than building it yourself with one markup. He also plans to re-use these engines, and it's much easier to refurbish them if you built the things in the first place.<br /><br />SpaceDev sells engines BTW...

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Ah, but there were plenty of mogels back then: Why did they not invent the airplane?</font>/i><br /><br />Today's freshly minted mogels tend to come out of technology, so they are a more natural fit for investing in space to fulfill some inner-geek in them.</i>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow"><i>"...The engine is the single most expensive part of the LV and benefits from economies of scale--Therefore it makes more sense to have several companies share the same engine (like different cars share the engine). ..."</i></font><br /><br />Apparently the price of <i>existing engines</i> are still too expensive for these upstart companies, that's why they spend the money to develop their own enignes. <br /><br />The other thing is everyone has their own idea of <i>how</i> to get to orbit and the choice of existing engines may not meet what they're looking for. <br /><br />Thirdly it has a lot to do with founder's ego and control. Let's face it, the engine is where the flame comes out (when operate correctly) and that's what everyone sees. The other parts of rocket are more 'boring' (especially the avionics... sheessshhh !!). Most of these IT gurus who fund these rocket development have a lot to do with their egos, and the ego says I want to develop that part where big flames come out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>