tater Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 https://equidateinc.com/company/space-exploration-technologies 21.2 B$... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 That rising curve looks pretty amazing Hopefully more people will want to make money in space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Scotius said: That rising curve looks pretty amazing Hopefully more people will want to make money in space. Let's all hope the Falcon Heavy rises as energetically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten Key Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 10 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Let's all hope the Falcon Heavy rises as energetically. But not too energetically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, Ten Key said: But not too energetically. As long as it's still going up... they'll call that a win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, tater said: https://equidateinc.com/company/space-exploration-technologies 21.2 B$... "Space Exploration Technologies is a space transport startup" Startup? Edited July 28, 2017 by _Augustus_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Elon Musk is now saying FH launches by November. I'm going to go mark my calendar for late December... In all seriousness, this will be awesome to see finally fly and even more awesome if it flies in November! I don't want to jinx it, but... Spoiler Last year they were saying October. Then Amos happened. Please, physics! Don't be RUDe to us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 9 hours ago, Scotius said: That rising curve looks pretty amazing Hopefully more people will want to make money in space. That rising curve is very pretty, but it's the stock market's estimation of value - which may or may not bear any relationship to reality or the amount of money a company is making. It's the numbers in the next panel down which are interesting - SpaceX is still eating capital at a frightening rate. A company that's making money in any significant amount doesn't need massive ongoing infusions of capital.https://www.axios.com/founders-fund-partner-leaves-to-launch-spacex-focused-fund-2466277199.html - the backstory here, if we ever hear it, will be interesting. But the tl;dr version is simple enough, SpaceX needs so much funding that someone is founding a company dedicated to supplying that need (and siphoning off their share via commissions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 I assume all 27 engines will be at full throttle at launch, with the core throttling down shortly before Max-Q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racescort666 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 11 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: "Space Exploration Technologies is a space transport startup" Startup? Effectively yes, they still require capital from investors and haven't stabilized into a profitable company. The valuation is just an estimate of future value of the company (it's more nuanced than that but it's the basic idea). They're probably more profitable than Tesla which still has a net loss and also a ridiculously high valuation. To me, the biggest difference between Tesla and SpaceX is that the launch market isn't saturated while automotive is definitely saturated and mature. The auto companies are very streamlined in their process, development, procurement, etc. to reduce their costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Spoiler 11 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: 16 hours ago, tater said: https://equidateinc.com/company/space-exploration-technologies 21.2 B$... "Space Exploration Technologies is a space transport startup" Startup? Of course. It starts and flies up. What's wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 15 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: As long as it's still going up... they'll call that a win. What percentage of the airframe are we talking about here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastleKSide Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 23 minutes ago, KSK said: What percentage of the airframe are we talking about here? The payload. As long as the payload is always going up the launch is a success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 1 hour ago, KSK said: What percentage of the airframe are we talking about here? Enough that it won't hurt the pad if it comes back down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Racescort666 said: Effectively yes, they still require capital from investors and haven't stabilized into a profitable company. The valuation is just an estimate of future value of the company (it's more nuanced than that but it's the basic idea). They're probably more profitable than Tesla which still has a net loss and also a ridiculously high valuation. To me, the biggest difference between Tesla and SpaceX is that the launch market isn't saturated while automotive is definitely saturated and mature. The auto companies are very streamlined in their process, development, procurement, etc. to reduce their costs. Presumably if they had enough warning from investors they could drastically raise prices and still have a "mostly full" manifest. I'd assume that they aren't charging "enough" money in order to get the volumes they want (while building a rocket has to be at least a $30M proposition, *designing* a rocket is in the billions. Additional volume isn't terribly expensive). Presumably this follows from Musk's strategic perspective. I'm still shocked that they keep prices so low if they are still losing money. I'd expect ULA to be all over them (or not. They probably don't want to admit just how much they are charging the federal government). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 This NSF post has a cool image of various craft, including original and 9m ITS concepts.: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43427.msg1707855#msg1707855 The volume of the payload are of that 9m craft is about the same as the passenger volume of a 747 as a reality check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Where are the legs? It needs legs. Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Noice, Sunday launch with RTLS! if I don't melt by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidAndy Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 why was the Falcon Heavy launch pushed back to November? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 17 minutes ago, StupidAndy said: why was the Falcon Heavy launch pushed back to November? Probably something related to all that "this is going to be really hard and it's likely to explode (sic)" talk from Elon a few weeks back. It's been speculated by those running the numbers that a pushback to at least November was likely anyway. The question is, have they been putting this range-mandated down time to good use at 39b? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidAndy Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Just now, CatastrophicFailure said: The question is, have they been putting this range-mandated down time to good use at 39b? well 39b is still controlled by nasa, but i don't know what they would do besides take down that shuttle thing on the tower at 39a, wait i know where something is! From the SpaceX subreddit thing: it looks like they almost got the thing down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 24 minutes ago, StupidAndy said: why was the Falcon Heavy launch pushed back to November? It's been this way for a long time. Months ago we knew it would be August before SLC-40 was repaired, and we've been told that getting 39A ready for FH would take about 60 days after the crews finished 40. That got it at best as mid October, but also fitting with the rest of the schedule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racescort666 Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 16 hours ago, tater said: It's been this way for a long time. Months ago we knew it would be August before SLC-40 was repaired, and we've been told that getting 39A ready for FH would take about 60 days after the crews finished 40. That got it at best as mid October, but also fitting with the rest of the schedule. It's also worth noting that the last launch on LC-39A is listed as OTV-5 on September 7th according to SpaceFlight Now and the rest of the F9 flights don't have a pad listed for the east coast launches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.