I wonder if SpaceX announced a lower price per seat than Russia, could Russia lower prices substantially? How far above cost do you think their prices are Jim?
Good luck if you can get an Atlas V for $150 million.
Also, Elon notes that he has been making money for a couple of years now. That is NOT common in the rocket industry. I expect that to continue.
Of course that really doesn't matter. Economically, the worst thing Congress can do with money that is used for HSF is to pay the Russians. That has 0 benefits for the US economy. That means even if prices per seat were 10 times as much as Soyuz prices, Congress would still mandate to use US launch capabilities.
Quote from: joboggi on 06/15/2010 07:57 amAlso, Elon notes that he has been making money for a couple of years now. That is NOT common in the rocket industry. I expect that to continue.No, he said they were cash positive.
SpaceX has over $2.5B in revenue under contract. Accounting rules require that revenue for long term contracts (over 2 years) be recognized as costs are incurred or milestones passed. For the past three years, revenue has exceeded cost on that basis and we expect that to continue into the future.The reason for SpaceX raising money last year from outside investors was for working capital and to provide a financial cushion in the event of a Falcon 9 launch failure. We don’t anticipate needing to bring on additional investors and will not be conducting any equity financing rounds, although it is possible we may accept investment for strategic reasons.
Quote from: Jim on 06/15/2010 10:54 amQuote from: joboggi on 06/15/2010 07:57 amAlso, Elon notes that he has been making money for a couple of years now. That is NOT common in the rocket industry. I expect that to continue.No, he said they were cash positive.Actually, Elon also recently said that SpaceX was profitable:http://www.pehub.com/73752/elon-musk-weighs-in-on-wsj-piece-and-future-of-spacex/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pehub%2Fblog+%28PE+HUB+Blog%29&utm_content=My+YahooQuote SpaceX has over $2.5B in revenue under contract. Accounting rules require that revenue for long term contracts (over 2 years) be recognized as costs are incurred or milestones passed. For the past three years, revenue has exceeded cost on that basis and we expect that to continue into the future.The reason for SpaceX raising money last year from outside investors was for working capital and to provide a financial cushion in the event of a Falcon 9 launch failure. We don’t anticipate needing to bring on additional investors and will not be conducting any equity financing rounds, although it is possible we may accept investment for strategic reasons.
The 9-engines on a rocket are a liability to the Falcon 9, not an asset.
Interestingly, since you were involved in the awarding of the SpaceX contract, are you suggesting that NASA is planning not to pay SpaceX for their services and that ULA and OSC rockets are performing resupply missions ahead of SpaceX???
Not to be negative, but this is not certain as of right now. We have seen too many companies in the launch business come and go over the years, SpaceX remains in a risky industry that can turn its back on them and force them into bankruptcy.If anything, let's just look at SeaLaunch...
No, he said they were cash positive.QuoteNo, he did say that they were "profitable". <ii>There's that link! Quit nitpicking.Also, did everyone notice SpaceX's latest presser? Launching for Taiwan? Which is a [cough]province[cough] of China?
No, he did say that they were "profitable". <ii>There's that link! Quit nitpicking.Also, did everyone notice SpaceX's latest presser? Launching for Taiwan? Which is a [cough]province[cough] of China?
Quote from: yg1968 on 06/15/2010 02:28 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/15/2010 10:54 amQuote from: joboggi on 06/15/2010 07:57 amAlso, Elon notes that he has been making money for a couple of years now. That is NOT common in the rocket industry. I expect that to continue.No, he said they were cash positive.Actually, Elon also recently said that SpaceX was profitable:http://www.pehub.com/73752/elon-musk-weighs-in-on-wsj-piece-and-future-of-spacex/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pehub%2Fblog+%28PE+HUB+Blog%29&utm_content=My+YahooQuote SpaceX has over $2.5B in revenue under contract. Accounting rules require that revenue for long term contracts (over 2 years) be recognized as costs are incurred or milestones passed. For the past three years, revenue has exceeded cost on that basis and we expect that to continue into the future.The reason for SpaceX raising money last year from outside investors was for working capital and to provide a financial cushion in the event of a Falcon 9 launch failure. We don’t anticipate needing to bring on additional investors and will not be conducting any equity financing rounds, although it is possible we may accept investment for strategic reasons. SpaceX doesn't make operational profits. Accounting rules skew results in this case. SpaceX has large operating losses and had them for 8 years now. They will probably not even have positive income from operations (on a controlling numbers basis) until 2012 (if they don't have launch failures or incur large delays).
What makes you say that? The COTS Milestones ($248 million) have been earned. According to SpaceNews, there is also some CRS money ($101 million) that has also been earned. Those are revenues that have been paid by NASA. Elon said that they have spent about $500 million in expenses on Dragon and Falcon. So they also are also cash flow positive if you factor in the money invested by Elon and the other SpaceX investors.
QuoteThe 9-engines on a rocket are a liability to the Falcon 9, not an asset.That doesn't sound right to me. Maybe there was an earlier five engine scheme, but to suggest that it was "certainly not a design decision people would make when talking about a clean sheet rocket" certainly doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure that they designed a rocket system. Your statement, "SpaceX had to make the decision based on the engine they had developed" sounds like you think that they built the rocket around the engine. That would not have been good practice.