Elrond?
Not everyone working for SpaceX is an aerospace engineer. I'm sure the average salary is much less than $250,000.
Even if they were, how many aerospace engineers make $250,000? (I never even got close to $100k, though admittedly that was largely my fault by not pursuing other opportunities when I had 'em and getting comfortable in a low level job.)
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/14/2010 05:29 amQuote from: docmordrid on 02/13/2010 08:34 pmWhy can't you get past that? It was the first build of their first rocket design and it broke, end of story. .... What's the big deal, other than grasping for something to criticize?I don't understand this attitude. Is it better not to see it? I don't want to criticize. I'm rooting for SpaceX. Just show the video already! - Ed KyleAs you wrote before... It happened years ago. Why the sudden zeal for openness right now? If I was more snide I might suspect that it has something to with recent NASA changes.
Quote from: docmordrid on 02/13/2010 08:34 pmWhy can't you get past that? It was the first build of their first rocket design and it broke, end of story. .... What's the big deal, other than grasping for something to criticize?I don't understand this attitude. Is it better not to see it? I don't want to criticize. I'm rooting for SpaceX. Just show the video already! - Ed Kyle
Why can't you get past that? It was the first build of their first rocket design and it broke, end of story. .... What's the big deal, other than grasping for something to criticize?
Multiply the average aerospace engineer's annual salary by 900 and you'll start to get a picture of what he's paying. Elrond (or whoever does the purchasing decisions) is a canny penny pincher though, using scrapyard parts wherever he can, just like the Astronaut Farmer.SpaceX has been cashflow positive, though, according to accounting rules (milestones, contracts etc). I wonder if he's had to use credit for this, or if it just comes out of his pockets?
Not everyone working for SpaceX is an aerospace engineer. I'm sure the average salary is much less than $250,000.BTW, SpaceX has reportedly been "cash-flow positive" for a while now, taking in payments from many different sources, including COTS milestones, etc.
Quote from: Lampyridae on 02/17/2010 10:05 pmMultiply the average aerospace engineer's annual salary by 900 and you'll start to get a picture of what he's paying. Elrond (or whoever does the purchasing decisions) is a canny penny pincher though, using scrapyard parts wherever he can, just like the Astronaut Farmer.SpaceX has been cashflow positive, though, according to accounting rules (milestones, contracts etc). I wonder if he's had to use credit for this, or if it just comes out of his pockets?andQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/17/2010 10:11 pmNot everyone working for SpaceX is an aerospace engineer. I'm sure the average salary is much less than $250,000.BTW, SpaceX has reportedly been "cash-flow positive" for a while now, taking in payments from many different sources, including COTS milestones, etc.Ok, the funding situation for SpaceX, their running costs and the "cash-flow positive" statement comes up periodically. Let's analyse that whole thing once and for all:1. "Cash-flow positive" just means there is more money (really, physical payments) coming in than going out (through salaries, investment into infrastructure, transportation, parts etc.). If a company is cash-flow negative it means it will go illiquid (and then likely into bankruptcy) after a while. You can get 100 million in bonds or credits or hybrid capital, and burn 99 million of which in a year without any results and still be "cash-flow positive". All that being said, SpaceX being "cash-flow positive" just means they aren't facing bankruptcy in the near term.2. What really is important is whether SpaceX is a sustainable business and that in the future it may sustain itself through operations (income from operations). Right now it doesn't do so, right now (for the last 8 years) it's revenues are made up of the following sources: - equity capital: Musk's 100 million initial investment, Founding Father's 20 million, another 60 million from various sources in 2008/2009 and probably some more unnamed investors that provide risk capital - debt capital: The same investors that provide equity capital may just have provided money against bonds + they might have some credit facilities, but that's actually a bit unlikely (banks provide credit to companies that have sustained operating income, not really to start-ups) [- for anyone who is interested, SpaceX had to do filings with the SEC for various securities (preferred stock, equity common etc.) to a bunch of investors in 2002 (10 million), 2005 (50 million), in 2007 (30 million - 1 investor), 2008 (follow-up filing) and a Rule D (exempt) filing in 2009 - http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=0001181412&action=getcompany - those filings by far do not represent all capital they raised, only actions that required filings with the SEC] - NASA COTS program (total of 280 million) (which by the way requires SpaceX to chip in between 300-400 million of its own money for F9/Dragon development) - F1 completed mission (one mission) - a few million - Other government research grants (e.g. for F1) - Potentially, reservation fees and early milestone payments for payloads that are going to be flown in the nearer future (up to 2011)3. We could try to estimate the annual costs that SpaceX is running at by looking at a competitor in the same line of business. OSC's business is structured into 3 parts, Launch Vehicles, Satellites and Space Systems and Advanced Space Programs. In 2008, OSC had combined revenues 1.16bn USD and combined income from operations of 84.3 million USD. The Launch Vehicles segment is the closest in operations to SpaceX's operations and had revenues of 454 million and 33.6 million in income from operations, which means that segment had expenses of about 420 million from operations in 2008 (of course OSC has a lot of military contracts that provide good money), not just orbital space launches (Taurus etc.). The problem of course is, OSC is contracting out and buying a lot of things that are part of costs. SpaceX is doing most things in-house. Anyway, we could still estimate that the absolute maximum of SpaceX costs per year at 900 employees is somewhere between 200 and 250 million. 4. Now let's see whether they can be a profitable business. Their CRS contracts provide them with 130 million+ per launch of a F9/Dragon. Disregarding launch costs and manufacturing costs, 2 launches per year already covers their current annual costs. Covering their costs from the comsat market is a bit more tricky. Assuming that Falcon 9 turns out to be reliable and assuming current market prices (with a 20% discount to attract payloads away from Ariane 5 etc.), SpaceX requires about 4 launches to cover its current annual costs.
Can anyone confirm that SpaceX was indeed required to "match" the COTS payments? I don't think the SpaceX amounts have ever been discussed in public by either NASA or SpaceX, but I have heard the "matching" was more like $40M in toto. I do know that other COTS bidders were proposing company contributions that were far less than one-to-one matching and NASA accepted them for purposes of negotiation prior to final downselect.Presumably SpaceX is also receiving additional NASA revenue as progress payments for the three CRS missions already approved.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 02/18/2010 11:27 amCan anyone confirm that SpaceX was indeed required to "match" the COTS payments? I don't think the SpaceX amounts have ever been discussed in public by either NASA or SpaceX, but I have heard the "matching" was more like $40M in toto. I do know that other COTS bidders were proposing company contributions that were far less than one-to-one matching and NASA accepted them for purposes of negotiation prior to final downselect.Presumably SpaceX is also receiving additional NASA revenue as progress payments for the three CRS missions already approved.Gwen Shotwell confirmed in a 2007 interview (http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/2007/06/gwynne_shotwell.html) that SpaceX is required under the COTS agreement to come up with 60-70% of the total funds itself. So it would be more like USD400M, one "0" more. HOWEVER, Shotwell might have just referred to the 3 financing round milestones (each 10 million milestones), in which case your 40M would be correct. But in that case, Shotwell's comments would have been more than misleading.I doubt NASA is already paying them on CRS flights before even a single COTS demo has been flown.
Quote from: clb22 on 02/18/2010 11:59 amQuote from: HMXHMX on 02/18/2010 11:27 amCan anyone confirm that SpaceX was indeed required to "match" the COTS payments? I don't think the SpaceX amounts have ever been discussed in public by either NASA or SpaceX, but I have heard the "matching" was more like $40M in toto. I do know that other COTS bidders were proposing company contributions that were far less than one-to-one matching and NASA accepted them for purposes of negotiation prior to final downselect.Presumably SpaceX is also receiving additional NASA revenue as progress payments for the three CRS missions already approved.Gwen Shotwell confirmed in a 2007 interview (http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/2007/06/gwynne_shotwell.html) that SpaceX is required under the COTS agreement to come up with 60-70% of the total funds itself. So it would be more like USD400M, one "0" more. HOWEVER, Shotwell might have just referred to the 3 financing round milestones (each 10 million milestones), in which case your 40M would be correct. But in that case, Shotwell's comments would have been more than misleading.I doubt NASA is already paying them on CRS flights before even a single COTS demo has been flown.Some of the actual COTS milestones involved gaining financing.
I'm curious where the $250K "average salary" figure bandied about here comes from. Salary.com gives $81,828, which seems a whole lot more reasonable. Many doctors (GPs) don't make $250K a year.http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_EN04100017.html
I doubt NASA is already paying them on CRS flights before even a single COTS demo has been flown.
I'm curious where the $250K "average salary" figure bandied about here comes from. Salary.com gives $81,828, which seems a whole lot more reasonable. Many doctors (GPs) don't make $250K a year.
Quote from: William Barton on 02/18/2010 12:22 pmI'm curious where the $250K "average salary" figure bandied about here comes from. Salary.com gives $81,828, which seems a whole lot more reasonable. Many doctors (GPs) don't make $250K a year.It isn't salary, it is MTS costs.Salary, benefits, admin, overhead, etc. The cost of employing one engineer
Quote from: William Barton on 02/18/2010 12:22 pmI'm curious where the $250K "average salary" figure bandied about here comes from. Salary.com gives $81,828, which seems a whole lot more reasonable. Many doctors (GPs) don't make $250K a year.http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_EN04100017.htmlThe $250k is not just pay and pensions it will include raw materials, rent of buildings and property taxes.