5 ms·

> it will allow them to underbid the competition incrementally while raking in massive profits I never thought of SpaceX as being something Musk was in for the

> it will allow them to underbid the competition incrementally while raking in massive profits I never thought of SpaceX as being something Musk was in for the money (based on interviews with him that I've read), but it sounds like if he can significantly lower costs and keep his technology secret, incrementally underbidding the competition will make him extremely rich.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
You have to think about it several ways. The more profit they rake in the easier it will be to stick around. Also, the more they'll be able to spend on R&D for manned spaceflight, reusable launchers, future redesigns, Mars missions, etc. Apparently they're working on a next gen rocket engine which will probably be much larger and powered by methane and oxygen, which they might use as the basis of a super heavy lift launcher which would make manned Mars missions almost easy.
- larrydag 14y ago
  The big picture for Musk and SpaceX is Mars. The more profitability yields more R&D. The more R&D yields more capable rockets. The more capable rockets yields a better pathway to Mars. It's pretty much spelled out at the SpaceX website.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    While that's all true, a Mars mission can't possibly funded by SpaceX itself, which means he's going to have to convince Congress or some international consortium that it's worth doing at probably $1T. I don't see that happening. Space buffs are all excited over SpaceX (with good reason), but the general public has pretty much lost interest in manned space. Manned launches to the ISS don't even make the general news anymore despite NASA's rather formidable PR machine. The first manned Dragon launch will make the news, but only the first. Politicians (particularly presidents) keep proposing Mars missions but always push funding decisions far enough into the future someone else is going to have to deal with paying for it. The public has caught on by now, so every new Mars mission proposal is greeted with a collective yawn.
    - cryptoz 14y ago
      The idea that a Mars mission would cost on the order of $1T is absurd. More reasonable estimates place it around $50 billion. The rest of your comment is ridiculous as it's based on such an absolutely outrageous estimate. SpaceX could probably do it alone if they have to. For example, Apple has enough in the bank to afford it alone right now. And we're talking about 10-15 years of SpaceX development and revenue before a Mars mission. Also note that most Mars mission costs include R&D to build a rocket to go there, of which SpaceX has already done huge amounts. Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        >Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive. This is what I hate about space enthusiasts. You do a back-of-the-envelop calculation ignoring all the political wrangling, the on-again, off-again political support, the inevitable development setbacks, etc. In other words, you ignore the cost drivers of every single other space program in history and come up with a number that's an order of magnitude (at least) too low. If you actually got political approval for such a thing taxpayers would (justly) feel hoodwinked as program costs spiral upwards. It would be lucky to survive to completion. Based on other big government projects (like the F-22, for instance), the $1T figure is probably a little on the low side. The idea you could send people to Mars and bring them back for $50Bn, less than it costs to build a HSR line from LA to San Francisco, is sheer stupidity.
        cryptoz 14y ago
        The mission we're talking about does not require political support. All of your arguments stem from big government waste, taxpayer indecision, etc. And you'd be right, if we were talking about NASA. But we're not. Why are you comparing daring space missions to rail or airplanes?! How about comparing to other space missions? Take the Apollo program. The entire program, with six moon landings, cost about $100 billion in 2010 dollars, and it was done half a century ago. We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a half a century of technology and advancement. Yes, Mars is tougher than the Moon - but not that much tougher. Space travel just isn't as expensive as you think it is. Not anymore.
- gingerbreadman 14y ago
  From what I have read, it looks like the core of the spaceX program is built around super-efficient merlin 1-D engine still around development. They will undercut and profit, if they are able to beat the NK-33 which is in use under various other names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_en...
elteto 14y ago
While he is probably not doing it for the money, he has to answer to investors and they are definitely in it to make a profit. Also he has repeatedly said (lacking source, can't remember) that SpaceX has to be, first and foremost, a profitable company focused on developing their business. If SpaceX is not around for the long haul, how is he going to execute all of his ideas?
- maxerickson 14y ago
  Wikipedia links this Forbes article that states that he owns 2/3s of SpaceX: http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/03/12/how-elon-musk-became-a-billionaire-twice-over/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/03/12/how-elon-m... That isn't a very long list of investors to answer to.
  - maaku 14y ago
    Minority shareholders have rights, and Elon has a fiduciary duty to act in their interests.
    - xyzzy123 14y ago
      I would like to promote the "shareholder value myth" as a meme. I would love it if one day people will reply with "shareholder value myth" as reflexively as they reply with "broken window economics!" or "correlation != causation!". Minority shareholders do have rights, but the board of SpaceX can, within reason, damn well do what they please. Please see e.g: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-sharehol...
      - 001sky 14y ago
        Fiduciary duty is not a myth. Other than that, i have no concerns.
      - InclinedPlane 14y ago
        The duty of a publicly held company (which SpaceX is not, yet) is to do what its shareholders desire. Which may be to maximize "shareholder value" but may not be. We tend to think of corporations as money engines, money goes in and more money comes out. But that's an oversimplification. Look at kickstarter as an example of how investment need not always be about strict financial return but also about creation and other goals.
jlgreco 14y ago
His initial plan was to stick a greenhouse on Mars with an ICBM; no profit whatsoever. Obviously his plan has evolved and grown in ambition since then, he seems to want to turn a profit now, but I think it is fair to say he didn't originally decided to get into spaceflight to get rich.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

You have to think about it several ways. The more profit they rake in the easier it will be to stick around. Also, the more they'll be able to spend on R&D for manned spaceflight, reusable launchers, future redesigns, Mars missions, etc. Apparently they're working on a next gen rocket engine which will probably be much larger and powered by methane and oxygen, which they might use as the basis of a super heavy lift launcher which would make manned Mars missions almost easy.

larrydag 14y ago
The big picture for Musk and SpaceX is Mars. The more profitability yields more R&D. The more R&D yields more capable rockets. The more capable rockets yields a better pathway to Mars. It's pretty much spelled out at the SpaceX website.
- tsotha 14y ago
  While that's all true, a Mars mission can't possibly funded by SpaceX itself, which means he's going to have to convince Congress or some international consortium that it's worth doing at probably $1T. I don't see that happening. Space buffs are all excited over SpaceX (with good reason), but the general public has pretty much lost interest in manned space. Manned launches to the ISS don't even make the general news anymore despite NASA's rather formidable PR machine. The first manned Dragon launch will make the news, but only the first. Politicians (particularly presidents) keep proposing Mars missions but always push funding decisions far enough into the future someone else is going to have to deal with paying for it. The public has caught on by now, so every new Mars mission proposal is greeted with a collective yawn.
  - cryptoz 14y ago
    The idea that a Mars mission would cost on the order of $1T is absurd. More reasonable estimates place it around $50 billion. The rest of your comment is ridiculous as it's based on such an absolutely outrageous estimate. SpaceX could probably do it alone if they have to. For example, Apple has enough in the bank to afford it alone right now. And we're talking about 10-15 years of SpaceX development and revenue before a Mars mission. Also note that most Mars mission costs include R&D to build a rocket to go there, of which SpaceX has already done huge amounts. Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      >Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive. This is what I hate about space enthusiasts. You do a back-of-the-envelop calculation ignoring all the political wrangling, the on-again, off-again political support, the inevitable development setbacks, etc. In other words, you ignore the cost drivers of every single other space program in history and come up with a number that's an order of magnitude (at least) too low. If you actually got political approval for such a thing taxpayers would (justly) feel hoodwinked as program costs spiral upwards. It would be lucky to survive to completion. Based on other big government projects (like the F-22, for instance), the $1T figure is probably a little on the low side. The idea you could send people to Mars and bring them back for $50Bn, less than it costs to build a HSR line from LA to San Francisco, is sheer stupidity.
      - cryptoz 14y ago
        The mission we're talking about does not require political support. All of your arguments stem from big government waste, taxpayer indecision, etc. And you'd be right, if we were talking about NASA. But we're not. Why are you comparing daring space missions to rail or airplanes?! How about comparing to other space missions? Take the Apollo program. The entire program, with six moon landings, cost about $100 billion in 2010 dollars, and it was done half a century ago. We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a half a century of technology and advancement. Yes, Mars is tougher than the Moon - but not that much tougher. Space travel just isn't as expensive as you think it is. Not anymore.
gingerbreadman 14y ago
From what I have read, it looks like the core of the spaceX program is built around super-efficient merlin 1-D engine still around development. They will undercut and profit, if they are able to beat the NK-33 which is in use under various other names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_en...

elteto 14y ago

While he is probably not doing it for the money, he has to answer to investors and they are definitely in it to make a profit. Also he has repeatedly said (lacking source, can't remember) that SpaceX has to be, first and foremost, a profitable company focused on developing their business. If SpaceX is not around for the long haul, how is he going to execute all of his ideas?

maxerickson 14y ago
Wikipedia links this Forbes article that states that he owns 2/3s of SpaceX: http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/03/12/how-elon-musk-became-a-billionaire-twice-over/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/03/12/how-elon-m... That isn't a very long list of investors to answer to.
- maaku 14y ago
  Minority shareholders have rights, and Elon has a fiduciary duty to act in their interests.
  - xyzzy123 14y ago
    I would like to promote the "shareholder value myth" as a meme. I would love it if one day people will reply with "shareholder value myth" as reflexively as they reply with "broken window economics!" or "correlation != causation!". Minority shareholders do have rights, but the board of SpaceX can, within reason, damn well do what they please. Please see e.g: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-sharehol...
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Fiduciary duty is not a myth. Other than that, i have no concerns.
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      The duty of a publicly held company (which SpaceX is not, yet) is to do what its shareholders desire. Which may be to maximize "shareholder value" but may not be. We tend to think of corporations as money engines, money goes in and more money comes out. But that's an oversimplification. Look at kickstarter as an example of how investment need not always be about strict financial return but also about creation and other goals.

jlgreco 14y ago

His initial plan was to stick a greenhouse on Mars with an ICBM; no profit whatsoever. Obviously his plan has evolved and grown in ambition since then, he seems to want to turn a profit now, but I think it is fair to say he didn't originally decided to get into spaceflight to get rich.