Musk @ Space Show: F1, F9 & Dragon

[docm]

Link....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="yellow"><b>* Falcon 1 launch pushed to first quarter 2008 because of :<br />--- A switch to the upgraded Merlin 1C engine.<br />--- Some performance and reliability upgrades to the Kestrel second stage engine<br />--- A switch for a second stage tank to higher strength aluminum<br />--- General robustness improvements<br /><br />* Baffles added to 2nd stage LOX tank to prevent sloshing. Control system changes could also prevent the problem according to simulations but they will use both. Simulations have reproduced very closely the sloshing problem on the March launch.</b></font><br /><br />* Three external organizations have reviewed their study of the sloshing problem and the proposed fixes and have agreed with them.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>* Some impact on Falcon 9 schedule.</b></font><br /><br />* A move to a big new facility will also impact schedule.<br /><br />* Working to output a new official schedule.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>* Expect to have Falcon 9 on launch pad next year but more toward end of year rather than summer.<br /><br />* No fund raising currently. Doing quite well financially. Cash flow positive again this year. Maybe even a profit.</b></font><br /><br />* 320-330 people currently. Up to 500 by next year.<br /><br />* Wouldn't consider going public till after a Falcon 9 launch.<br /><br />* Jack Kennedy asked about launching from Virginia Spaceport. (See Virginia Has a Very Good Chance with SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch - Spaceports) Virginia would be excellent for ISS servicing missions. Always want option of 2 spaceports available at any given time.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>* Already constructed a Falcon 9 first stage and transported it to Texas for testing. Sized to be transportable on roads.<br /><br />* Faring also built in four sections rather</b></font></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Much harder than Paypal. Need a perfect product at launch time. Unlike any other field.</font>/i><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> That is why when something is really hard they compare it to "rocket science" and not "computer science". <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></i>

 

[no_way]

I really wish that somebody would ask this question from Musk:<br />How far along would he be at the moment, if he started with suborbital VTOL development instead ? Has he ever talked to John Carmack in person ?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[dreada5]

Good update! Thanks docm

 

[dreada5]

Whilst Rocketplane Kistler seems to be struggling, SpaceX seem to be progressing well with a couple launches.<br /><br />Have SpaceX now received more money than RpK from NASA, are they ahead significantly in the list of requirements?<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/070801_nasa_rocketplane.html

 

[docm]

Don't know about their COTS payments, but that SpaceX doesn't have to do any fund raising & is near profitability speaks volumes IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"is near profitability"<br /><br />It is still a money pit. It doesn't have a positive cash flow

 

[jimfromnsf]

"How far along would he be at the moment, if he started with suborbital VTOL development instead ?"<br /><br />He would be further behind do to the extra requirements and systems

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"is near profitability"<br /><br />It is still a money pit. It doesn't have a positive cash flow<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The operative word here is "near" Jim. You need an entrepreneur's mind to understand that one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">is near profitability speaks volumes IMO.</font>/i><br /><br />I didn't understand this. How can they be near profitability? They have yet to deliver a product/service to a paying customer. Are NASA's COTS payments more than their expenses? Has SpaceX received money from anyone else?</i>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They really do not seem to be rigorous enough to actually make this work.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IMO if SpaceX can't deliver you and the rest of the world will be waiting a long, long time before a similar small startup comes along with the right ingredients to make it work!

 

[no_way]

there are already couple of startups with all ingredients. Theres a good chance one of them will make it work.

 

[dreada5]

Indeed they have a good chance, but IMO SpaceX has the best. If SpaceX screw up, I'd reduce the chances of the others succeeding within a similar timeframe and based on their current resources.