12 ms·

Elon Musk: 'Europe's rocket has no chance'

169 points by rglovejoy 14y ago

guylhem 14y ago
It may be a bold claim, but he is making a falsifiable statement. (yet IMHO he is right - things are quite messed up in Europe at the moment - in France mostly) However matching french Guyana launch site geographical advantage and infrastructure, and European funding, to Elon Musk ships could be a winning move.
josephagoss 14y ago
Haha, "12 years" "soon as that" "I don't want to be so old that I can't go" (to mars) This guy does so much, so right. Unlike most people in high positions he doesn't seem to have a negative side at all. (not that it really matters too much if he did, its just really interesting.)
startupfounder 14y ago
With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the cost of rocket fuel, which is 1% of the total cost of the flights currently going into orbit. That is 100x cost savings.
- EthanHeilman 14y ago
  If he pulls off grasshopper, expect every space program with an R/D budget to start a crash program to develop it. It is a complete game changer in both technology and cost. Rockets would get far more expensive and sophisticated since being truly reusable the capital cost can amortized over the multiple launches. Of course no one has managed to develop a reusable launch system system so far so it is likely far more difficult than at appears at face value. The successful development of grasshopper is a low probability, high pay off event.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Even airlines flights aren't the cost of fuel. It's a promising technology, but it isn't that promising.
  - kalininalex 14y ago
    They are mostly fuel and wages of (frequently unionized) employees. For example, numbers for Southwest for the last quarter, of the total $4.2 bil expense: Fuel: $1.5 bil Salaries: $1.2 bil Depreciation + Maintenance: $0.5 bil (basically all airplane related expenses) So, maintenance expenses are only 12% of the total, while fuel is 35% and salaries 28%. If the cost of fuel in orbit launches was indeed just 1% of the total cost, then compared to air travel those launches are very inefficient and there may be a huge room for improvement.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the cost of rocket fuel... Even my car costs significantly more than just the fuel.
  - nickolai 14y ago
    >> With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the cost of rocket fuel... >Even my car costs significantly more than just the fuel. yes, but the cost of using your car for a drive from home to work is basically the cost of car fuel. As opposed to the cost of a full car + fuel because you decide to blow your car up once you get to destination, like we now do for rockets.
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      > yes, but the cost of using your car for a drive from home to work is basically the cost of car fuel. No, it isn't. Insurance, license, registration, annual inspection, tires, wear-and-tear, maintenance, depreciation... and imagine if I needed a fully-staffed mission control at my house every time I took a ride. Reusable rockets may reduce costs, but chances are it won't be by 100x.
      - kalininalex 14y ago
        If we assume two things: the current cost of fuel is 1% of the total launch cost, and launching a reusable rocket is similar to operating an aircraft, then we can use numbers from commercial aviation: - the cost of fuel is 35% of the total cost. The total cost of the rocket launch then will be 3 times its fuel cost, or 3% of the _current_ expense. That's savings of 97%. Even if the analogy is not perfect and we make numerous allowances, the potential for cost-cutting by 80-90% is not inconceivable. Again, this is based on the two assumptions above. If they are totally off, so are these calculations.
        pyre 14y ago
        I would assume that air traffic control is similar to ground control for the purposes of this analogy. Does that 35% number take into account the costs of air traffic control? I'm assuming that the airport (and not the airlines) covers those costs.
luckystarr 14y ago
ESA has to battle its 'cash cow syndrome'. This is going to be interesting.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
This shouldn't be a controversial statement. The Ariane 5 is one of the more expensive launch vehicles on the market right now. It's telling that CNES/ESA has brought the Soyuz to Guiana for launches, because it is massively cheaper than the Ariane 5. 2013 is going to be the defining year for SpaceX, I think. They've already proven that they are rather uniquely capable in banging out rockets and spacecraft that work at a tremendously low cost, but 2013 will prove their operational mettle, especially for commercial launches. It will show whether or not they can meet schedules, launch reliably, and maintain their existing cost structures. And if they do all of that, they will gain the trust of the people who hold the purse strings of the world's satellite launch budgets (although they already made a tremendous first effort in that regard). More so, the Falcon Heavy and the Falcon 9 v1.1 are a much bigger deal than people give credit for. Things like the "grasshopper" Falcon 9 first stage reusability test-bed and the manned Dragon capsule development gain a lot of attention, but the v1.1 and the heavy are going to be the crowbars that utterly disrupt the spaceflight industry. See, with Falcon 9 v1.0 they are already on a dramatically different cost structure. With v1.1 they will reduce their manufacturing costs, increase reliability, and increase the payload capacity by about 40%. This will make it a lot easier to do dual and multiple launches at extremely competitive prices. Also, it will allow them to underbid the competition incrementally while raking in massive profits. The Falcon Heavy will use just under 3x the components of a Falcon 9 v1.1 but it will have nearly 5x the payload capacity. This means that it can do multiple launches for crazy cheap. Also, it will be a pretty tempting target for governments to use for manned spaceflight. For example, it could be capable of sending a manned capsule into lunar orbit, which would be super useful for any sort of activities NASA decides to perform out there. Additionally, it might encourage folks to develop extremely massive payloads (next generation commsats or manned space station components) which are incapable of being launched by any other vehicle. SpaceX is rapidly moving into territory where they are untouchable. Already no other company (and no government either) can return large cargo from the ISS, for example. Soon they will be the only commercial company capable of sending astronauts into orbit. And just as soon they will be the only launch provider capable of putting 50 tonne payloads into LEO or 10 tonne payloads into GEO or on an interplanetary trajectory.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
drzaiusapelord 14y ago
Its hopeless for the ESA. On one hand you have a super nimble startup vs a nationalized industry whose decisions makers span different countries, all of whom have a political dog in this fight. SpaceX's biggest advantage isn't Musk or its team, its that its not hamstrung by the Congress and Senate on how to do things and historically their demands to move pork into their home states. Nor is the air force demanding design requirements like they did with the shuttle. Too many cooks for the ESA.
- hazov 14y ago
  For now at least, I wish SpaceX success. I also wish some nationalist scumbag in US Congress do not try to control this industry with some type of weapon regulation.
  - EthanHeilman 14y ago
    In all fairness, regulating rockets that can put something in orbit is probably a good idea. A Falcon 9 is basically an ballistic missile that can drop a nuclear weapon (even a giant, heavy north korean nuke) anywhere on the globe (from any direction, see Fractional Orbital Bombardment). The ability to buy falcon 9's on the open market would greatly decrease the cost of developing a nuclear deterrent (since you don't need to develop a delivery system and you don't have miniaturize your warhead) likely leading to a large number of states starting nuclear weapons programs. This is the reason the US and USSR worked so hard to kill cheap commercial space flight in the 1980's.
    - AnIrishDuck 14y ago
      My understanding is they're already regulated under export control. SpaceX would probably need an export license from Congress to ship Falcon 9s out of the country. This is highly unlikely to ever happen for the reasons you state.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        What about something that looked like a regular comms satellite but in fact was something completely different? Does SpaceX get to inspect the guts of what they launch?
nachteilig 14y ago
I was really pretty pessimistic about space travel when NASA announced they would shift some of their duties to the private sector, but Elon Musk has really made this idea exciting in the same way he did with electric cars. It really makes me believe that companies need a strong personality like his or Jobs' to get the public excited about new/revitalized sectors.
rdl 14y ago
It's cute that ESA tries to claim SpaceX will get more expensive and less reliable as they scale up to (sort of) mass production. Uh, no. If you're going for FUD, at least be plausible. More likely would be "SpaceX might go out of business if the market softens or they hit serious technical problems, whereas EADS can guilt European governments into funding it indefinitely" (true) or "SpaceX won't customize launchers for unique European requirements" (wtf) or "EADS allows Europeans to maintain employment and skills in critical launch industries in the event ICBMs become necessary" (I really hope this is never the reason...).
- danmaz74 14y ago
  To be fair, the claim isn't that they will get less reliable with time. It is that time will show how much they are really reliable, and the costs of possible failures would have to be included in the cost structure.
- _delirium 14y ago
  > "EADS allows Europeans to maintain employment and skills in critical launch industries in the event ICBMs become necessary" EADS is the world's 2nd-largest producer of missiles, and produces a pretty large proportion of European militaries' missiles, so not entirely implausible. Of course, they could refocus: most of the missiles (the French Exocet, the British ASRAAM, etc.) are not ICBMs and don't share all that much technology with space launches.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > It's cute that ESA tries to claim SpaceX will get more expensive and less reliable as they scale up to (sort of) mass production. Uh, no. If you're going for FUD, at least be plausible I wonder why they put that shot of his hands in the video. In any case, the look in Elon's eyes when he says Ariane 5 has no hope is very telling, in SpaceX's favor.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  I can definitely see EADS getting more subsidies from the government to keep themselves afloat. Playing the "national security" angle is usually pretty effective.
jobigoud 14y ago
"The upgrade of Ariane 5 - known as Ariane 5 ME" I have a bad feeling about this…
- notjustanymike 14y ago
  Don't worry, they're hard at work on Ariane RT SP1
- StavrosK 14y ago
  "Take ME home"?
  - dantkz 14y ago
    Windows ME
    - StavrosK 14y ago
      Yeah, that was the slogan.
znowi 14y ago
ESA is in a difficult situation to compete with a privately owned, agile, startup in spirit company. I suspect ESA is not much different to NASA in operation. And as Musk pointed out, the latter has two major problems: 1) fear of innovation and 2) inefficient production. First is a catch 22 where no components can be used in space unless proven to work in space. Second is multiple chains of subcontractors until you reach a manufacturing process. It's fine tuned to cash extraction, not product efficiency. I looked up some numbers. Falcon 9 costs about $5k per kg to launch. Falcon Heavy is expected at almost $2k. While competitors run at $10k and more. The only viable competitor seems to be the Russians with their trusted Soyuz and Angara series, currently in development.
riffraff 14y ago
no comments on the recent VEGA thingy? Was that DOA ? http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMBTKYXHYG_index_0.html http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMBTKYXHYG_index_0.html
- maaku 14y ago
  1,5000kg to LEO doesn't put it anywhere near F9 or FH.
j_col 14y ago
My understanding is that one of the key advantages that Ariane has over it's rivals is it's launch site near the equator (http://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-intro/overview.asp http://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-intro/overview.asp). Is this saving negated by other factors, when compared to SpaceX?
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  That's only an incremental advantage. Note that SpaceX also has an equatorial launch site but they haven't used it since the Falcon 1 because it's just not as practical as operating out of Florida/California. Comparatively, SpaceX is operating a much simpler rocket that is manufactured much less expensively than the Ariane 5, by about a factor of 10 or so.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  The cost of fuel is under 3% of total launch costs.
- schiffern 14y ago
  As far as centrifugal advantage, SpaceX gets 88% as much launching from KSC in Florida. There's also an advantage for geostationary satellites (you avoid an inclination burn) but I'm not sure how large that would be.
rational_indian 14y ago
Just curious...can someone knowledgeable in these matters comment on how the Indian GSLV ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launch... ) compares to the SpaceX rockets?
jakeonthemove 14y ago
How about the ESA just starts using Falcons - then the prices will go down even further and they can focus more on actually putting good stuff in space rather on how to do it...
microcentury 14y ago
This is slightly off topic, but I would just _love_ to know how Musk manages his time. He has the same number of hours as the rest of us - how does he divide them between his personal research and actually getting stuff done? What percentage does he spend on marketing versus engineering, PR versus logistics, and on and on... Man I would love to have a drink with that guy. There has been no other contemporary person in any sphere of human endeavour I have been so fan-boyish about.
sentinel 14y ago
Actually, he was apparently misquoted: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/270776170184847360 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/270776170184847360

169 points by rglovejoy 14y ago

It may be a bold claim, but he is making a falsifiable statement. (yet IMHO he is right - things are quite messed up in Europe at the moment - in France mostly) However matching french Guyana launch site geographical advantage and infrastructure, and European funding, to Elon Musk ships could be a winning move.

josephagoss 14y ago

Haha, "12 years" "soon as that" "I don't want to be so old that I can't go" (to mars) This guy does so much, so right. Unlike most people in high positions he doesn't seem to have a negative side at all. (not that it really matters too much if he did, its just really interesting.)

startupfounder 14y ago

With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the cost of rocket fuel, which is 1% of the total cost of the flights currently going into orbit. That is 100x cost savings.

EthanHeilman 14y ago
If he pulls off grasshopper, expect every space program with an R/D budget to start a crash program to develop it. It is a complete game changer in both technology and cost. Rockets would get far more expensive and sophisticated since being truly reusable the capital cost can amortized over the multiple launches. Of course no one has managed to develop a reusable launch system system so far so it is likely far more difficult than at appears at face value. The successful development of grasshopper is a low probability, high pay off event.
danielweber 14y ago
Even airlines flights aren't the cost of fuel. It's a promising technology, but it isn't that promising.
- kalininalex 14y ago
  They are mostly fuel and wages of (frequently unionized) employees. For example, numbers for Southwest for the last quarter, of the total $4.2 bil expense: Fuel: $1.5 bil Salaries: $1.2 bil Depreciation + Maintenance: $0.5 bil (basically all airplane related expenses) So, maintenance expenses are only 12% of the total, while fuel is 35% and salaries 28%. If the cost of fuel in orbit launches was indeed just 1% of the total cost, then compared to air travel those launches are very inefficient and there may be a huge room for improvement.
ceejayoz 14y ago
> With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the cost of rocket fuel... Even my car costs significantly more than just the fuel.
- nickolai 14y ago
  >> With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the cost of rocket fuel... >Even my car costs significantly more than just the fuel. yes, but the cost of using your car for a drive from home to work is basically the cost of car fuel. As opposed to the cost of a full car + fuel because you decide to blow your car up once you get to destination, like we now do for rockets.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    > yes, but the cost of using your car for a drive from home to work is basically the cost of car fuel. No, it isn't. Insurance, license, registration, annual inspection, tires, wear-and-tear, maintenance, depreciation... and imagine if I needed a fully-staffed mission control at my house every time I took a ride. Reusable rockets may reduce costs, but chances are it won't be by 100x.
    - kalininalex 14y ago
      If we assume two things: the current cost of fuel is 1% of the total launch cost, and launching a reusable rocket is similar to operating an aircraft, then we can use numbers from commercial aviation: - the cost of fuel is 35% of the total cost. The total cost of the rocket launch then will be 3 times its fuel cost, or 3% of the _current_ expense. That's savings of 97%. Even if the analogy is not perfect and we make numerous allowances, the potential for cost-cutting by 80-90% is not inconceivable. Again, this is based on the two assumptions above. If they are totally off, so are these calculations.
      - pyre 14y ago
        I would assume that air traffic control is similar to ground control for the purposes of this analogy. Does that 35% number take into account the costs of air traffic control? I'm assuming that the airport (and not the airlines) covers those costs.

luckystarr 14y ago

ESA has to battle its 'cash cow syndrome'. This is going to be interesting.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

This shouldn't be a controversial statement. The Ariane 5 is one of the more expensive launch vehicles on the market right now. It's telling that CNES/ESA has brought the Soyuz to Guiana for launches, because it is massively cheaper than the Ariane 5. 2013 is going to be the defining year for SpaceX, I think. They've already proven that they are rather uniquely capable in banging out rockets and spacecraft that work at a tremendously low cost, but 2013 will prove their operational mettle, especially for commercial launches. It will show whether or not they can meet schedules, launch reliably, and maintain their existing cost structures. And if they do all of that, they will gain the trust of the people who hold the purse strings of the world's satellite launch budgets (although they already made a tremendous first effort in that regard). More so, the Falcon Heavy and the Falcon 9 v1.1 are a much bigger deal than people give credit for. Things like the "grasshopper" Falcon 9 first stage reusability test-bed and the manned Dragon capsule development gain a lot of attention, but the v1.1 and the heavy are going to be the crowbars that utterly disrupt the spaceflight industry. See, with Falcon 9 v1.0 they are already on a dramatically different cost structure. With v1.1 they will reduce their manufacturing costs, increase reliability, and increase the payload capacity by about 40%. This will make it a lot easier to do dual and multiple launches at extremely competitive prices. Also, it will allow them to underbid the competition incrementally while raking in massive profits. The Falcon Heavy will use just under 3x the components of a Falcon 9 v1.1 but it will have nearly 5x the payload capacity. This means that it can do multiple launches for crazy cheap. Also, it will be a pretty tempting target for governments to use for manned spaceflight. For example, it could be capable of sending a manned capsule into lunar orbit, which would be super useful for any sort of activities NASA decides to perform out there. Additionally, it might encourage folks to develop extremely massive payloads (next generation commsats or manned space station components) which are incapable of being launched by any other vehicle. SpaceX is rapidly moving into territory where they are untouchable. Already no other company (and no government either) can return large cargo from the ISS, for example. Soon they will be the only commercial company capable of sending astronauts into orbit. And just as soon they will be the only launch provider capable of putting 50 tonne payloads into LEO or 10 tonne payloads into GEO or on an interplanetary trajectory.

w1ntermute 14y ago

drzaiusapelord 14y ago

Its hopeless for the ESA. On one hand you have a super nimble startup vs a nationalized industry whose decisions makers span different countries, all of whom have a political dog in this fight. SpaceX's biggest advantage isn't Musk or its team, its that its not hamstrung by the Congress and Senate on how to do things and historically their demands to move pork into their home states. Nor is the air force demanding design requirements like they did with the shuttle. Too many cooks for the ESA.

hazov 14y ago
For now at least, I wish SpaceX success. I also wish some nationalist scumbag in US Congress do not try to control this industry with some type of weapon regulation.
- EthanHeilman 14y ago
  In all fairness, regulating rockets that can put something in orbit is probably a good idea. A Falcon 9 is basically an ballistic missile that can drop a nuclear weapon (even a giant, heavy north korean nuke) anywhere on the globe (from any direction, see Fractional Orbital Bombardment). The ability to buy falcon 9's on the open market would greatly decrease the cost of developing a nuclear deterrent (since you don't need to develop a delivery system and you don't have miniaturize your warhead) likely leading to a large number of states starting nuclear weapons programs. This is the reason the US and USSR worked so hard to kill cheap commercial space flight in the 1980's.
  - AnIrishDuck 14y ago
    My understanding is they're already regulated under export control. SpaceX would probably need an export license from Congress to ship Falcon 9s out of the country. This is highly unlikely to ever happen for the reasons you state.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      What about something that looked like a regular comms satellite but in fact was something completely different? Does SpaceX get to inspect the guts of what they launch?

nachteilig 14y ago

I was really pretty pessimistic about space travel when NASA announced they would shift some of their duties to the private sector, but Elon Musk has really made this idea exciting in the same way he did with electric cars. It really makes me believe that companies need a strong personality like his or Jobs' to get the public excited about new/revitalized sectors.

rdl 14y ago

It's cute that ESA tries to claim SpaceX will get more expensive and less reliable as they scale up to (sort of) mass production. Uh, no. If you're going for FUD, at least be plausible. More likely would be "SpaceX might go out of business if the market softens or they hit serious technical problems, whereas EADS can guilt European governments into funding it indefinitely" (true) or "SpaceX won't customize launchers for unique European requirements" (wtf) or "EADS allows Europeans to maintain employment and skills in critical launch industries in the event ICBMs become necessary" (I really hope this is never the reason...).

danmaz74 14y ago
To be fair, the claim isn't that they will get less reliable with time. It is that time will show how much they are really reliable, and the costs of possible failures would have to be included in the cost structure.
_delirium 14y ago
> "EADS allows Europeans to maintain employment and skills in critical launch industries in the event ICBMs become necessary" EADS is the world's 2nd-largest producer of missiles, and produces a pretty large proportion of European militaries' missiles, so not entirely implausible. Of course, they could refocus: most of the missiles (the French Exocet, the British ASRAAM, etc.) are not ICBMs and don't share all that much technology with space launches.
stcredzero 14y ago
> It's cute that ESA tries to claim SpaceX will get more expensive and less reliable as they scale up to (sort of) mass production. Uh, no. If you're going for FUD, at least be plausible I wonder why they put that shot of his hands in the video. In any case, the look in Elon's eyes when he says Ariane 5 has no hope is very telling, in SpaceX's favor.
w1ntermute 14y ago
I can definitely see EADS getting more subsidies from the government to keep themselves afloat. Playing the "national security" angle is usually pretty effective.

jobigoud 14y ago

"The upgrade of Ariane 5 - known as Ariane 5 ME" I have a bad feeling about this…

notjustanymike 14y ago
Don't worry, they're hard at work on Ariane RT SP1
StavrosK 14y ago
"Take ME home"?
- dantkz 14y ago
  Windows ME
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    Yeah, that was the slogan.

znowi 14y ago

ESA is in a difficult situation to compete with a privately owned, agile, startup in spirit company. I suspect ESA is not much different to NASA in operation. And as Musk pointed out, the latter has two major problems: 1) fear of innovation and 2) inefficient production. First is a catch 22 where no components can be used in space unless proven to work in space. Second is multiple chains of subcontractors until you reach a manufacturing process. It's fine tuned to cash extraction, not product efficiency. I looked up some numbers. Falcon 9 costs about $5k per kg to launch. Falcon Heavy is expected at almost $2k. While competitors run at $10k and more. The only viable competitor seems to be the Russians with their trusted Soyuz and Angara series, currently in development.

riffraff 14y ago

no comments on the recent VEGA thingy? Was that DOA ? http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMBTKYXHYG_index_0.html http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMBTKYXHYG_index_0.html

maaku 14y ago
1,5000kg to LEO doesn't put it anywhere near F9 or FH.

j_col 14y ago

My understanding is that one of the key advantages that Ariane has over it's rivals is it's launch site near the equator (http://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-intro/overview.asp http://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-intro/overview.asp). Is this saving negated by other factors, when compared to SpaceX?

InclinedPlane 14y ago
That's only an incremental advantage. Note that SpaceX also has an equatorial launch site but they haven't used it since the Falcon 1 because it's just not as practical as operating out of Florida/California. Comparatively, SpaceX is operating a much simpler rocket that is manufactured much less expensively than the Ariane 5, by about a factor of 10 or so.
stcredzero 14y ago
The cost of fuel is under 3% of total launch costs.
schiffern 14y ago
As far as centrifugal advantage, SpaceX gets 88% as much launching from KSC in Florida. There's also an advantage for geostationary satellites (you avoid an inclination burn) but I'm not sure how large that would be.

rational_indian 14y ago

Just curious...can someone knowledgeable in these matters comment on how the Indian GSLV ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launch... ) compares to the SpaceX rockets?

jakeonthemove 14y ago

How about the ESA just starts using Falcons - then the prices will go down even further and they can focus more on actually putting good stuff in space rather on how to do it...

microcentury 14y ago

This is slightly off topic, but I would just _love_ to know how Musk manages his time. He has the same number of hours as the rest of us - how does he divide them between his personal research and actually getting stuff done? What percentage does he spend on marketing versus engineering, PR versus logistics, and on and on... Man I would love to have a drink with that guy. There has been no other contemporary person in any sphere of human endeavour I have been so fan-boyish about.

sentinel 14y ago

Actually, he was apparently misquoted: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/270776170184847360 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/270776170184847360