What do you think about SpaceX?

[Spaceception]

2 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

I really don't know how wealthy Musk is, only that most of his wealth is in the stock of his companies.

$13 billion.

[Kryten]

1 hour ago, insert_name said:

SpaceX is not subsidized by NASA, NASA is SpaceX's customer beause NASA pays SpaceX to develop a system to launch crew and then launch crew.

They got development funds for a commercial product, how is that not a subsidy?

[PB666]

1 hour ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

I wish I knew how to break up quotes on this forum.

The problem is that he doesn't actually have a huge amount of money. He may be worth a good amount but a large amount of that is based on how much he could sell his assets for and not his liquid assets. They need money from selling services or subsidization. They cannot survive on their own just doing cool things.

It is actually quite easy to call what they have done not revolutionary. They haven't done anything significantly revolutionary, they have made some evolutionary improvements like the supercooling for cryo systems but that is not revolutionary. Landing a rocket vertically is not revolutionary, we've done that before and even so it doesn't make a bit of difference right now. If they can demonstrate extended re-usability and significantly reduced costs for the the system then there would be a discussion. At this point they have not achieved anything revolutionary. Maybe they will at some point and when that happens that'll be a different discussion. Even the lower cost isn't a revolutionary aspect, its amazing how much cost you can cut by overworking people and using low-paid intern hoards. 

Without a significant profit a company cannot serve, regardless of how noble their goals may be.

Yes, SpaceX employees have a choice. This is why they leave. They only survive right now because they are popular. That won't continue forever and when it does they will either have to radically alter their corporate culture or die.

There is a reason traditional business thinking is traditional business thinking, it is a timeproven way business works. It isn't how Musk thinks about it, its about what works and what doesn't. No good idea that requires a lot of money no matter how cool it may be will survive without customers and a market.

They are the only group pursuing a Mars initiative because everyone else realizes there is not a market nor money available. Also we have no idea if their idea is reasonable or even at least feasible at this point. We know literally almost nothing about it. Speculation is ultimately useless. Until the data speaks it is nothing but hype.

I've been a space x sceptic, there are no good odds in that, when they fail, the get up dust off and in a coupke of months try again, in can  name many space agencies that have failed, it takes a decade for them to recover. Lets talk about the Mars curse, is the another beagle enroute? What does things in space is perserverance through the adversity, Space X, they've got knack. I wouldn't  fly on their rocket, but i don't see europe or china sending manned rockets in plentitude either. Space X is going to basically put country run launch systems to the test. Some are not going to compete. 

[tater]

1 hour ago, insert_name said:

SpaceX is not subsidized by NASA, NASA is SpaceX's customer beause NASA pays SpaceX to develop a system to launch crew and then launch crew.

They are absolutely subsidized. Commercial crew has paid to develop the D2. Unsubsidized would require that SpaceX not see a penny until they delivered a finished product.

BTW, you break quotes by placing the cursor in the quote, then hitting return a few times. I cannot reliably say when or how it works, I'm constantly surprised when it does.

[Kryten]

1 minute ago, tater said:

They are absolutely subsidized. Commercial crew has paid to develop the D2. Unsubsidized would require that SpaceX not see a penny until they delivered a finished product.

They were also paid to develop Dragon 1 and F9 through COTS, and they got funding to develop Falcon 1 through the DARPA FALCON programme.

[tater]

Yep, I forgot that. Tesla, Solar City, and SpaceX have apparently gotten over 5 billion in government money so far (LA Times story from last year).

[A Fuzzy Velociraptor]

31 minutes ago, PB666 said:

I've been a space x sceptic, there are no good odds in that, when they fail, the get up dust off and in a coupke of months try again, in can  name many space agencies that have failed, it takes a decade for them to recover. Lets talk about the Mars curse, is the another beagle enroute? What does things in space is perserverance through the adversity, Space X, they've got knack. I wouldn't  fly on their rocket, but i don't see europe or china sending manned rockets in plentitude either. Space X is going to basically put country run launch systems to the test. Some are not going to compete. 

Please forgive me, but I don't actually understand what you are trying to say.

[Nibb31]

4 hours ago, Kryten said:

They were also paid to develop Dragon 1 and F9 through COTS, and they got funding to develop Falcon 1 through the DARPA FALCON programme.

And the Merlin engine was based on a NASA reference design.

[PB666]

18 hours ago, tater said:

They are absolutely subsidized. Commercial crew has paid to develop the D2.

Well, it was afterall the desire of NASA for repetitive features to be privatized. I don't consider that subsidization, I call that looking at hapless Soyuz performance of late and having no shuttle and needing an alternative to at least get food and fuel to the ISS and collaborating. If we had a working shuttle program and we were still fueling space X development, then it would be a subsidy.

 

18 hours ago, tater said:

[something about breaking up quotes, unfortunately that which was to be quoted was lost]

Ah hah it works one out of 5 times, thanks I think.

 

[Wjolcz]

Call me starry-eyed but I actually believe they can and want to achieve something unusual. I want to see human race go places and that company actually gives me hopes and makes me believe it's possible.

Elon seems to be someone who actually wants to change the world and has resources to do that.

[AngelLestat]

I'm not in favor of subsidies, but there are 2 kinds
-The subsidy that help to private companies to develop a product or service that the country needs.
-The subsidy that help to private companies to maintain a product at certain price.

We can skip the reasons why Tesla, Solar City or the GigaFactory receive some amount of subsidies, most reasons may be understandable and not really needed.
But analysing the SpaceX case.. the important is that they don't have or need a subsidy to operate.

ULA on the other hand had both kind of subsidies and its operation subsidy was removed, which force them to rise its price from 125 to 200m on the Atlas.
Some people critic that spacex salaries are under the average for the industry, but employees receive valuable experience and stability.  
ULA now needs to fire 350 employees in this year and 500 for the next year, that happens when a company is not cost efficient.

Even with those measures, ULA seems far to become profitable.  Their vulcan rocket will be ready in 4 to 5 years with a expected cost of 100m and at that time spacex cost will be close to 40m or lower, maybe launching 1 rocket by week.
They will have even the Falcon Heavy in operation and maybe developing the MCT.
Ariane rocket will have a cost a 77m with the opportunity to launch 2 big sats in one mission.

So giving those values and accomplishments, not sure how somebody can still flagging against spacex.

Ah.. and spacex wants to land its dragonv2 capsule in mars by 2018.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11514844/spacex-mars-mission-date-red-dragon-rocket-elon-musk

Edited April 27, 2016 by AngelLestat

[tater]

The reasons it gets subsidy for solar and tesla are 100% political. 

[A Fuzzy Velociraptor]

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

Some people critic that spacex salaries are under the average for the industry, but employees receive valuable experience and stability.  
ULA now needs to fire 350 employees in this year and 500 for the next year, that happens when a company is not cost efficient.

Even with those measures, ULA seems far to become profitable.  Their vulcan rocket will be ready in 4 to 5 years with a expected cost of 100m and at that time spacex cost will be close to 40m or lower, maybe launching 1 rocket by week.
They will have even the Falcon Heavy in operation and maybe developing the MCT.
Ariane rocket will have a cost a 77m with the opportunity to launch 2 big sats in one mission.

So giving those values and accomplishments, not sure how somebody can still flagging against spacex.

ULA needs to lay-off employees not fire them. There is a large difference and that is an effect of changes in government spending on a defense contractor, and effect seen by a very large number of defense contractors. It isn't a matter that they are just wildly inefficient and didn't plan or know how to use budgets or business plans. Also experience is not a payment method not has spacex demonstrated significant stability and actually may be seen to be the opposite given the very high turnover rate of their workforce.

A cost which they claim with a system that is currently not proven with many unknowns with a frequency claim the market does not support.

Ariane is heavy subsidized by the governments of France and Italy to keep costs low so not really relevant. Also if you are referring to Ariane 5, the cost is 200M per launch.

They claim values but have yet to make accomplishments. Honestly I would love to see them accomplish what they claim and I think the excitement they have generated towards space is fantastic, but until the data speaks it is just hype.

Edited April 27, 2016 by A Fuzzy Velociraptor

[AngelLestat]

1 hour ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

ULA needs to lay-off employees not fire them.

They still get paid?

1 hour ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

There is a large difference and that is an effect of changes in government spending on a defense contractor, and effect seen by a very large number of defense contractors.

This is because they will not longer receive the 800 millions that the government give them each year, now they need to compete with spacex for defense launches, so they totally abandoned the deltaIV now and eventually the atlas V.  
That is why they no longer need those workers, now they need to choose if they focus in the Vulcan, or if they make a new design, or if they close the company. They did not said nothing yet.. so I suppose they will keep focus in the Vulcan (which would be a waste of money)

1 hour ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

A cost which they claim with a system that is currently not proven with many unknowns with a frequency claim the market does not support.

Their cost had always sense for me, the benefits had also totally sense for me..
 Since 2013 that I am explaining with details and logic why I think reusability has totally sense, from the hardware and process  perspective, and also from the economic and client perspective. The reality provides each month with some news that support my theory since 2013.  

1 hour ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

Ariane is heavy subsidized by the governments of France and Italy to keep costs low so not really relevant. Also if you are referring to Ariane 5, the cost is 200M per launch.

Ok, I wanna said Ariane 6, not sure if it will be subsidized too.

1 hour ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

They claim values but have yet to make accomplishments. Honestly I would love to see them accomplish what they claim and I think the excitement they have generated towards space is fantastic, but until the data speaks it is just hype.

Is possible that you will not need to wait so much.. In june or july they could refly one stage, maybe at 40m..  although I guess all clients already may the normal pay, so not sure how they will handle this.

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

On 4/27/2016 at 2:13 AM, Nibb31 said:

DARPA FALCON

COOL!

[Rakaydos]

On 4/27/2016 at 11:13 PM, Nibb31 said:

And the Merlin engine was based on a NASA reference design.

I've been looking for a source for this, for a research paper I'm writing, but I'm having difficulty finding one. Help me out?

[Kryten]

33 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

I've been looking for a source for this, for a research paper I'm writing, but I'm having difficulty finding one. Help me out?

This is the postulated Merlin-FASTRAC connection; it's been arrived to because Merlin 1A and FASTRAC have similar performance, are pintle-based engines, had ablative nozzles, and had turbopumps from the same manufacturer, Barber-Nichols. However, Barber-Nichols say that the turbopump for Merlin-1A was a clean-sheet design relative to their earlier pumps for FASTRAC and Bantam (what later become RS-68), and there's a more obvious source for the pintle architecture and ablative nozzle; Tom Mueller and his work at TRW. Mueller was a lead designer for a series of pintle engines at TRW in late 90s and early 2000s, and went on to be a founding member of SpaceX.

 

Since most of this work is from the early 2000s there's been a lot of link rot since, and TRW don't even exist anymore as a separate company. Older versions of the SpaceX website give some detail of his work with TRW; 

( http://web.archive.org/web/20130425020246/http://www.spacex.com/company.php )

and older versions of Lockheed Martin's (who acquired TRW) website give a few more details about the engines themselves, including the pintle architecture and ablative nozzle;

( https://web.archive.org/web/20100523105238/http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/booster_vehicle_eng/index.html )

Edited May 1, 2016 by Kryten

[DDE]

On ‎27‎.‎04‎.‎2016 at 4:10 AM, Kryten said:

They got development funds for a commercial product, how is that not a subsidy?

Because it's not a subsidy if you get services in return?

[Nibb31]

16 minutes ago, DDE said:

Because it's not a subsidy if you get services in return?

It's a subsidy if the company sells the same services, that the government paid to develop, to other customers at a lower price.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Because it's not a subsidy if you get services in return?

It is and it isn't. It isn't a subsidy  in that NASA ultimately benefits if SpaceX is successful, and they are paying at least something to use gov't launch facilities and it makes it looks good that the taxpayers investment in Canaveral is bring back jobs to the good ole US of A while using something that is essentially retired public space. SpaceX is launching both US used and non-US used equipment, So from that point of view we are subsidizing Thailand's satellites, which is OK we can write that off as international support. It is a subsidy in the sense that SpaceX will eventually have a second launch facility and they will be launching stuff from other countries and companies from that facility with a good deal of independence from NASA, but if NASA needs a whole lot of payload in space for a interplanetary mission then they benefit from having a number of independent launch facilities on US turf. IF the F9 is really the cheapest means of getting fuel into LEO, then that's what you want. 

SpaceX and NASA are like neighbor kids taking a bath together, under the soap suds is difficult to know where one ends and the other begins. And BTW, if you take a look at the relationship between Boeing or some of the other defense tech firms you will find that there are more cozier relationships. At least with NASA you have transparency, with the defense launches you are going to lose alot of that. Oh sure we will know the cost someday, but not right away.

[Kryten]

22 hours ago, DDE said:

Because it's not a subsidy if you get services in return?

They didn't get a service for the development funding. Development and actual service procurement were separate programmes.