You hit many of good points (particularly the reliability paradox) that seem to get ignored by many that think Elon is the savior of low cost launch. Actually, if you look at the early media coverage (from Space News) on SpaceX's own web site, you'll see that the original plan was to launch "in late 2003, assuming range safety and federal licensing hurdles can be cleared by then." So, they're at two years over schedule - and counting! <br /><br />He also claimed the development cost would "in the tens of millions" of dollars and that he didn't "think it will take us a quarter of a billion [dollars] to achieve a positive cash flow." The first threshold is fast receding and the second is fast approaching, and I still don't see a clear source of positive cash flow. As you suggested, I'll do a little of the math:<br /><br />Employees: 145 (and growing)<br />Annual Salary & Benefits: $125,000 (low ball number)<br />(Although this may seem like a high number to some, it is actually quite modest because is factors in 'hidden' costs such as health benefits, 401(k)s, disability insurance, etc. $150k to $200k is probably more typical in the US aerospace workforce)<br />Annual cost of labor: 145 * $125,000 = $18,125,000<br /><br />Based on the manifest on the SpaceX web site, at best they will have 3 Falcon 1 launches in 2006. At $6M/launch that's $18M in 2006 - not even covering the payroll yet, let alone the cost of hardware, travel, materials, etc. <br /><br />My only disagreement on your post is with Elon's exit strategy. To go public, he would have to show that theirs is a viable business model, generating free cash flow relatively soon. However, once the details are opened up to public scrutiny, it will be clear the emperor has no clothes. <br /><br />My prediction is that the end will be a bust - but there may some bangs along the way! Let's reconvene here in 12 months and see what a difference a year makes.<br /><br /><br />