An SSTO as "God and Robert Heinlein intended".

[RGClark]

...
Also "discussing with SpaceX" ... where was THAT said there?

About 23 and 1/2 minutes in, a question is asked about how NASA is planning to land large masses on Mars, which would be needed for a manned mission. After possibilities such as hypersonic inflatables are mentioned, there is also mentioned the possibility of retro rocket firing during a hypersonic reentry. This is when it is mentioned discussions with SpaceX about their rocket decelerated reentry of the F9 v1.1 first stage.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

Musk wants.

Musk gets.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Musk gets.

Somebody else pays.

 

[RGClark]

50,000 dollars per launch.... "100 fold reduction" to the Falcon 9, which then costs 5 million per launch - instead of the 50-60 million that he says in the beginning (which is still damn low - the older Delta 2 costs the same - bit the 60 million )...
They should really get a guy to step on Elons feet when ever he starts talking about something involving numbers or math...
That number would be enough money to just pay 10 engineers for one week , without any spare parts or transportation costs. Ten times more would still be very low, 5 million would be a more realistic value if you have a good reuse ratio. If he would let Volkswagen of America assembly line workers handle the job, the $50,000 would be enough for 30 workers in a week.

Everyone is allowed to criticize. But he has an MBA from the best business school in the United States and has created three billion dollar companies in three different fields. I think he and his engineers have actually run the numbers to lead them to conclude the cost to orbit can be cut by two orders of magnitude by reusability.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 12:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

Somebody else pays.

That's how you make profit. In some quarters that's still not a bad word.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

This is when it is mentioned discussions with SpaceX about their rocket decelerated reentry of the F9 v1.1 first stage.

So I didn't miss it in my memory. You just misquote again.

In the context of supersonic rocket decelleration, they are "looking at what companies, notably SpaceX, do there". This is not discussing with SpaceX to do anything together - just observing how they are performing there. Since SpaceX is the only company currently attempting something there actively, this is no surprise. The DC-X program that achieved the same as the Grasshopper, is long in the past.

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

Everyone is allowed to criticize. But he has an MBA from the best business school in the United States and has created three billion dollar companies in three different fields.

Last time I looked, being capable of dividing by 100 is prerequisite of any MBA curriculum, not just in metric countries.

Also, you should already know, that titles and "being from the best business school in the USA" (so had been the people who got us into the subprime crisis and who made Greece a formidable Eurozone candidate) is no reason for me to be impressed. Argue with reason and we will get around fine. Argue by authority and you will enter a world of pain. I hate hollow arguments by hollow authorities with worthless titles.

And we had already established that before: Aside of Paypal, Musk has not achieved much yet in terms of profit. Tesla exists, but still waits for any notable success on the market - it currently tries to diversify by becoming supplier for the big successful companies. 2/3rds of your claimed "equity volume" is actual loans and subsidies - "borrowed capital", as MBAs say.

PS: I am doing some bit of business administration studies in my freetime and weekends after my regular 40 hour work, not at the "best business school in the USA", but by teachers who actually know what they are talking about - and I can divide by 100. I can even do that flawless at 5G and while gunny Hartmann is talking to me.

So please, think before you post. It is better for you, me and all the others here.

PS2: And Elon Musk has no M.B.A, his highest academic degree just BSc, if you leave the honorary doctorates away (Who needs a "Doctor of Sweet Fanny Adams" anyway) - he left the M.B.A program of Wharton as undergraduate. Maybe you should not only think before you post, but also check your facts before I do it.

 

[N_Molson]

Man, I don't get that irrational Cult of Musk. :idk:

 

[RGClark]

So I didn't miss it in my memory. You just misquote again.
In the context of supersonic rocket decelleration, they are "looking at what companies, notably SpaceX, do there". This is not discussing with SpaceX to do anything together - just observing how they are performing there. Since SpaceX is the only company currently attempting something there actively, this is no surprise. The DC-X program that achieved the same as the Grasshopper, is long in the past.

???

The context was about supersonic and hypersonic retro rocket propulsion during reentry. It was then that they mentioned speaking to SpaceX about it.
That was also the impression of the reporters at the event:

=========================================
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust Mike Gazarik: interested in supersonic retropropulsion for Mars EDL; talking with SpaceX about what they did on F9 1st stage recovery.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/402118563143507968
=========================================


Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 PM ----------

...
Last time I looked, being capable of dividing by 100 is prerequisite of any MBA curriculum, not just in metric countries.
Also, you should already know, that titles and "being from the best business school in the USA" (so had been the people who got us into the subprime crisis and who made Greece a formidable Eurozone candidate) is no reason for me to be impressed. Argue with reason and we will get around fine. Argue by authority and you will enter a world of pain. I hate hollow arguments by hollow authorities with worthless titles.
And we had already established that before: Aside of Paypal, Musk has not achieved much yet in terms of profit. Tesla exists, but still waits for any notable success on the market - it currently tries to diversify by becoming supplier for the big successful companies. 2/3rds of your claimed "equity volume" is actual loans and subsidies - "borrowed capital", as MBAs say.
PS: I am doing some bit of business administration studies in my freetime and weekends after my regular 40 hour work, not at the "best business school in the USA", but by teachers who actually know what they are talking about - and I can divide by 100. I can even do that flawless at 5G and while gunny Hartmann is talking to me.
So please, think before you post. It is better for you, me and all the others here.
PS2: And Elon Musk has no M.B.A, his highest academic degree just BSc, if you leave the honorary doctorates away (Who needs a "Doctor of Sweet Fanny Adams" anyway) - he left the M.B.A program of Wharton as undergraduate. Maybe you should not only think before you post, but also check your facts before I do it.

Ok. You're not a fan of Musk or of SpaceX. We're not going to agree.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------

Man, I don't get that irrational Cult of Musk. :idk:

You're in good company. Lot's of people don't like Musk. Lot's of people do.

Bob Clark

 

[N_Molson]

Man, I don't get that irrational Cult of Musk.

Ok. You're not a fan of Musk or of SpaceX. We're not going to agree.

Wow, a rational argument ! Since when do you need to be a fan of someone to agree on a technical, hence factual, topic ?? :blink:

 

[Urwumpe]

Man, I don't get that irrational Cult of Musk. :idk:

I can. He is charismatic, successful and telling people what they want to hear. He leaves telling people what they need to hear to other people, who will appear less charismatic and successful in the future.

It is irrational. His shares on Tesla are claimed to be worth 18 billion by current estimate on Wikipedia - despite the company not even being worth one tenth (for musk: 1.8 billion - Tesla Motors has total assets of 1 billion).

Tesla would need a 800% EBIT every year to be worth 18 billion in five years.

 

[N_Molson]

Tesla would need a 800% EBIT every year to be worth 18 billion in five years.

 

[RGClark]

I can. He is charismatic, successful and telling people what they want to hear. He leaves telling people what they need to hear to other people, who will appear less charismatic and successful in the future.
It is irrational. His shares on Tesla are claimed to be worth 18 billion by current estimate on Wikipedia - despite the company not even being worth one tenth (for musk: 1.8 billion - Tesla Motors has total assets of 1 billion).
Tesla would need a 800% EBIT every year to be worth 18 billion in five years.

There is no factual basis for being impressed by Musk? All these people who have invested hundreds of millions are also conned? NASA that signed a billion dollar contract with SpaceX is also conned?
I was going to bow out of this discussion. But really you are saying there is nothing he has to offer?

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

But really you are saying there is nothing he has to offer?

I learned the old business rule: Don't talk to the indians, talk to the chieftain.

In terms of Musk, though, I would prefer talking to somebody who can give me some solid negotiations and who is going prepared into meetings.

Musk has really nothing to offer for me. The guys one or two levels below him in any company, are interesting. I am not following SpaceX developments because of Musk and what Musk says is usually a reason to cry out loud. But there are capable people below him in every company, who are actually suffering by the hype - once the Musk reality distortion field is gone, they have to do the work to make at least partial victories due to the high expectations.

I just had to do a SWOT analysis of a company for my business administration studies. I selected SpaceX for that.

 

[N_Molson]

Uhh let's be clear, for me the "technical, hence factual, topic" is about reusable rocketry, not the Cult of Mr Musk personality...

I am not following SpaceX developments because of Musk and what Musk says is usually a reason to cry out loud. But there are capable people below him in every company, who are actually suffering by the hype

Exactly my position. I don't like SpaceX because Musk pisses me off. Remove him and, for me, it becomes interesting again.

 

[MattBaker]

Musk offers something. It's just not the magical fairy dust you like to see but a launch provider like Orbital or the ULA. Nothing new, nothing revolutionary.
Until now at least. This might change.

 

[N_Molson]

Musk offers something.

He says he has something to offer, and he is charismatic, which means that people believe him regardless of rational arguments. Not the same.

 

[Urwumpe]

Musk offers something. It's just not the magical fairy dust you like to see but a launch provider like Orbital or the ULA. Nothing new, nothing revolutionary.
Until now at least. This might change.

The difference to ULA or Orbital is: SpaceX lacks persistence. Just look how many of their rocket models had been flying before the Falcon 9. And how many Falcon 9 launches happened before the Falcon 9 1.1 appeared.

They quickly proceed to new rockets and never manage to gain experience on one rocket model to actually gain experience.

 

[MattBaker]

He says he has something to offer

He has something to offer since Falcon 9's launch commerial payloads now. He doesn't have an independent, fully-autonomous or well-proven business to offer but that wasn't my point.

And Urwumpe's comment is right but that's just a sign of too high promises, overhasty schedules and bad foresight. The 1.1 will probably get proven quite often since it is set for GTO and Dragon launches. Or not proven, I'm not a mentalist.

 

[Urwumpe]

The 1.1 will probably get proven quite often since it is set for GTO and Dragon launches. Or not proven, I'm not a mentalist.

I doubt it will see much GTO duty. The rocket does not appear to be optimized for GTO, the performance at that stage ratio optimized for LEO should be extremely poor. It is a offering to do GTO missions with it, but not a realistic offer, since there are very few customers left building such small satellites.

 

[Hlynkacg]

The difference to ULA or Orbital is: SpaceX lacks persistence. Just look how many of their rocket models had been flying before the Falcon 9. And how many Falcon 9 launches happened before the Falcon 9 1.1 appeared.

They quickly proceed to new rockets and never manage to gain experience on one rocket model to actually gain experience.

To be fair, the F9 1.1 is an iterative advancement. Holding off on applying learned lessons simply so you can rack up additional flight-time with a existing (inferior) variant is rather stupid and irrational.

 

[Urwumpe]

To be fair, the F9 1.1 is an iterative advancement. Holding off on applying learned lessons simply so you can rack up additional flight-time with a existing (inferior) variant is rather stupid and irrational.

Not really - since the F9 1.1 is a major improvement, regardless what the minor version step 1.1 implies. There are huge differences between the two and there is simply little that was learned from the F9 in terms of operations. And the 1.1 might share the same fate.

It is just appearing to me, as if SpaceX is changing their company strategy very quickly.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Not really - since the F9 1.1 is a major improvement, regardless what the minor version step 1.1 implies. There are huge differences between the two and there is simply little that was learned from the F9 in terms of operations. And the 1.1 might share the same fate.

It is just appearing to me, as if SpaceX is changing their company strategy very quickly.

I'm not convinced that this is the case.

We are not talking about a car or airplane that will need standardized parts/servicing over the course of their lifetime. For the moment at least, each rocket is a "one-off". As such, there is no legitimate reason to not apply operational and design lessons from the construction and flight of the first rocket into the second.

The F9 and F9 1.1 share that same operational components and the same launch infrastructure, so don't see where your complaint is coming from. Are you seriously suggestion that whole concept of incremental development in aerospace is unsound? Because that is what it sounds like.