Also important to note that since the second accident, SpaceX has lost bookings (ie Inmarsat) and has not won many new ones due to the failure. Priority 1 needs to be safely returning to flight, and reducing launch delays (again safely). If we want re-usability to continue, the SpaceX Comm constellation, Red Dragon and then eventually ITS then profitability needs to be priority number 1.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 12/11/2016 07:16 pmAlso important to note that since the second accident, SpaceX has lost bookings (ie Inmarsat) and has not won many new ones due to the failure. Priority 1 needs to be safely returning to flight, and reducing launch delays (again safely). If we want re-usability to continue, the SpaceX Comm constellation, Red Dragon and then eventually ITS then profitability needs to be priority number 1.I disagree. Profitability does not need to be priority number 1.Amazon spent many years being unprofitable, and it is because they did that they currently have such a dominant position in e-commerce.For example, one route to success for SpaceX is to be unprofitable for years while they invest heavily in the communication constellation, then start generating huge amounts of money from the constellation 15 years from now.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/11/2016 07:38 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 12/11/2016 07:16 pmAlso important to note that since the second accident, SpaceX has lost bookings (ie Inmarsat) and has not won many new ones due to the failure. Priority 1 needs to be safely returning to flight, and reducing launch delays (again safely). If we want re-usability to continue, the SpaceX Comm constellation, Red Dragon and then eventually ITS then profitability needs to be priority number 1.I disagree. Profitability does not need to be priority number 1.Amazon spent many years being unprofitable, and it is because they did that they currently have such a dominant position in e-commerce.For example, one route to success for SpaceX is to be unprofitable for years while they invest heavily in the communication constellation, then start generating huge amounts of money from the constellation 15 years from now.Well Elon seems to disagree with that statement from this slide for ITS (note, no mention of a satellite constellation)
He has repeatedly stated that Falcon 9/Heavy profits are essential, with the stand down and lost bookings that will effect everything
ITS development lives and dies by profits. No Profits no ITS
First of all, that's not true. ITS could end up being funded by money from Tesla if Tesla becomes enormously successful, or it could be funded by Larry Page giving Elon $40 billion.
Secondly, even if ITS were entirely dependent on profits from SpaceX, profits from the current Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy businesses are never going to be enough to fund it.
Where are you with your satellite constellation and what’s the time frame?The time frame is pretty TBD. We are looking at building a broadband constellation in LEO, low Earth orbit. We’re definitely in the development phase, although we’re not really committed to that right now.There have been a number of attempts at doing something like this, and all of them have largely failed. So you don’t go and spend $5-plus billion on a system that’s not going to be a benefit to folks. We are developing test-flight satellites that we hope to launch next year. But really the key for us is the technology for the user equipment. If I can’t build an antenna that’s going to install easily on your roof or in your yard for a couple of hundred dollars, then it’s going to be very difficult to compete with the existing systems.So we really need to crack that code. We’re working, but we haven’t quite cracked that yet. Once we’ve done that, then we will pretty much go all in on the constellation. Sorry to be a little vague on it, but we’re still trying.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/11/2016 08:19 pmFirst of all, that's not true. ITS could end up being funded by money from Tesla if Tesla becomes enormously successful, or it could be funded by Larry Page giving Elon $40 billion.Elon Can't just take money from Tesla and give it to SpaceX, they are two different companies with different shareholders. ...
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/11/2016 08:19 pmFirst of all, that's not true. ITS could end up being funded by money from Tesla if Tesla becomes enormously successful, or it could be funded by Larry Page giving Elon $40 billion.Elon Can't just take money from Tesla and give it to SpaceX, they are two different companies with different shareholders. Since Tesla is publically traded, the board would have to vote on such a move and I don't think they would want to just summarily take on debt for a private corporation that doesn't plan to go public anytime soon.
QuoteSecondly, even if ITS were entirely dependent on profits from SpaceX, profits from the current Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy businesses are never going to be enough to fund it.Hence the Slide above, where Elon has stated that he is trying to find new sources of revenue for mars
SpaceX is not committed to building the internet constellation so it really wont be a big drain on resources right now. Look at what Gwynne Shotwell said back in October:QuoteWhere are you with your satellite constellation and what’s the time frame?The time frame is pretty TBD. We are looking at building a broadband constellation in LEO, low Earth orbit. We’re definitely in the development phase, although we’re not really committed to that right now.
Where are you with your satellite constellation and what’s the time frame?The time frame is pretty TBD. We are looking at building a broadband constellation in LEO, low Earth orbit. We’re definitely in the development phase, although we’re not really committed to that right now.
I'm not a particularly good writer, but I'd throw myself off a cliff if I wrote "Why so mum, chum?"Reads like click bait for CNES folk desperate to see some bad news about SpaceX. Having said that, it's probably true. But - and forgive me for being positive - it shows SpaceX can't be accused of rushing RTF for the sake of money.