5 ms·

So why aren't many other billionaires launching rockets? Bezos and Branson have tried, with some success, but Musk clearly is in a different class.

Xylakant 9y ago
To add a little perspective: The falcon heavy has a LEO payload of 63 800kg, the Saturn 5, a launcher designed and built in the 1960ies, has a LEO payload of 140000kg, more than twice as much. There’s certainly a lot of cool tech developed at Space X and landing and reusing the boosters is a thing not achieved in the 60ies, but it’s always good to keep in mind that in terms of lift capacity, today’s heaviest launcher is less than half as powerful than a launcher half a decade out of service.
- kore 9y ago
  Worth pointing out however that the Saturn V cost roughly $1.2B per launch, compared to $90M for the Falcon Heavy. So it was roughly 6x more expensive per kg to LEO. Not to mention it required a nation state to fund its roughly $40-80B development cost. Can only guess, but would expect the development costs of the Falcon 1/9/Heavy were maybe $3-5B? That said, Space X has benefited from all of the R&D done in the past. They weren't building it in a vacuum.
  - chasingthewind 9y ago
    You said it first and better :)
  - lionpixel 9y ago
    In the press conference after the Falcon Heavy start a journalist asked the question of how much the investment was. Elon answered “around half a billion [silent for 1s] propably more.”
    - kore 9y ago
      Correct, but that was just the cost to develop the core booster of the Falcon Heavy. That doesn't include the original costs to develop the Falcon 9 and all of its subsequent variants, nor the cost to develop the original Falcon 1.
- chasingthewind 9y ago
  As a counterpoint, the falcon heavy costs something like 1/10th of a Saturn V launch. So you can launch two and dock the payloads in orbit for 1/5 the cost. Source: Kerbal Space Program
  - VVyattPrentice 9y ago
    KSP FTW!!!
- slfnflctd 9y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is? 1. No privately funded rocket venture has ever gotten nearly this far 2. Reusable boosters are a Big. Deal. 3. The BFR will have a higher LEO payload and is likely to begin testing next year 4. Payload size is a poor metric by itself, launch costs are an extremely relevant part of the equation I could go on, but what I'm saying is that even with "a little perspective", SpaceX has achieved something hugely unprecedented, astonishing and inspiring. The prior existence of the Saturn V adds some context, but it doesn't even begin to address the question of why no other 'rich dude' has tried to put together a team to do something similar at this level, which I think is a fascinating one worthy of discussion.
cookiecaper 9y ago
They're missing the critical component: intimacy and competence with the core craft. Elon Musk can contribute and hold his own in a room with the rocket engineers doing the heavy lifting. He can understand what they're talking about, perhaps lacking only the local context, on which he can be caught up reasonably quickly. This is not to say that Musk has done all of the engineering directly or that he understands every single component of the product, but he knows the product with the intimacy necessary to realistically evaluate and engineer in detail. He knows what's possible, what's reasonable, and what to expect if you get the best people and put them in a place where they're able to do their best work. That, IMO, is the biggest thing that separate the wannabes from the revolutionaries. It's extremely difficult to bullshit Musk because he knows what's going on and doesn't just have to trust "an excellent communicator" to dumb it down into digestable "non-technical" nuggets for him. There is no need for a translation layer. No nervous middle-managers trying to "soften the blow" regarding some impractical contrived fantasy that the engineers laughed out of the room. SpaceX doesn't have to waste years of resources on said fantastical contrivances because the middle managers aren't willing to shut down the idea forcefully enough, or worse, because the C-suite is unwilling to accept the engineering evaluation. Musk knows the reality of the situation in a real, visceral way, and the value of that cannot be overestimated. That is the true superpower. As smart as Bezos and Branson may be, as far as I know, they cannot claim the ability to understand what they're trying to make, and that is the core differentiator for SpaceX. ----- To get industrial revolutionaries like Musk, you need to combine the financial independence (true financial independence, no VC babysitters), the vision, the tenacity and courage to blaze the trail, and the technical intimacy to know when you're running afield or when someone in the chain of command is pulling your leg. Getting all of these in one package is very rare and it's what makes people like Elon Musk stand out. There are certainly many people with some mix of these components, but not many that have them all. If we want more Elon Musks, we need to ask how we can get the more fungible parts of this recipe to more people who are only lacking those elements. At any point, Zip2 or PayPal could've taken a misstep that would've erased Musk from the history books (perhaps one such misstep would've been Elon taking role of CEO at Zip2, something his investors did not allow). He'd be a good engineer with a passionate interest in rocketry, like many other engineers before and after him. How many sleeping Elon Musks are out there today, waiting for their own unlikely exits to materialize? Follow-up for people who feel like typing more (because I don't): where else has this applied? Walt Disney knew animation, even if he wasn't the best animator. Thomas Edison knew electricity, even if he wasn't the best primordial electrical engineer. Sergei and Larry knew search. It seems that the earth-shaking successes are practically always spearheaded by people who know what they do at the fine-grained, detailed level.

Xylakant 9y ago

To add a little perspective: The falcon heavy has a LEO payload of 63 800kg, the Saturn 5, a launcher designed and built in the 1960ies, has a LEO payload of 140000kg, more than twice as much. There’s certainly a lot of cool tech developed at Space X and landing and reusing the boosters is a thing not achieved in the 60ies, but it’s always good to keep in mind that in terms of lift capacity, today’s heaviest launcher is less than half as powerful than a launcher half a decade out of service.

kore 9y ago
Worth pointing out however that the Saturn V cost roughly $1.2B per launch, compared to $90M for the Falcon Heavy. So it was roughly 6x more expensive per kg to LEO. Not to mention it required a nation state to fund its roughly $40-80B development cost. Can only guess, but would expect the development costs of the Falcon 1/9/Heavy were maybe $3-5B? That said, Space X has benefited from all of the R&D done in the past. They weren't building it in a vacuum.
- chasingthewind 9y ago
  You said it first and better :)
- lionpixel 9y ago
  In the press conference after the Falcon Heavy start a journalist asked the question of how much the investment was. Elon answered “around half a billion [silent for 1s] propably more.”
  - kore 9y ago
    Correct, but that was just the cost to develop the core booster of the Falcon Heavy. That doesn't include the original costs to develop the Falcon 9 and all of its subsequent variants, nor the cost to develop the original Falcon 1.
chasingthewind 9y ago
As a counterpoint, the falcon heavy costs something like 1/10th of a Saturn V launch. So you can launch two and dock the payloads in orbit for 1/5 the cost. Source: Kerbal Space Program
- VVyattPrentice 9y ago
  KSP FTW!!!
slfnflctd 9y ago
I'm not sure what your point is? 1. No privately funded rocket venture has ever gotten nearly this far 2. Reusable boosters are a Big. Deal. 3. The BFR will have a higher LEO payload and is likely to begin testing next year 4. Payload size is a poor metric by itself, launch costs are an extremely relevant part of the equation I could go on, but what I'm saying is that even with "a little perspective", SpaceX has achieved something hugely unprecedented, astonishing and inspiring. The prior existence of the Saturn V adds some context, but it doesn't even begin to address the question of why no other 'rich dude' has tried to put together a team to do something similar at this level, which I think is a fascinating one worthy of discussion.

cookiecaper 9y ago

They're missing the critical component: intimacy and competence with the core craft. Elon Musk can contribute and hold his own in a room with the rocket engineers doing the heavy lifting. He can understand what they're talking about, perhaps lacking only the local context, on which he can be caught up reasonably quickly. This is not to say that Musk has done all of the engineering directly or that he understands every single component of the product, but he knows the product with the intimacy necessary to realistically evaluate and engineer in detail. He knows what's possible, what's reasonable, and what to expect if you get the best people and put them in a place where they're able to do their best work. That, IMO, is the biggest thing that separate the wannabes from the revolutionaries. It's extremely difficult to bullshit Musk because he knows what's going on and doesn't just have to trust "an excellent communicator" to dumb it down into digestable "non-technical" nuggets for him. There is no need for a translation layer. No nervous middle-managers trying to "soften the blow" regarding some impractical contrived fantasy that the engineers laughed out of the room. SpaceX doesn't have to waste years of resources on said fantastical contrivances because the middle managers aren't willing to shut down the idea forcefully enough, or worse, because the C-suite is unwilling to accept the engineering evaluation. Musk knows the reality of the situation in a real, visceral way, and the value of that cannot be overestimated. That is the true superpower. As smart as Bezos and Branson may be, as far as I know, they cannot claim the ability to understand what they're trying to make, and that is the core differentiator for SpaceX. ----- To get industrial revolutionaries like Musk, you need to combine the financial independence (true financial independence, no VC babysitters), the vision, the tenacity and courage to blaze the trail, and the technical intimacy to know when you're running afield or when someone in the chain of command is pulling your leg. Getting all of these in one package is very rare and it's what makes people like Elon Musk stand out. There are certainly many people with some mix of these components, but not many that have them all. If we want more Elon Musks, we need to ask how we can get the more fungible parts of this recipe to more people who are only lacking those elements. At any point, Zip2 or PayPal could've taken a misstep that would've erased Musk from the history books (perhaps one such misstep would've been Elon taking role of CEO at Zip2, something his investors did not allow). He'd be a good engineer with a passionate interest in rocketry, like many other engineers before and after him. How many sleeping Elon Musks are out there today, waiting for their own unlikely exits to materialize? Follow-up for people who feel like typing more (because I don't): where else has this applied? Walt Disney knew animation, even if he wasn't the best animator. Thomas Edison knew electricity, even if he wasn't the best primordial electrical engineer. Sergei and Larry knew search. It seems that the earth-shaking successes are practically always spearheaded by people who know what they do at the fine-grained, detailed level.