7 ms·

If they can find customers for the recovered stages at 80% of normal price, it will be like printing money. Wow.

by marze 9y ago

mhandley 9y ago
Why would you want your expensive cargo on a rocket's test flight - much safer to fly on a nice reliable "launch proven" rocket. We've not quite reached this point yet, but I'm sure it's coming.
jwanga 9y ago
Whats interesting is that even if they command 100% of the launch market, The launch market is currently less than 6% of the roughly $200B USD global space industry. That is probably still not enough to fund a Mars colony fleet. As it happens, most of the profits in space are in communication satellites, which is why SpaceX is attempting to launch its own LEO constellation. Some have speculated that if SpaceX can't launch their satellite constellation then they will have bet the farm and lost. However, I think people underestimate what may happen to demand when the cost of access to space drops to dollars/kg from tens of thousands of dollars/kg.
- marktangotango 9y ago
  I believe this sentiment is spot on. Musks myopic focus on Mars has always been puzzling to me. There are vast fortunes to be made in many areas, the easiest, most immediate in my view is orbital tourism to inflatable habitat destinations. Current falcon, not even heavy is sufficient, lift here. Also, when dream chaser becomes operational, there will be a strong sense of REAL progress. Edit to clarify, I'm referring to the drastic cost reduction reusability gives to reaching orbit, as the parent of this post says. I am saying there are a lot of other desirable, profitable ventures, other than settling Mars, that cheap access to space makes achievable.
  - solotronics 9y ago
    myopic? it's the only current feasible other planet we might be able to live on.
    - monk_e_boy 9y ago
      We could live in space stations. Hook up a few inflatable habs in a ring, give it a spin and get 0.5 or 0.7 gravity. Got your human backup population. Much closer to Earth so if something goes wrong (asteroid) they can just wait it out and pop back down when it all settles down. Living on Mars? Seems too tricky. Got to get back up the gravity well if you want to leave.
      - mattmanser 9y ago
        I don't know the ins and outs, will an orbital be self-sustaining enough to last for the years/decades/centuries? until earth is habitable again?
        mirimir 9y ago
        Requisite mention of Seveneves by Neal Stephenson. He doesn't seem to think much of Mars settlement.
        marvin 9y ago
        To be fair, it's not too enlightening to learn from fictional evidence.
        mirimir 9y ago
        True. About Mars, it's just an expression of his opinion. But I gather that he did research the stuff about orbital habitats and such.
      - nickik 9y ago
        I'm sorry but anybody that has studied this comes to the conclusion that Mars is easier. Where are you gone get your resources for the space station, where are you gone get water, fuel, food and so on? You would need constant delivery of all kinds of stuff, they could never be independent. On Mars you have an atmosphere that gives you unlimited CO2 and Nitrogen. Plants can grow in compressed atmosphere. Mars has dirt that can be cleaned to grow plants. Mars has tons of H20 that means you can make rocket fuel and you have enough water for the people living there. On mars you have the materials need to build radiation resistant living quarters (lots of dirt). Doing the same for a space station is incredibly difficult and expensive. Mars gravity is pretty easy to overcome, specially because you can produce rocket fuel on mars. Ships can land, drop people and cargo, refuel and fly back.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > Musks myopic focus on Mars has always been puzzling to me. There are vast fortunes to be made in many areas That's easy. Musk is not your run-of-the-mill average predatory capitalist - he seeks profit for the sake of humanity and not for his own coffers. (No, that does not excuse ripping off his workers)
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Good thing he doesn't rip off his workers then.
      - jfoutz 9y ago
        I kinda think he's a zealot. Super committed to a cause. People buy in to the cause. Some burn out and some thrive. I think it's unethical, but those recent grads are pretty enthusiastic about their 80 hour weeks. True believers thrive. I wish there was a way to find true believers without burning out a bunch of kids.
        valuearb 9y ago
        It's not unethical. If you want to build something great working 80 hour weeks gives you the best chance possible.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    He's not doing Mars for the money, he's doing it because he thinks it's important and nobody else is pushing it hard enough. If he was in it for the money he never would have started a rocket company.
    - Zren 9y ago
      > Elon Musk: "Did you hear the joke about the guy who made a small fortune in the space industry?" Obviously, "He started with a large one," is the punchline. And so I tell people, well, I was trying to figure out the fastest way to turn a large fortune into a small one. And they'd look at me, like, "Is he serious?" https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spacex_solarcity/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_sp...
      - vidarh 9y ago
        That's presumably a variation on the airline joke of the same form. I've heard it about Richard Branson, but don't know if that is the original source. The claim is that Richard Branson wa asked how to become a millionaire after he'd start Virgin Atlantic, and answered "you become a billionaire and start an airline".
        mikeash 9y ago
        The general form dates back to at least 1984: https://books.google.com/books?id=0pJVAAAAMAAJ&q=%22make+a+small+fortune%22&dq=%22make+a+small+fortune%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUzZqG6qTUAhXHPCYKHR8CAI04UBDoAQhUMAk https://books.google.com/books?id=0pJVAAAAMAAJ&q=%22make+a+s... The way it's put there, it sounds like it had already been around a while. It's possible Branson was the first person to apply it to airlines. I see a lot of people attributing it to Robert Crandall, former CEO of American Airlines, but can't find anything actually quoting him on it. He did say, "A lot of people came into the airline business. Most of them promptly exited, minus their money," which is pretty similar in spirit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- friedman23 9y ago
  As launch costs go down more space businesses become profitable. The market will grow.
- ufmace 9y ago
  The problem I always thought there was with the Mars colony stuff was that there's too little infrastructure on the way, and going straight from Earth surface to Mars surface with essentially no infrastructure in between is a recipe for expensive disaster. We have 3 expensive and difficult steps between the two - Earth surface to orbit, Earth orbit to Mars orbit, and Mars orbit to Mars surface. If anything goes wrong anywhere, it's almost impossible to fix or send help when it can only come from Earth Surface. It's hard to figure anyone being motivated to build much infrastructure in Mars orbit, so I'd like to see some real infrastructure in Earth orbit. Meaning hundreds of semi-permanent residents, rotation for artificial gravity, capturing asteroids and comets to have bulk raw material, setting up some limited manufacturing there of pure space craft. All in a place where help from or escape to Earth is fast and relatively easy. Get to where sending a colony fleet to Mars is a modest stretch of existing capabilities, not a wild reach involving inventing dozens of new fields.
  - nickik 9y ago
    Its a chicken-egg problem. We can not start with expansive infrastructure. When going west people did not build the rail roads first, they just went and eventually it made sense to build the rail road. Musk has build the ITS so that it is a transport ship that can reliable establish surface to surface transportation. Maybe eventually it will make sense to have tugs and refueling stations in orbit. This will only happen if there is a reason to fly very often. Elon is building the cheapest possible thing that can get the job done. > anything goes wrong anywhere, it's almost impossible to fix or send help when it can only come from Earth Surface. The idea is that multiple ITS will fly at the same time, they will be able to exchange people before landing on Mars if one of the ITS has problems.
    - ufmace 9y ago
      > Its a chicken-egg problem. We can not start with expansive infrastructure. That's true, but I had always figured that the infrastructure construction would need to be an actual profitable business outside of a planned colonization of Mars. Perhaps it would make sense to build or assemble satellites, or mine asteroids for rare earth metals or something like that.

If they can find customers for the recovered stages at 80% of normal price, it will be like printing money. Wow.

by marze 9y ago

If they can find customers for the recovered stages at 80% of normal price, it will be like printing money. Wow.

Why would you want your expensive cargo on a rocket's test flight - much safer to fly on a nice reliable "launch proven" rocket. We've not quite reached this point yet, but I'm sure it's coming.

jwanga 9y ago

Whats interesting is that even if they command 100% of the launch market, The launch market is currently less than 6% of the roughly $200B USD global space industry. That is probably still not enough to fund a Mars colony fleet. As it happens, most of the profits in space are in communication satellites, which is why SpaceX is attempting to launch its own LEO constellation. Some have speculated that if SpaceX can't launch their satellite constellation then they will have bet the farm and lost. However, I think people underestimate what may happen to demand when the cost of access to space drops to dollars/kg from tens of thousands of dollars/kg.

marktangotango 9y ago
I believe this sentiment is spot on. Musks myopic focus on Mars has always been puzzling to me. There are vast fortunes to be made in many areas, the easiest, most immediate in my view is orbital tourism to inflatable habitat destinations. Current falcon, not even heavy is sufficient, lift here. Also, when dream chaser becomes operational, there will be a strong sense of REAL progress. Edit to clarify, I'm referring to the drastic cost reduction reusability gives to reaching orbit, as the parent of this post says. I am saying there are a lot of other desirable, profitable ventures, other than settling Mars, that cheap access to space makes achievable.
- solotronics 9y ago
  myopic? it's the only current feasible other planet we might be able to live on.
  - monk_e_boy 9y ago
    We could live in space stations. Hook up a few inflatable habs in a ring, give it a spin and get 0.5 or 0.7 gravity. Got your human backup population. Much closer to Earth so if something goes wrong (asteroid) they can just wait it out and pop back down when it all settles down. Living on Mars? Seems too tricky. Got to get back up the gravity well if you want to leave.
    - mattmanser 9y ago
      I don't know the ins and outs, will an orbital be self-sustaining enough to last for the years/decades/centuries? until earth is habitable again?
      - mirimir 9y ago
        Requisite mention of Seveneves by Neal Stephenson. He doesn't seem to think much of Mars settlement.
        marvin 9y ago
        To be fair, it's not too enlightening to learn from fictional evidence.
        mirimir 9y ago
        True. About Mars, it's just an expression of his opinion. But I gather that he did research the stuff about orbital habitats and such.
    - nickik 9y ago
      I'm sorry but anybody that has studied this comes to the conclusion that Mars is easier. Where are you gone get your resources for the space station, where are you gone get water, fuel, food and so on? You would need constant delivery of all kinds of stuff, they could never be independent. On Mars you have an atmosphere that gives you unlimited CO2 and Nitrogen. Plants can grow in compressed atmosphere. Mars has dirt that can be cleaned to grow plants. Mars has tons of H20 that means you can make rocket fuel and you have enough water for the people living there. On mars you have the materials need to build radiation resistant living quarters (lots of dirt). Doing the same for a space station is incredibly difficult and expensive. Mars gravity is pretty easy to overcome, specially because you can produce rocket fuel on mars. Ships can land, drop people and cargo, refuel and fly back.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > Musks myopic focus on Mars has always been puzzling to me. There are vast fortunes to be made in many areas That's easy. Musk is not your run-of-the-mill average predatory capitalist - he seeks profit for the sake of humanity and not for his own coffers. (No, that does not excuse ripping off his workers)
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Good thing he doesn't rip off his workers then.
    - jfoutz 9y ago
      I kinda think he's a zealot. Super committed to a cause. People buy in to the cause. Some burn out and some thrive. I think it's unethical, but those recent grads are pretty enthusiastic about their 80 hour weeks. True believers thrive. I wish there was a way to find true believers without burning out a bunch of kids.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        It's not unethical. If you want to build something great working 80 hour weeks gives you the best chance possible.
- mikeash 9y ago
  He's not doing Mars for the money, he's doing it because he thinks it's important and nobody else is pushing it hard enough. If he was in it for the money he never would have started a rocket company.
  - Zren 9y ago
    > Elon Musk: "Did you hear the joke about the guy who made a small fortune in the space industry?" Obviously, "He started with a large one," is the punchline. And so I tell people, well, I was trying to figure out the fastest way to turn a large fortune into a small one. And they'd look at me, like, "Is he serious?" https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spacex_solarcity/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_sp...
    - vidarh 9y ago
      That's presumably a variation on the airline joke of the same form. I've heard it about Richard Branson, but don't know if that is the original source. The claim is that Richard Branson wa asked how to become a millionaire after he'd start Virgin Atlantic, and answered "you become a billionaire and start an airline".
      - mikeash 9y ago
        The general form dates back to at least 1984: https://books.google.com/books?id=0pJVAAAAMAAJ&q=%22make+a+small+fortune%22&dq=%22make+a+small+fortune%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUzZqG6qTUAhXHPCYKHR8CAI04UBDoAQhUMAk https://books.google.com/books?id=0pJVAAAAMAAJ&q=%22make+a+s... The way it's put there, it sounds like it had already been around a while. It's possible Branson was the first person to apply it to airlines. I see a lot of people attributing it to Robert Crandall, former CEO of American Airlines, but can't find anything actually quoting him on it. He did say, "A lot of people came into the airline business. Most of them promptly exited, minus their money," which is pretty similar in spirit.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
friedman23 9y ago
As launch costs go down more space businesses become profitable. The market will grow.
ufmace 9y ago
The problem I always thought there was with the Mars colony stuff was that there's too little infrastructure on the way, and going straight from Earth surface to Mars surface with essentially no infrastructure in between is a recipe for expensive disaster. We have 3 expensive and difficult steps between the two - Earth surface to orbit, Earth orbit to Mars orbit, and Mars orbit to Mars surface. If anything goes wrong anywhere, it's almost impossible to fix or send help when it can only come from Earth Surface. It's hard to figure anyone being motivated to build much infrastructure in Mars orbit, so I'd like to see some real infrastructure in Earth orbit. Meaning hundreds of semi-permanent residents, rotation for artificial gravity, capturing asteroids and comets to have bulk raw material, setting up some limited manufacturing there of pure space craft. All in a place where help from or escape to Earth is fast and relatively easy. Get to where sending a colony fleet to Mars is a modest stretch of existing capabilities, not a wild reach involving inventing dozens of new fields.
- nickik 9y ago
  Its a chicken-egg problem. We can not start with expansive infrastructure. When going west people did not build the rail roads first, they just went and eventually it made sense to build the rail road. Musk has build the ITS so that it is a transport ship that can reliable establish surface to surface transportation. Maybe eventually it will make sense to have tugs and refueling stations in orbit. This will only happen if there is a reason to fly very often. Elon is building the cheapest possible thing that can get the job done. > anything goes wrong anywhere, it's almost impossible to fix or send help when it can only come from Earth Surface. The idea is that multiple ITS will fly at the same time, they will be able to exchange people before landing on Mars if one of the ITS has problems.
  - ufmace 9y ago
    > Its a chicken-egg problem. We can not start with expansive infrastructure. That's true, but I had always figured that the infrastructure construction would need to be an actual profitable business outside of a planned colonization of Mars. Perhaps it would make sense to build or assemble satellites, or mine asteroids for rare earth metals or something like that.