SpaceX.com - Elon Musk - Bang or BUST?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

ortemus74

Guest
A new dot com millionaire at it again? For 6.7 million dollars a pop he is saying he will provide a cheap and affordable way into space... Will he do it? So far his launch was supposed to be in October and is now delayed to December 20th... valve problems, helium loss, etc. etc. His attempts are riddled with problems...<br />What do you think?<br /><br />
 
S

spacester

Guest
So did you just now become aware of SpaceX?<br /><br />I don't like either of your two choices. In Rocketry, 'Bang' is not a good thing, and neither is 'Bust'!<br /><br />It's kinda like "Blast-Off" . . . I'm told Rocket Boys don't like that term . . . <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
>Just as pilot do not like the term "crash helmets" <br /><br />Yup, that's a 'turbine blade deflector"!
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Brain bucket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

space_tycoon

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In Rocketry, 'Bang' is not a good thing, and neither is 'Bust'! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Whereas, in porn they're both considered quite good. <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
btw: does anybody know if SpaceX is open to selling its Merlin engines, and if so, at what price?
 
B

brandido

Guest
Personally, I would take better than 50/50 odds that they will do it. The delays that they have run into are by no means extraordinary - I don't know of any complicated projects that have managed to stay on schedule/budget. The only time I have seen large scale software delivered on time is with massive increases in cost or shipping buggy software with patches coming out shortly after the product is shipped. With a rocket, shipping a buggy product will be a bust. <br /><br />I think the delays they are seeing over at SpaceX are the signs of a new, complicated system getting the bugs shaken out. It is further complicated by the remote locale. However, nothing that I have seen indicates that they will not make it. In fact, if they had decided to launch last time in spite of the computer reset and open valve, I would be more doubtful about their long term viability, as it would look like they were willing to take unnecessary risk to meet an arbitrary deadline - not a good practice in the rocket launch business. <br /><br />Hopefully next week will prove me right.
 
N

nyarlathotep

Guest
>>"btw: does anybody know if SpaceX is open to selling its Merlin engines, and if so, at what price?"<br /><br />You'd have to call SpaceX for an answer to that query.
 
E

erikm

Guest
Is anyone willing to speculate on SpaceX's longer range plans? They've announced a bigger engine and have that big test stand.<br /><br />IMO they could be trying to design a single-core booster in the 30-35 ton payload range.<br /><br />Now I'm no rocket scientist or engineer, just an interested outsider. But someone who apparently was a rocket engineer dreamt up the Jarvis design in the mid 80's. That design, interestingly enough, had 2 F-1 engines, or about 1500 tons thrust, in its first stage and a design payload of 38 tons. If SpaceX wants a 5-engined first stage, they would need an engine in the 300 ton thrust bracket to power it. The RS-68's thrust rating round the 330 ton level. Probably not entirely coincidentally, the test stand is rated at 1500 tons thrust. A second stage might be built around 3-5 Merlin 1B's.<br /><br />An entirely new pad would probably have to be built to launch this rocket. Offhand, the only existing places likely to be big enough are LC39 and the Energia pad. One is taken and the other isn't in the best location.<br /><br />Now what could an inventive mind do with a 30-ton capacity booster? Loft the remaining ISS bits? Build Bigelow's hotel PDQ? Loft something to move ISS into a low-inclination orbit? Launch (big) bits of a modular mars ship? Build a demo SPS in low orbit, then boost it? Barring a Saturn-5 class booster it would probably be the biggest booster around. Certainly the biggest single-core.<br /><br />Speculation and comments are always welcome<br /><br />ErikM
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
The big rocket he's planning is called the BFR, for Big Fracking Rocket. I hear it is based on Truax's Sea Dragon concepts, but that may be just rumor.
 
E

erikm

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The big rocket he's planning is called the BFR, for Big Fracking Rocket. I hear it is based on Truax's Sea Dragon concepts, but that may be just rumor. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /> <br />It probably is a rumor, since the Sea Dragons were IIRC the prototypical Big Dumb Boosters. They, for instance, used pressure fed engines. Given the effort SpaceX has put into the Merlin, going back to pressure-fed seems odd.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /> ErikM
 
O

ortemus74

Guest
MORE BS...<br /><br />Posted December 19, 2005 at 4:40 p.m. California time: Here is the apparent cause of structural damage (further analysis may change the conclusion): <br />Due to high winds, we placed the countdown on hold and began draining the fuel tank. As we drained fuel from the 1st stage tank, a faulty pressurization valve caused a vacuum condition in the tank. This caused a fuel tank barrel section to deform and suck inward. It is important to note that the root cause is an electrical fault with a valve, not structural design. <br /><br /> At this point, it appears that no other damage was sustained to the vehicle or the satellite. The rocket will be lowered down this afternoon and placed in its hangar for further inspection.<br /><br /> --- Elon ---<br />Posted December 19, 2005: Launch is scrubbed until early next year, as there is a structural issue with the 1st stage fuel tank that will require repair. I will provide further comment as soon as this has been carefully analyzed. <br /><br />Consistent with our policy, we must be 100% green for launch with no outstanding concerns whatsoever. It is not just a matter of repairing the damage, but also understanding at a fundamental level how to ensure it never happens again. We will also do another full review of all the vehicle systems, including propulsion, structures, avionics, software and ground support systems. Therefore, I expect that the earliest that launch would occur is late January. Third time's the charm.<br /> <br />--- Elon ---
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"Is anyone willing to speculate on SpaceX's longer range plans? They've announced a bigger engine and have that big test stand. IMO they could be trying to design a single-core booster in the 30-35 ton payload range. "<br /><br />That doesn't sound like much of a practical increase in performance over the heavy version of Falcon IX which is supposed to put 25 tonnes into orbit.<br /><br />
 
E

erikm

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That doesn't sound like much of a practical increase in performance over the heavy version of Falcon IX which is supposed to put 25 tonnes into orbit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />It doesn't sound like much, until you think that the rocket (BFR) can be considered a really big Falcon 5 (or 9) and should behave the same way. Falcon 9 heavy gets its payload up by basically sacrificing an entire Falcon 9 first stage, the central core. BFR's first stage, like a straight Falcon 9's, should be recoverable. That, along with the reduction in complexity you get by not having to support and coordinate the two booster stages, should make the costs a lot lower than a Falcon 9 heavy. Additionally, the 5 engines under a BFR should, as a set, be cheaper than the 27(!) under a Falcon 9 heavy because there is less assembly (man-hours) and testing (more man-hours) to do.<br /><br />Additionally, if there's need for a really heavy booster, it might just be possible to create a 'BFR heavy'. The mind boggles as to such a beast's capabilities (and costs).<br /><br />I'm also being conservative with the payload to orbit. The Jarvis specs on astronautix talk about a 38 metric ton payload. Other specifications, on growth versions of the Saturn I, speculate about a 39 ton payload. The Saturn S-IC-TLB variant had a first stage with 2 F-1 engines and an S-IVb derived second stage. Also, remember that Jarvis was spec'ed in the mid 1980s and the Saturn I derivatives in the late 1960s. I wouldn't be too surprised if SpaceX were able to both raise BFE's Isp to over F-1 levels and lower stage weights. This would allow even more payload. Materials science has come a long way.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /> ErikM <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />
 
E

exfido

Guest
Musk was supposed to launch many months ago (it seems to me late '04 was his original plan, so he's already 50% past his original timeframe and still on the ground). He's obviously discovering his "simple" solution is rather more expensive than he had expected: a surprise only to him, I imagine. (I love how his website touts the reliability of the Falcon I because it has only one engine--and the reliability of the V because it has so many!)<br /><br />Given his recent track record, one has to wonder: fueling and unfueling the vehicle should be the easy parts, yet they can't seem to successfully manage that. What will happen once it lights? <br /><br />Will he succeed? Unlikely, at least not in a business sense (you do the math). If he gets it up (so to speak), he'll probably go public and cash out (see Zip2 and PayPal). I root for everyone in the launch business, having worked for NASA, big industry, and the commercial sector. Everyone, that is, except Musk. He essentially stole his engine design from Northrop, protested NASA's contract with Kistler, forcing them into bankruptcy, and now he's sueing Boeing and Lockheed. After his engine blew up a few weeks ago, destroying his test stand, he banned DARPA from his facility because he suspected them of "leaking" information about the mishap to the press. He lines the pockets of both political parties with contributions and reaps the benefits. He bad-mouths everyone else in the sector at every opportunity. Clearly, he doesn't think his solution is enough to win on its own merits.<br /><br />In short, he's the Bill Gates of our industry: If he can't make a better product, he'll try eliminating the competition.<br /><br />We have enough problems to overcome in the physics and economics of this business without dealing with the likes of him.
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"Falcon 9 heavy gets its payload up by basically sacrificing an entire Falcon 9 first stage, the central core."<br /><br />Maybe, but I don't see why the central core should have to be sacrificed. If all three 1st stages fire in parallel (instead of the center stage firing sequentially) then all three of the 1st stages could finish their burn at the same time and all three could recover.<br /><br />"That, along with the reduction in complexity you get by not having to support and coordinate the two booster stages, should make the costs a lot lower than a Falcon 9 heavy. "<br /><br />But the beauty of the Falcon IX concept is that the Merlin engine is already developed and ready to fly, saving the costs of developing and proving a brand new engine. The experience with the Merlin demonstrated that creating a new rocket engine from scratch and making it work is more difficult than Musk originally expected.<br /><br />" Additionally, the 5 engines under a BFR should, as a set, be cheaper than the 27(!) under a Falcon 9 heavy because there is less assembly (man-hours) and testing (more man-hours) to do."<br /><br />As SpaceX starts cranking out Merlin engines economy of scale starts to kick in. That's a big reason why the Russian Soyuz launch vehicle is so cheap. Practice makes perfect. <br /><br /><br /><br />
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
Yeah, his media relations just stinks. That VP of Development of his is just a snake oil spinmeister. The lack of video coverage is lame, and the contradictory statements on the website (like the 'more reliable' comments, indicate someone is asleep at the wheel in the media dept. Why he didn't get some sponsorship for media coverage of the launch (perhaps a military recruiter, given the payload and the launch site) is beyond lame.
 
C

cretan126

Guest
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 />
 
T

teije

Guest
Although most of your points are valid, (I did the math too and got to around the same numbers) I don't think he will go that way (down I mean.)<br />His previous endeavours (paypal & such) were marketing concepts. Brilliant strokes to exploit businesses that nobody knew existed. He made his fortune that way and it proves that he has vision and an uncanny instinct for business.<br /><br />Now the launch industry, there's a different ballgame. This isn't new. This has been around for 40 years. This is a market where he will have to compete from day 1 (and long before) with big companies that won't like to give up their share of the market. <br /><br />I agree that many of the numbers on the website are way to over enthousiastic. I'm no engineer so I can't say too much about performance, structural issues, avionics, recoverability, etc. However I am a businessman, and some numbers just don't add up. <br />All in all I think his businessplan summarizes to this:<br />He's in this business for the worst reason a business man can have: He just wants to do it. And the commerce chambers around the world are filled with bankrupt companies that 'just wanted to do it.' Dreams can be VERY expensive.<br /><br />However, having said that, dreaming is also his big advantage. He doesn't mind the delays, the salaries, the interest, the overhead, the fuss, etc. etc. etc. He's going to cough up every dime for at least a few more years. Like you said, $18mln salaries + all other costs. Let's make it an even $40mln a year shall we? To be honest, a man like Elon Musk can afford that. He won't go bankrupt because he's his own financer. He'll happily pump in another $40mln next year if necessary and the year after that without seeing a penny in return. It's his pet project, his hobby if you will. He can afford the mistakes, the delays, the loss of vehicles, etc. from a FINANCIAL point of view forever. <br /><br />His site somewhere states 3 vehicle losses as the amount he can sustain before havin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts