Total Members Voted: 55
Voting closed: 08/20/2018 03:29 pm
I note Elon’s recent estimate that Falcon 9 will launch maybe 300 more missions in its lifetime, before being replaced by BFR. I also note his statement that a reused F9 launch sells for around $50m, giving us a ballpark total revenue of maybe $15 billion from the remainder of F9’s planned useful life.This $15 billion total is what will have to fund BFR development, construction and the mission costs up to the landing of the first pair of BFS ships on Mars.Revenue from Starlink can likely be ignored in the interim, given that Starlink itself will require around $10 billion of investment to become operational. So net contributions from Starlink is likely a longer term goal, after initial investment has been recouped.Furthermore, much of the $15 billion F9 revenue will go into sustaining existing SpaceX costs, with profits being the more relevant number that can go into supporting Mars plans. So reinvested profits plus normal R&D budget gives you maybe $5-7 billion out of the $15 billion that can support the Mars plans until 2022. That is barely enough to design and build BFR.My point with the above being that SpaceX don’t have the funds to finance rovers, power generation, ISRU, and all the other developments needed for Mars colonization. They no doubt have conceptual plans for what is required, but they clearly mean it when they say others will have to come to the party to realize these plans.Building the rocket and successfully landing it on Mars is the big leap forward that is meant to inspire others to jump on the bandwagon.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 05/13/2018 08:19 amI note Elon’s recent estimate that Falcon 9 will launch maybe 300 more missions in its lifetime, before being replaced by BFR. I also note his statement that a reused F9 launch sells for around $50m, giving us a ballpark total revenue of maybe $15 billion from the remainder of F9’s planned useful life.This $15 billion total is what will have to fund BFR development, construction and the mission costs up to the landing of the first pair of BFS ships on Mars.Revenue from Starlink can likely be ignored in the interim, given that Starlink itself will require around $10 billion of investment to become operational. So net contributions from Starlink is likely a longer term goal, after initial investment has been recouped.Furthermore, much of the $15 billion F9 revenue will go into sustaining existing SpaceX costs, with profits being the more relevant number that can go into supporting Mars plans. So reinvested profits plus normal R&D budget gives you maybe $5-7 billion out of the $15 billion that can support the Mars plans until 2022. That is barely enough to design and build BFR.My point with the above being that SpaceX don’t have the funds to finance rovers, power generation, ISRU, and all the other developments needed for Mars colonization. They no doubt have conceptual plans for what is required, but they clearly mean it when they say others will have to come to the party to realize these plans.Building the rocket and successfully landing it on Mars is the big leap forward that is meant to inspire others to jump on the bandwagon. It is possible that SpaceX has accounting practices that go beyond 2nd grade math and these things called investors to boot. Projects like Starlink are a little more complicated than paying off the cost before you can use the revenue somewhere else. Investors aren't loaning them money. They're buying into the business. People and corporations have been "Coming to the party" for ten years.
In many ways, if the choice is to send such a Rover, over sending 150 tons of water, I'd rather send the water.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/13/2018 10:09 amIn many ways, if the choice is to send such a Rover, over sending 150 tons of water, I'd rather send the water.Is 150 tonnes of methane enough to return a BFS from Mars? Could SpaceX send a BFS filled with methane as cargo and get O2 from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, by some process, to make it possible for a BFS to return from Mars without first mining water?
My point with the above being that SpaceX don’t have the funds to finance rovers, power generation, ISRU, and all the other developments needed for Mars colonization. They no doubt have conceptual plans for what is required, but they clearly mean it when they say others will have to come to the party to realize these plans.
I suspect SpaceX simply doesn't have the time or money right now to build rovers when the rocket hasn't been built yet.There are two things that are well-proven on Mars:1) roversand2) solar powerScale is different, speed is different. But there's a real engineering experience base with now literally decades of elapsed mission time. We know what materials work, and what don't. We know that putting a solar array on top of a hill means it'll get cleaned regularly. We know not to use super thin aluminum wheels. We even know (from Phoenix) about digging in icy soil.So honestly, if you're going to pick something to wait until the last minute on, it might be those two.
Specifically I would like to have a discussion on things other than BFR. What is needed, by when, and when should we hope to have details?
Quote from: M.E.T. on 05/13/2018 08:19 amMy point with the above being that SpaceX don’t have the funds to finance rovers, power generation, ISRU, and all the other developments needed for Mars colonization. They no doubt have conceptual plans for what is required, but they clearly mean it when they say others will have to come to the party to realize these plans.Note OP is asking about first manned mission to Mars, not colonization. There's a huge difference between funding a Mars city for colonists and a small base for 6~12 astronauts. Also this has been repeated many times: ISRU is part of the architecture, that's why originally it's called Interplanetary Transport System, they wouldn't leave ISRU to others, they're working on it.As for rovers, if someone can contribute that's great, if not I think it's relatively easy to DIY. Someone brought up Lunar Roving Vehicle as an example, that thing only costs ~$200M of today's dollars to develop, I'm sure SpaceX can do better with today's electric car chassis.This just leaves the surface suit and habitat, but they won't need these until they sent people, so there's still some time.
If they don't start designing and building stuff soon, even 2024 might come and go with a BFR available without a payload.
Can I make a friendly suggestion that because this thread is about Mars and predicated on BFR, it ought to be moved to the SpaceX BFR section?
So, while that challenge remains, I personally struggle to see how there is money left over for other endeavours, critical as they may be for the architecture. Sure, over the next 10-15 years I can see those funds becoming available, once Starlink starts paying off.But before that (over the next 4 years in other words), some kind of capital raising or personal investment by Musk would seem to be required to raise the stated $10 billion required for the project. But then, I could be missing something big in the above picture.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 05/13/2018 12:27 pmSo, while that challenge remains, I personally struggle to see how there is money left over for other endeavours, critical as they may be for the architecture. Sure, over the next 10-15 years I can see those funds becoming available, once Starlink starts paying off.But before that (over the next 4 years in other words), some kind of capital raising or personal investment by Musk would seem to be required to raise the stated $10 billion required for the project. But then, I could be missing something big in the above picture.Starlink is required to be launched in 6 years time from April this year, so April 2024 or so.However, once you have the first plane launched or so - 50 - you can demonstrate the full capability of the constellation at nominal speeds and performances, to sell to investors.This is plausible this year even, maybe next, even if consumer service is a year or two out.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/13/2018 12:42 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 05/13/2018 12:27 pmSo, while that challenge remains, I personally struggle to see how there is money left over for other endeavours, critical as they may be for the architecture. Sure, over the next 10-15 years I can see those funds becoming available, once Starlink starts paying off.But before that (over the next 4 years in other words), some kind of capital raising or personal investment by Musk would seem to be required to raise the stated $10 billion required for the project. But then, I could be missing something big in the above picture.Starlink is required to be launched in 6 years time from April this year, so April 2024 or so.However, once you have the first plane launched or so - 50 - you can demonstrate the full capability of the constellation at nominal speeds and performances, to sell to investors.This is plausible this year even, maybe next, even if consumer service is a year or two out.Yes, but any shares sold at that point are invariably sold at a massive discount compared to what it would be worth once the company is fully operational and earning huge annual revenues.