15 ms·

While Musk has personally been a bit odd lately[0], SpaceX as a company seems to be in good hands with Gwynne Shotwell. They're launching very regularly[1], hav

• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• bryanlarsen 8y ago
  How do you say they have a 5-10 year advantage over Electron/Rocket Lab? They've already done a commercial launch and have 11 launches scheduled for 2019. They could very well be a viable competitor with a strong cost and time flexibility advantage in 2020. SpaceX has a huge payload advantage over Rocket Lab, but small satellites currently pay a lot of the bills at SpaceX...
  • tzfld 8y ago
    Electron and Falcon 9 have have entirely different capabilities. Electron may be more flexible but it's unable to launch geosynchronous satellites, which are by far the most profitable in the launch industry.
    • ChuckMcM 8y ago
      I was going to say something similar. I love Electron, they have an awesome rocket and have made it to orbit so they are winners in my book. That said, they are poking at a different market than SpaceX is, which is the small rocket, small payload to orbit. Yes it's a market, no it isn't particularly high margin (at this time, these tend to be cube sats with more modest budgets). What is worse, they still throw away the rocket once they launch. A "gas only" Falcon 9 rocket (which is to say they have the means to launch and relaunch over 10 times) is ultimately going to be the most cost effective path to space. Not sure Electron can get there from here.
      • curtis 8y ago
        I don't know if a re-usable Electron will ever make sense, but it's an interesting engineering problem to think about. As lithium-ion batteries improve the potential mass fraction for each Electron stage gets better: lighter batteries mean more propellant. In a decade (maybe sooner) it might become feasible for the first stage to retain enough propellant for a propulsive landing like the Falcon 9. And in this case I think there's a big pay-off with the electric pumps: there's no need for a hoverslam, since the engines should be able to deep throttle to an extreme degree that's not practical with conventional rocket engines. In a shorter time-frame the Electron first stage, because it is so small, is probably air-recoverable using the same approach that ULA is considering for recovering Vulcan engines.
        • ChuckMcM 8y ago
          Along those lines I think the hypersonic parachute work is also a potential game changer. High strength, low mass, materials with high thermal coefficients (like graphene) might one day be able to spread enough of the re-entry energy across a large enough surface to make it something you could do to recover. The steerable parafoils that SpaceX is putting on the payload fairings for terminal guidance. A fun engineering problem to be sure.
    • patfla 8y ago
      An interesting part of the article says "SpaceX’s existing business faces headwinds. It expects to see declines in launches of its workhorse Falcon 9 rocket for 2019 and perhaps 2020. Global demand for launching commercial satellites, its core business, is stagnant, with some satellite manufacturers and customers looking to permanently exit the market segment." Commercial satellites is broad - does the above mean that the market is stagnant for high orbit geosynchronous? If that's the case, then the advantage would be to Electron - but that assumes something about the profitability of low orbit. A reference, where the WSJ got this information, would have been nice. Otoh there are capabilities - and many distinctions between SpaceX and Electron. On the other though is the market and demand and you could have something great but if its market isn't likewise then you're going to be hampered not on the, shall we say, supply side of the rocket you offer, but rather the demand side.
      • moftz 8y ago
        Commercial GEO is declining. Cell networks are becoming good enough that they can beat out satellite network providers. Same with TV networks, why bother with a satellite uplink when you can stream 4K over the internet?
  • tonmoy 8y ago
    Since spaceX’s first commercial launch was in 2013, I’d say GP was not entirely wrong
  • moftz 8y ago
    SpaceX has been launching the Falcon 9 for the past 6 years straight with only two launch failures and one partial failure out of 65 flights. Their older Falcon 1 didn't do great, only last flight survived out of five tries. However, SpaceX has had near consecutive launch success for the past 10 years. They threw themselves into the deep end with space. They do things the cheap and quick way and hope that it works. When it fails, they can quickly reconfigure and try again, their investment is low. This model helps you get really far really quick, so much so that they are now competing with ULA. ULA's tech has heritage all the way back to the Convair days when slapping a satellite onto an ICBM was a new idea. All of those small companies like Rocket Lab are just starting their success but this is literally where SpaceX was 10 years prior, launching small stuff with mixed results. If SpaceX can get off the ground with 20% success rate of their first design, I doubt Rocket Lab will have trouble with 80%.
    • lavezza 8y ago
      Falcon 1 launched successfully on the last 2 flights (F1-4 & F1-5). But only F1-5 had a paying customer. F1-4 was a dummy test payload.
  • JshWright 8y ago
    Electron is roughly equivalent to SpaceX's Falcon 1. Falcon 1 flew its first (and only) commercial flight in 2009. That's ~10 years, by my math...
    • phkahler 8y ago
      What if electron is already near its final form? That would put them near parity with Falcon 9 in terms of development, but without the proven track record yet. Just saying the goals are different and progress toward them has to be measured based on those goals. Cessna doesn't compete with Boeing, and it's not clear Electron and SpaceX are playing the same game either.
      • Retric 8y ago
        In that case they are not competitors. Either they are 9+ years behind or they are not even in the same race. That’s not a bad thing. Boeing for example is also a profitable aerospace company, but they don’t launch to GEO. You basicly pay a near constant rate per lb to orbit and most of the money is from the large side of thing.
        • moftz 8y ago
          Well they do kinda launch to geo in their partnership with LM in ULA.
  • nickik 8y ago
    Electron is a tiny rocket and the market for large launchers is already overstacked. Electron will stay in the microlaunch market for a long time.
  • dr_orpheus 8y ago
    Despite a lot of small satellites going up on SpaceX rockets, they aren't the ones pulling in large amounts of money for SpaceX. Most of the small satellite launches (with the exception of the recent SSO-A mission) are secondary payloads on a larger launch. There is a lot of demand for smaller launchers. With smaller launch vehicles you can get more flexibility in what orbit you want to go in to. On the larger launches, the small satellite manufacturers have to adapt somewhat to the launches that are available. There is demand from both the commercial and DoD [1]. [1] https://spacenews.com/pentagon-procurement-chief-ellen-lord-dod-needs-launch-vehicles-for-small-satellites/ https://spacenews.com/pentagon-procurement-chief-ellen-lord-...
  • superkuh 8y ago
    Electric motor fuel pumps simply cannot scale any larger than they already are on the Electron craft. Rocket labs is not going to be taking any of SpaceX's profitable marketshare.
    • jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised if they start working on an expander cycle engine while keeping the electrics as a starter/regulator.
  • Tuna-Fish 8y ago
    > but small satellites currently pay a lot of the bills at SpaceX No, they really don't. SpaceX makes most of their money launching 3-ton+ geostationary satellites. The second-most important workload has been launching the Orbcomm and Iridium constellations. Iridium satellites won't fit on Electron. Orbcomm ones would, but the constellation is complete. Of all their commercial launches, on only one would the Electron rocket have undeniably been better: The SmallSat Express was a kind of a clusterfuck because there were too many customers on one launch, each with their own problems and delays. In any case, hypotheticals about SpaceX losing customers in the future always need to be answered with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IU41zpzWUE&t=75s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IU41zpzWUE&t=75s As of IAC2018, they had a $12B launch manifest. They can afford to lose a few smallsat payloads. I am eagerly awaiting a future larger Electron. The principle of 3d-printing a rocket using only parts that are cheap to make is quite interesting, and might have room to move up to payloads larger than smallsats.
  • agildehaus 8y ago
    Electron is not reusable, each is expended. Reusability will eventually give SpaceX such an edge that they'll be able to launch BFR at Electron-level prices. Same cost, an order of magnitude more capability. This is quite a ways out, however, so Rocketlab will enjoy being the only dedicated provider at the $6M price point for quite a while.
    • Tepix 8y ago
      More like four order of magnitude more payload...
• RivieraKid 8y ago
  > If I could invest in SpaceX, I would. I wouldn't because I don't trust Elon Musk's honesty with investors. Also, I don't understand the argument "I would invest because positive thing X" - how does it imply that buying the company at market price is more profitable than buying a stock index?
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • mabbo 8y ago
    I should rephrase: if I could buy SpaceX with the company valued at only $30B, I would buy stock in it. That seems undervalued to me, given the above. I believe the company will be worth more than that in both the short and long term and therefore it's a solid investment.
  • AcerbicZero 8y ago
    For the same reasons that some people choose to divest themselves from companies which they have personal moral disagreements with, some people want to invest in companies that directly or indirectly align with their views. I don't believe the comment above was meant to be taken as a purely financial move.
  • mrnobody_67 8y ago
    Most recently he diverted SpaceX resources to the boring company without board approval....
• debt 8y ago
  “I think he's overworked and burned-out” It’s just PR he’s not sleeping under desks or delusional from sleep deprivation or etc It’s just PR to get to this moment, raising a huge round for SpaceX.
  • iamgopal 8y ago
    Delivering a 100(starting a billion USD company successfully ? ) times smaller projects on time can give nightmare for years. What he is doing is borderline impossible.
• sargun 8y ago
  You can invest in SpaceX. They regularly are available on secondary market places.
  • aerophilic 8y ago
    Can you elaborate? I assume you have to be an accredited investor?
    • dodobirdlord 8y ago
      Often in these sorts of scenarios you can find an investment fund that has a stake in the non-public company that you are interested in and invest in the company by proxy by investing in the fund.
      • exacube 8y ago
        the issue would now be that you're investing in everything else in that fund.. i'd have to believe in the fund, not just SpaceX.
        • whatshisface 8y ago
          You could design a portfolio of short and long positions that exactly cancelled out everything else the fund had.
          • mLuby 8y ago
            I smell a SaaS product…
            • jlmorton 8y ago
              I smell financial regulation. The secondary market is generally only available to accredited investors. If you're investing in a fund, that's one thing, but if a product is unwinding all of that to allow unsophisticated investors to essentially buy secondary stock in private companies, the SEC is going to have something to say about that.
• api 8y ago
  On [2] note that they still technically consider landings "experimental" or at least "beta." Launch success is mission success.
  • mikeash 8y ago
    Is that true? They used to label it something like “experimental landing” on the timeline, but lately it’s just been “landing”.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• sailfast 8y ago
  I think the company is great and it's been a big inspiration. I'm a bit worried, however, about the CEO using it as a piggy-bank for other projects only partially related to SpaceX, and whether I'd see any payback on that risk if I were an investor (See: Boring Company using SpaceX folks to dig tunnels). I'm perfectly fine not being an investor and instead just being a fan.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• diminoten 8y ago
  I dunno, I don't think he's "burned out" in the same sense that you or I get burned out, but I do think he's "over exposed", which for him is probably basically the same. It just looks like he's gotten comfortable expressing the thoughts and feelings that most of us try to apply at least a small filter to, and it's hard because he's the boss of his world, so there's no one to reel him in.
• tomphoolery 8y ago
  > burned himself out I'll say. hits blunt
• phkahler 8y ago
  >> massively undercutting the legacy competitors (ULA)... I think that has been a mistake. Undercut them sure, but if they charged more they might not be seeking funding right now. They should be optimizing profit at this point (to fund new developments) and it's not clear that's what they're doing. I've never heard them talk about pricing other than what they charge and how they hope to lower those costs.
  • soperj 8y ago
    Hard to sell your workers on changing the game when you've got that mindset. They get some of the best because they actually want to change the way access to space works.
    • rifung 8y ago
      > They get some of the best because they actually want to change the way access to space works. Are they really that concerned with getting "the best"? From what I've heard, they expect you to work insane hours. That pretty much limits potential employees to those without a family or a life outside of work. Won't they just end up with the majority of their employees without significant experience this way? In many ways though I guess it operates very much like a startup. They sell dreams to get employees.
      • toss_it_quickly 8y ago
        Anecdata and probably subject to some sort of bias, but of the only two people I know who have interned there (one personally, and one via open source contributions), the first was specifically called out as "the smartest person I've ever met" by our founders when we were acquired, and the second is Sergio Benitez[1]. [1]: https://sergio.bz/ https://sergio.bz/
        • rifung 8y ago
          > of the only two people I know who have interned there I don't think you're disagreeing with me. I assume those people were relatively young since they interned there? I was not at all trying to imply they don't have talented people working there. It sounds like a great opportunity and honestly anyone who is willing to spend so much time on their craft should get good at it over time. I am just trying to say that they are also probably missing out on many talented people who don't want to commit so much time to work. I mean it's working out for them clearly. It seems they consider dedication to be more important than "talent" and I wouldn't necessarily say that's wrong. I only work in software which may be different but it's rare to encounter problems which require some sort of ingenuity. Most of the time work just involves.. putting in time and effort to get things done.
• GreaterFool 8y ago
  > If I could invest in SpaceX, I would. So true! I would love to invest in SpaceX
  • xkjkls 8y ago
    Why at this valuation do you think it's attractive? $30.5 billion is a hell of a price to pay for a business with only around $2 billion in revenue.
    • burgerboy 8y ago
      Till they grab a asteroid made of diamonds
    • Tuna-Fish 8y ago
      Because you expect the revenue to go up dramatically in the future. The main reason for that belief, at least for me, is Starlink.
      • abledon 8y ago
        that + mining asteroids w/ boring company tech
        • rohit2412 8y ago
          If that is their projected revenue source, I think most of us would agree that SpaceX is over valued
          • abledon 8y ago
            maybe most of HN, but i'm not so sure about the majority of small dreamers on reddit who like investing
            • xkjkls 8y ago
              I'm not sure that is who I want valuing companies
• justinator 8y ago
  While Musk has personally been a bit odd lately I think Musk has shown something a little higher than eccentricity for as long as he's been in the public eye. I wouldn't want to be his friend, date him, marry him, or have him as a family member.
  • kinkrtyavimoodh 8y ago
    > I wouldn't want to be his friend, date him, marry him, or have him as a family member. Which is perfectly fine as long as he keeps inspiring employees (and the world at large) so that they are even ready to "follow him into the gates of hell carrying suntan oil..." (https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-work-with-for-Elon-Musk/answer/Dolly-Singh-8 https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-work-with-for-Elon-...)
    • bg24 8y ago
      https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-spacex-tesla-employees-best-ceo-2018/ https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-spacex-tesla-employees-b...
  • krn 8y ago
    > I wouldn't want to be his friend, date him, marry him, or have him as a family member. There are people great for depending on, and there are people great for following. Even if from far away. They are still great. Just in a different way.
    • jwn 8y ago
      That's an interesting perspective, one I had never thought about yet rings absolutely true.
    • justinator 8y ago
      For better or for worse, a lot of those less-good parts of his public life are public, and made public by him. That's not accidental.
• erikpukinskis 8y ago
  If you want to perform at the absolute limit of your ability, you must regularly go past your limits. If you want to bring your whole self to that job, you must push limits in every aspect of your life. It's not for everyone, but it's the reason why Musk is so successful. He goes right up to the line, and then tries to step just a tiny bit over. Sometimes he ends up flagrantly in the danger zone, but just as often he finds out the line was much further out than anyone suspected. You can do the same thing socially, by letting crazy people randomly test boundaries, and then using a social network to filter best practices down to you. That way you get the benefit of random testing, without risking any of your personal health or reputation. But that takes decades, whereas Elon's strategy gives immediate feedback. He has so much privilege that he can be quite risky without actually "betting the farm" so to speak. If he was a little less mentally healthy, a little less white, a little less male, a little less rich parents, a little less educated, etc he'd probably have flamed out with this strategy. Having that intersection of privilege gives him a nice safety net when his experiments blow up. There's a whole other layer of support beyond the business fundamentals.
  • aplummer 8y ago
    The thing I’ve always liked about him, is he actually did bet the farm when he could have had a very easy life. Not sure I could have done it.
    • erikpukinskis 8y ago
      And he keeps betting it!
  • Retric 8y ago
    That’s demonsratably a bad idea when it comes to exercise and likely most other things in life. Limits are not binary, you are causing harm when you approach them. Going over just means the injury is more noticeable. What’s really interesting is if you study the absolute top athletes is they treat down time as both nessisary and productive. Absolute peak performance is simply not sustainable, you need to adjust to a huge range of tradeoffs.
• ineedasername 8y ago
  I generally agree, but I also think it's important to note that SpaceX has underperformed its target on launches and therefore revenue in 2018: It had a target of 30 launches, and has only seen about 20 this year, roughly the same as 2017. The increase of $3billion+ dollar on it's valuation since its last round therefore appears to be despite underperforming targets rather than actual increase in either revenue or profits (to the best such are publicly discernible for a private company)
  • mabbo 8y ago
    That's a good point. Still, I can see reasons for raising it's perceived value over last year. A year ago, Falcon Heavy still hadn't launched. Will that happen in 2018? Ever? We didn't know. A year ago, we were still barely a year since the 2016 pad explosion- is this going to happen again? How often? What if it happens tomorrow? And most importantly, we've doubled (ish?) the number of landings. With more data, we've got a better estimate on the expected future success rate. SpaceX is becoming a less risky investment. There was always a valuation hit because of that risk.
    • taneq 8y ago
      Given the advances they've made in the past year I think 10% is a conservative estimate of the change in valuation. And, as others have said, if Starlink pans out then they will effectively corner the market on broadband internet, which is a massive multi-billion dollar industry.
  • pbreit 8y ago
    The increased valuation also has to do with its Starlink satellite-based network access service, quite possibly a larger and much more profitable business than rockets, making huge strides.
• village-idiot 8y ago
  Electron (RocketLab, actually) is chasing a wildly different market segment.