Author Topic: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans  (Read 167297 times)

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 1053
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #440 on: 08/06/2017 09:35 am »
Also, just because the composite tank ruptured, doesn't mean they don't go with aluminum.  Sure it may cut the payload capability, but it gets there.
Do we actually know if that was a failure or simply a test to destruction? Haven't kept up with that.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #441 on: 08/06/2017 09:58 am »
Also, just because the composite tank ruptured, doesn't mean they don't go with aluminum.  Sure it may cut the payload capability, but it gets there.
Do we actually know if that was a failure or simply a test to destruction? Haven't kept up with that.

We have no positive proof. But many credible claimes it was not intended.

I just don't see why people think this failure indicates a need to move away from composite. I expect a lot of testing going on right now. I can only repeat that NASA/Boeing did build a composite tank for LH, which is much harder due to the extremely low temperatures involved.

Offline TaurusLittrow

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #442 on: 08/06/2017 10:09 am »
EM's more recent interest in, and apparent receptivity toward, NASA's circumlunar plans might be driven by Mars financing considerations.

NASA's award of a COTS contract to SpaceX underwrote, in part, the development of Dragon 1 and 2 as well as upgrades to Falcon 9. EM might see a similar arrangement supplying the DSG as a way to generate some revenue. Of course, DSG will, in its current notional iteration, will be smaller than ISS and only human tended not permanently occupied, but a COTS-like arrangement is not out of the question and a potential source of income.

Lest we forget circumlunar tourism as a possible revenue stream as well.


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #443 on: 08/06/2017 12:02 pm »
It totally depends on the aim and scope.

Getting anything of a totally new architecture flying but not yet ready for Mars by 2020 is certainly soon in my book.

If they go for a reusable methane upper stage for the Falcon family they may even have a fighting chance to fly it to Mars in 2020 though still a stretch. Completely new with a methane booster somewhat less likely.

Edit: A full methane ITS, like the 9m version, of any size big enough for setting up ISRU and sending crew 2022 is soon for the first cargo landing on Mars.
So SX won't be landing anything on Mars any time soon.

I looked at the FH history. Talked about since 2005 and expected to fly in 2013. It's now 4 years later and still not flown. And this is (conceptually, not actually) 3 F9 cores bolted together. No cross feed. Same engines as F9 IE the "simple" upgrade to F9  :(

As for some kind of Methane fueled Raptor engined  US upgrade to F9 how will that play with NASA's certification of the Commercial Crew system? I certainly hope that the FH debut launch is carrying something quite impressive as a test payload but who knows? shotewell ruled out US reuse on her interview on the Space Show. Side booster reuse, core reuse yes. US reuse. No.

Glad we're in agreement.
We have no positive proof. But many credible claimes it was not intended.

I just don't see why people think this failure indicates a need to move away from composite. I expect a lot of testing going on right now. I can only repeat that NASA/Boeing did build a composite tank for LH, which is much harder due to the extremely low temperatures involved.
After the original one for the X33 failed.  :(

Composite tank structures seem like they've been promising to deliver spectacular benefits for LV's forever and yet when it has come time to commit the design no one has gone for a big one, except for SRB's.

SX always knew that going with composite tanks would be a learning curve compared to what they knew. I don't think they will abandon the technology that easily. 
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline ChrML

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #444 on: 08/06/2017 02:55 pm »
I think Falcon Heavy has had a rather low priority internally at SpaceX. With the F9 upgrades I believe the F9 has lifted several payloads that were originally intended for FH.

With not much market demand (yet) for heavy payloads into orbit, and the two explosion events on top of it, it's understandable that FH was shuffled down in the priority list.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2017 02:56 pm by ChrML »

Offline TaurusLittrow

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #445 on: 08/07/2017 12:22 pm »
Interestingly, a recent (July 2017) HEOMD slide presentation on "Human Exploration Plans" presents a schematic of proposed Phase 2/3 operations with a "cislunar support flight" icon looking suspiciously like a commercial rocket.

I think this is tacit recognition that NASA is envisioning a COTS-like arrangement to support "continued operations in cislunar space" while developing their proposed DST in the mid/late 2020s.

Bottom line: a cislunar COTS-like contract could help underwrite SpaceX's Mars ambitions ironically at the same time NASA is pursuing its humans to the Mars system goals.

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #446 on: 09/09/2017 07:32 pm »
...
I think this is tacit recognition that NASA is envisioning a COTS-like arrangement to support "continued operations in cislunar space" while developing their proposed DST in the mid/late 2020s.

Bottom line: a cislunar COTS-like contract could help underwrite SpaceX's Mars ambitions ironically at the same time NASA is pursuing its humans to the Mars system goals.

Not only cislunar, Lunar surface is also an option for ITSy:
"NASA preparing call for proposals for commercial lunar landers"
http://spacenews.com/nasa-preparing-call-for-proposals-for-commercial-lunar-landers/
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline ChrML

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #447 on: 09/10/2017 10:43 am »
...
I think this is tacit recognition that NASA is envisioning a COTS-like arrangement to support "continued operations in cislunar space" while developing their proposed DST in the mid/late 2020s.

Bottom line: a cislunar COTS-like contract could help underwrite SpaceX's Mars ambitions ironically at the same time NASA is pursuing its humans to the Mars system goals.

Not only cislunar, Lunar surface is also an option for ITSy:
"NASA preparing call for proposals for commercial lunar landers"
http://spacenews.com/nasa-preparing-call-for-proposals-for-commercial-lunar-landers/
I doubt SpaceX will skip on that opportunity  :).

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 981
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #448 on: 09/10/2017 12:36 pm »
...
I think this is tacit recognition that NASA is envisioning a COTS-like arrangement to support "continued operations in cislunar space" while developing their proposed DST in the mid/late 2020s.

Bottom line: a cislunar COTS-like contract could help underwrite SpaceX's Mars ambitions ironically at the same time NASA is pursuing its humans to the Mars system goals.

Not only cislunar, Lunar surface is also an option for ITSy:
"NASA preparing call for proposals for commercial lunar landers"
http://spacenews.com/nasa-preparing-call-for-proposals-for-commercial-lunar-landers/

I see a No/Yes potential SpaceX response.
No to their developing an upper stage for FH that enables lunar landings.
Yes to use of "standard" ITSy LEO re-fueling that enables many tens of tons landed on the moon with ITSy returning to Earth.  SpaceX is in the transport business with their standard vehicles.

The only way a FH lunar lander upper stage would be developed, an expensive diversion of SpaceX valuable top design engineers, would be a ULA $$$ style billion $ plus government contract that indirectly funded Mars efforts.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #449 on: 09/11/2017 05:48 am »
I see a No/Yes potential SpaceX response.
No to their developing an upper stage for FH that enables lunar landings.
Yes to use of "standard" ITSy LEO re-fueling that enables many tens of tons landed on the moon with ITSy returning to Earth.  SpaceX is in the transport business with their standard vehicles.
How close are they to being able to land something with Dragon 2.0, either on top of a F9 or an FH?

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 981
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #450 on: 09/11/2017 12:31 pm »
I see a No/Yes potential SpaceX response.
No to their developing an upper stage for FH that enables lunar landings.
Yes to use of "standard" ITSy LEO re-fueling that enables many tens of tons landed on the moon with ITSy returning to Earth.  SpaceX is in the transport business with their standard vehicles.
How close are they to being able to land something with Dragon 2.0, either on top of a F9 or an FH?

Very far.
D2 would need a FH to reach the moon, but worse yet it has way too little Delta V to land on the moon.
In addition, SpaceX has stopped development & test work on Dragon 2 powered landings.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25223
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #451 on: 09/11/2017 01:45 pm »
Yup. Skipping all these unnecessary and clunky intermediate solutions and go right to ITSy makes by far the most sense.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #452 on: 09/19/2017 08:18 pm »
Thought this was interesting:

(Caution: Misleading Headline!!!)
Quote
Commercial Space Travel Fails to Woo U.S. Voters, but Sector Aims Higher

Quote
Some Americans seem underwhelmed by the possibility of affordable private-sector space travel, even as the industry sets its sights on loftier goals than shepherding wealthy clients into outer space.

Forty-one percent of registered voters said they were likely to travel to space if they could afford it, according to a Sept. 7-11 Morning Consult/POLITICO poll.  A 48-percent plurality said they were not too likely or not at all likely to do so, even if they had the means.

There are 146 million registered voters in the USA; 41% is 60 million potential passengers; at $100k each, this is $6Trillion dollars.  Since this is not a majority vote situation, a winner-take-all primary, or an electoral college decision, how many 'vote' against flying doesn't matter -- just stay home.  (I think American journalists have PESD (post-election stress disorder).

https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/18/voters-not-wooed-by-commercial-space-travel-but-industry-sees-larger-potential/
« Last Edit: 09/19/2017 08:27 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Azular

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Sol3 51.65 N
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #453 on: 09/20/2017 07:00 am »

There are 146 million registered voters in the USA; 41% is 60 million potential passengers; at $100k each, this is $6Trillion dollars.  Since this is not a majority vote situation, a winner-take-all primary, or an electoral college decision, how many 'vote' against flying doesn't matter -- just stay home.  (I think American journalists have PESD (post-election stress disorder).

I don't suppose there was a question asking who amongst that 41% would want to come back again  ;)

60 million persons would make a rather healthy sized colony somewhere and a ready market for just about anything that is needed or wanted to live there
Be careful what you wish for.  You may get it

Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #454 on: 09/20/2017 10:38 am »
Thought this was interesting:

(Caution: Misleading Headline!!!)
Quote
Commercial Space Travel Fails to Woo U.S. Voters, but Sector Aims Higher

Quote
Some Americans seem underwhelmed by the possibility of affordable private-sector space travel, even as the industry sets its sights on loftier goals than shepherding wealthy clients into outer space.

Forty-one percent of registered voters said they were likely to travel to space if they could afford it, according to a Sept. 7-11 Morning Consult/POLITICO poll.  A 48-percent plurality said they were not too likely or not at all likely to do so, even if they had the means.

There are 146 million registered voters in the USA; 41% is 60 million potential passengers; at $100k each, this is $6Trillion dollars.  Since this is not a majority vote situation, a winner-take-all primary, or an electoral college decision, how many 'vote' against flying doesn't matter -- just stay home.  (I think American journalists have PESD (post-election stress disorder).

https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/18/voters-not-wooed-by-commercial-space-travel-but-industry-sees-larger-potential/
41% is more than I expected. Anyways, it's too early for these answers to be representative. We have to wait until Space Tourism actually becomes a thing and real life, first-hand experiences can be shared to really see if there can be a widespread desire to go. People tend not to show much interest in currently unattainable things, do we? Also envy/emulation is what really pushes widespread demand. No one to envy/emulate, for now.
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #455 on: 09/20/2017 01:24 pm »
I don't believe a word of this bit of 'journalism' -- just ran the numbers to show what the author was unknowingly saying.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1437
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #456 on: 09/21/2017 10:46 pm »
Thought this was interesting:

(Caution: Misleading Headline!!!)
Quote
Commercial Space Travel Fails to Woo U.S. Voters, but Sector Aims Higher

Quote
Some Americans seem underwhelmed by the possibility of affordable private-sector space travel, even as the industry sets its sights on loftier goals than shepherding wealthy clients into outer space.

Forty-one percent of registered voters said they were likely to travel to space if they could afford it, according to a Sept. 7-11 Morning Consult/POLITICO poll.  A 48-percent plurality said they were not too likely or not at all likely to do so, even if they had the means.

There are 146 million registered voters in the USA; 41% is 60 million potential passengers; at $100k each, this is $6Trillion dollars.  Since this is not a majority vote situation, a winner-take-all primary, or an electoral college decision, how many 'vote' against flying doesn't matter -- just stay home.  (I think American journalists have PESD (post-election stress disorder).

https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/18/voters-not-wooed-by-commercial-space-travel-but-industry-sees-larger-potential/
41% is more than I expected. Anyways, it's too early for these answers to be representative. We have to wait until Space Tourism actually becomes a thing and real life, first-hand experiences can be shared to really see if there can be a widespread desire to go. People tend not to show much interest in currently unattainable things, do we? Also envy/emulation is what really pushes widespread demand. No one to envy/emulate, for now.
In looking at this from a standpoint of using ITSy flights for tourism but only considering those worldwide that could easily afford the tickets, the following is indicated:

Possible 700 flights to LEO / year at $50,000 per ticket (400 persons per flight packed for short flight duration to destination (1 day))

Possible 50 flights to Lunar Surface at $500,000 per ticket (200 persons per flight with moderate packing for moderate duration flight to destination (1 week))

Possible 10 flights to Mars at $1,000,000 per ticket (100 persons per flight with long duration flight to destination (3 months))

The interesting thing here is that the profits from this much tourism would fund 13 Mars trips /year for colonists. Also the 41% that want to go would take 40 years for that group of those that can afford it to all go. In other words the rate would be nearly perpetual. For once started would continue. As prices come down the numbers increase at a greater rate than the price decrease for a net increase in revenue.

Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #457 on: 09/22/2017 12:18 pm »
Thought this was interesting:

(Caution: Misleading Headline!!!)
Quote
Commercial Space Travel Fails to Woo U.S. Voters, but Sector Aims Higher

Quote
Some Americans seem underwhelmed by the possibility of affordable private-sector space travel, even as the industry sets its sights on loftier goals than shepherding wealthy clients into outer space.

Forty-one percent of registered voters said they were likely to travel to space if they could afford it, according to a Sept. 7-11 Morning Consult/POLITICO poll.  A 48-percent plurality said they were not too likely or not at all likely to do so, even if they had the means.

There are 146 million registered voters in the USA; 41% is 60 million potential passengers; at $100k each, this is $6Trillion dollars.  Since this is not a majority vote situation, a winner-take-all primary, or an electoral college decision, how many 'vote' against flying doesn't matter -- just stay home.  (I think American journalists have PESD (post-election stress disorder).

https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/18/voters-not-wooed-by-commercial-space-travel-but-industry-sees-larger-potential/
41% is more than I expected. Anyways, it's too early for these answers to be representative. We have to wait until Space Tourism actually becomes a thing and real life, first-hand experiences can be shared to really see if there can be a widespread desire to go. People tend not to show much interest in currently unattainable things, do we? Also envy/emulation is what really pushes widespread demand. No one to envy/emulate, for now.
In looking at this from a standpoint of using ITSy flights for tourism but only considering those worldwide that could easily afford the tickets, the following is indicated:

Possible 700 flights to LEO / year at $50,000 per ticket (400 persons per flight packed for short flight duration to destination (1 day))

Possible 50 flights to Lunar Surface at $500,000 per ticket (200 persons per flight with moderate packing for moderate duration flight to destination (1 week))

Possible 10 flights to Mars at $1,000,000 per ticket (100 persons per flight with long duration flight to destination (3 months))

The interesting thing here is that the profits from this much tourism would fund 13 Mars trips /year for colonists. Also the 41% that want to go would take 40 years for that group of those that can afford it to all go. In other words the rate would be nearly perpetual. For once started would continue. As prices come down the numbers increase at a greater rate than the price decrease for a net increase in revenue.

I would also bet that we are talking about a market that will be supply constrained for a long time, without having to worry about demand. Basically it's enough that a viable orbital/suborbital/beyond tourism transport system exists on which people can actually fly and you have demand, as Lunar Dragon demonstrates. Things can only improve with lower prices and increased reliability/flight rate. Arguably it'll be a snowball effect, we only need actual systems flying to kickstart it. If people can go, they go.
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline Peter.Colin

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 77
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #458 on: 09/24/2017 01:15 pm »
Starlink might become a separate financial entity, immediately freeing up a lot of cash from the (stock)market for more rapid development of the interplanetary transport system.

SpaceX valuation would temporarily be less than the 21bilion it is now, (10 billion?) but Starlink might exceed it.
Private investors and employees would already partly own Starlink stock, when it splits of SpaceX.

In this way Starlink stockholders won’t have influence over SpaceX Mars plans, and Elon can exchange his Starlink or Tesla stock for SpaceX shares if he feels SpaceX is under appreciated by its current private shareholders.
He probably sold his latest small SpaceX share (where the 21 billion is based on) to private investors on the premise of Starlink market valuation to begin with.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/spacex-seeks-starlink-trademark-for-its-satellite-broadband-network/?amp=1
« Last Edit: 09/24/2017 01:56 pm by Peter.Colin »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25223
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Financing SpaceX's Mars plans
« Reply #459 on: 09/24/2017 02:19 pm »
Or perhaps, after it's built-up, an IPO for Starlink would pay for Mars settlement. Verizon has a market cap of $200B, and in a decade or so, it's possible Starlink would be worth more due to its global reach.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1