Author Topic: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018  (Read 28481 times)

Offline ehb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 558
CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« on: 05/22/2018 06:39 pm »
CNBC:
Quote
ALL DAY TOMORROW ON @CNBC: @MorganLBrennan has an exclusive look at @SpaceX, including a sitdown with President & COO Gwynne Shotwell. Starting 810amET on @SquawkCNBC
https://twitter.com/jodigralnick/status/998692403241402368
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 10:30 pm by gongora »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Re: Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related
« Reply #1 on: 05/22/2018 06:53 pm »



Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13846
  • Likes Given: 5915
Re: Re: Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related
« Reply #2 on: 05/22/2018 06:55 pm »
Finally realistic launch numbers: 24-28 this year, ~18 in 2019.  ~14 first stages built this year, ~30 second stages.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Re: Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related
« Reply #3 on: 05/22/2018 07:03 pm »
Finally realistic launch numbers: 24-28 this year, ~18 in 2019.  ~14 first stages built this year, ~30 second stages.
Assuming  second stages = launches of course.(not got to end of videos)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13846
  • Likes Given: 5915
Re: Re: Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related
« Reply #4 on: 05/22/2018 07:06 pm »
Finally realistic launch numbers: 24-28 this year, ~18 in 2019.  ~14 first stages built this year, ~30 second stages.
Assuming  second stages = launches of course.(not got to end of videos)

Not assuming anything, she gave those targets for numbers of launches (2019 similar to 2017).

Offline S.Paulissen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Boston
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 511
Re: Re: Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related
« Reply #5 on: 05/22/2018 07:08 pm »
CNBC:
Quote
ALL DAY TOMORROW ON @CNBC: @MorganLBrennan has an exclusive look at @SpaceX, including a sitdown with President & COO Gwynne Shotwell. Starting 810amET on @SquawkCNBC
*snipped link*
*snipped link*

Well at least one person isn't fooled...

"BFR, that's Big Effing Rocket..." - interviewer
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 07:16 pm by S.Paulissen »
"An expert is a person who has found out by his own painful experience all the mistakes that one can make in a very narrow field." -Niels Bohr
Poster previously known as Exclavion going by his real name now.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Re: Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related
« Reply #6 on: 05/22/2018 07:12 pm »
Finally realistic launch numbers: 24-28 this year, ~18 in 2019.  ~14 first stages built this year, ~30 second stages.
Assuming  second stages = launches of course.(not got to end of videos)

Not assuming anything, she gave those targets for numbers of launches (2019 similar to 2017).

Indeed.
Interesting claim of a dip in 2019, and seems to rule out Starlink in 2019.
That, combined with reuse may give a lot of space to build hardware for a rapid campaign even in 2020.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
Re: Re: Upcoming Talks - SpaceX Related
« Reply #7 on: 05/22/2018 09:56 pm »
Interesting claim of a dip in 2019, and seems to rule out Starlink in 2019.
I don't think so.  She also talked about SpaceX owning "about sixty percent of the launch market".  Clearly she's talking about competed/contracted launches here, not all launches.  I therefore think this is specifically regarding to contracted launches and not necessarily internal ones.

Now, it might be Starlink isn't ready in 2019 and does not contribute to the manifest, but I don't think this information rules out that we might see some Starlink launches next year.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 10:01 pm by abaddon »

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #8 on: 05/22/2018 10:49 pm »
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 10:50 pm by MikeAtkinson »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #9 on: 05/22/2018 10:56 pm »
So according to their VP of production(?) and Gwynne, they can produce ~1 M1D engine per day, and one F9 every 14 days. (~26/year)

Now that first stage reuse will kick in, we'll see how that changes now that they have to build more second stages and fewer first stages. But in the near term, it looks like their current production rate will be sufficient, if they will 'only' have ~18 launches in 2019.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 10:59 pm by Lars-J »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 3853
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #10 on: 05/22/2018 11:44 pm »
Sounds like some reasons to not worry about some sliding from 2018 into 2019.

Or she’s letting potential customers know there are launch opportunities open.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #11 on: 05/23/2018 12:00 am »
The dip in 2019 is surprising, and should arguably be concerning, pending further details. A sign of a revenue dip next year?

Barring Starlink, which I still maintain is not external launch revenue flowing into the company, but is instead merely an added cost until such time as customers start paying for internet subscriptions, have they topped out their annual revenue potential in 2018? I thought they had $10 billion in launches lined up. Why would they not try and tap into as much as possible of that revenue as soon as possible, unless the market currently cannot carry more launches?

I had really expected a steady annual ramp up curve from this point onwards. Anyone have more insight into the 2019 dip?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13846
  • Likes Given: 5915
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #12 on: 05/23/2018 12:03 am »
I had really expected a steady annual ramp up curve from this point onwards. Anyone have more insight into the 2019 dip?

This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has looked at the manifest in the last year.  That's about how many payloads they have contracts to launch.  Starlink isn't ready yet.  What else are they going to launch?

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #13 on: 05/23/2018 12:12 am »
It will be interesting to hear what she has to say about BFR.  I believe Shotwell or the interviewer indicated it is on schedule.  BFR was supposed to be funded through profit from operations.  I’m wondering what the dip in 2019 launches will do to the schedule.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #14 on: 05/23/2018 12:17 am »
I had really expected a steady annual ramp up curve from this point onwards. Anyone have more insight into the 2019 dip?

This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has looked at the manifest in the last year.  That's about how many payloads they have contracts to launch.  Starlink isn't ready yet.  What else are they going to launch?

Fair point. I guess I was just thinking they would tap into the frequently referenced $10 billion launch manifest as soon as possible.
I guess then much of the $10 billion is not accessible just yet.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13846
  • Likes Given: 5915
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #15 on: 05/23/2018 12:20 am »
I had really expected a steady annual ramp up curve from this point onwards. Anyone have more insight into the 2019 dip?

This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has looked at the manifest in the last year.  That's about how many payloads they have contracts to launch.  Starlink isn't ready yet.  What else are they going to launch?

Fair point. I guess I was just thinking they would tap into the frequently referenced $10 billion launch manifest as soon as possible.
I guess then much of the $10 billion is not accessible just yet.

I'm still trying to figure out what those 100 launches would even be, unless they shoved 30-40 Starlink flights in there.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17256
  • Liked: 7112
  • Likes Given: 3061
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #16 on: 05/23/2018 12:27 am »
« Last Edit: 05/23/2018 12:44 am by yg1968 »

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #17 on: 05/23/2018 12:28 am »
This news is particularly interesting in light of the recent furore about the Ariane chief’s comments on how the launch market isn’t large enough to pay for reuse (he was throwing around a number of 30 or so launches as a mininum requirement for Ariane).

We know the plan is for that not to be the case as the market expands, but it would seem based on these numbers that this expansion may not be in time for the 2019 calendar year to maintain current SpaceX launch levels.

Interesting.
« Last Edit: 05/23/2018 12:29 am by M.E.T. »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 3853
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #18 on: 05/23/2018 12:46 am »
I had really expected a steady annual ramp up curve from this point onwards. Anyone have more insight into the 2019 dip?

This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has looked at the manifest in the last year.  That's about how many payloads they have contracts to launch.  Starlink isn't ready yet.  What else are they going to launch?

Fair point. I guess I was just thinking they would tap into the frequently referenced $10 billion launch manifest as soon as possible.
I guess then much of the $10 billion is not accessible just yet.

Launch contracts are signed years in advance.  If one wants to judge SpaceX success then look at where they were 2-3 years ago and launching now, or contracts they are signing now launching in 2-3 years.

As for revenue, I’d expect a crew launch plus cargo to be worth more than a couple Comsats.

Also, if they were worried about revenue or profit (to a big degree) they wouldn’t have just cut launch prices. 

It will interesting to hear what Gwyneth says, but I don’t expect anything g revolutionary
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #19 on: 05/23/2018 12:51 am »
I had really expected a steady annual ramp up curve from this point onwards. Anyone have more insight into the 2019 dip?

This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has looked at the manifest in the last year.  That's about how many payloads they have contracts to launch.  Starlink isn't ready yet.  What else are they going to launch?

Fair point. I guess I was just thinking they would tap into the frequently referenced $10 billion launch manifest as soon as possible.
I guess then much of the $10 billion is not accessible just yet.

Launch contracts are signed years in advance.  If one wants to judge SpaceX success then look at where they were 2-3 years ago and launching now, or contracts they are signing now launching in 2-3 years.

As for revenue, I’d expect a crew launch plus cargo to be worth more than a couple Comsats.

Also, if they were worried about revenue or profit (to a big degree) they wouldn’t have just cut launch prices. 

It will interesting to hear what Gwyneth says, but I don’t expect anything g revolutionary

Oh sure. I’m not concerned about SpaceX’s long term profitability. Just trying to evaluate  the potential brake a (relatively) low revenue 2019 year might put on the pace of their BFR development, which Musk stated would largely be funded from F9 revenues.


Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1437
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #20 on: 05/23/2018 02:06 am »
Ok here is some interesting profit numbers to chew on. This year 2018 with a reuse rate of 60% and total flights of ~26 with new flights priced at $62.5M with ~$12.5M profit and used flights priced at $50M with profits at $27M the total simplistic profit calculation for 2018 is $551M from flight ops. In 2019 with 19 flights and all flights priced at $50M but with BLK 5's only and at a reuse rate of 90% (10 total flights per booster) the total profit for 2019 is $463M from Flight Ops. This 27% dip in launches is only a 16% dip in profits.

The other item is that in most of the profit or extra available cash to fund the build out of Starlink and development of BFR comes form a steady launch list of just 20 paying customers per year. The rest of the launches going up to a total as high as 60 in 1 year would be from launch of Starlink.

The statements by Ms Shotwell is not a surprise.

Offline david1971

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 16537
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #21 on: 05/23/2018 06:02 am »
Cutting and pasting from an old post of mine, to put ~18 flights into context. 
Also note that 18 is roughly half of the total launches of Delta IV+heavies.

(From Ed's site)
Years that Atlas had 16+ successful orbital launches (along with failures):
1962         16(3)
1964         18(3)
1965         19(5)
1966         33(3)

Thor/Delta:
1960     21(7)       
1961     23(7)       
1962     38(4)       
1963     29(5)       
1964     32(4)       
1965     33(2)       
1966     24(2)       
1967     28(0)     
1968     21(2)     
1969     22(2)         
1970     16(0)   

Long March 2/3/4
2011     19(1)
2012     19(0)
2015     17(0)
2016     19(2)

And of course a hat-tip to Soyuz, which had crazy launch numbers...
I flew on SOFIA four times.

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #22 on: 05/23/2018 11:02 am »
If 2019 has 18 flights with most flights with reflown Block 5s with minimal refurb, they could earn as much profit as with 30 flights on mostly new stages or a lot of resources spend on reusability research.

Online Jakusb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1207
  • NL
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 637
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #23 on: 05/23/2018 09:01 pm »
So real quick summary, please add or correct where needed:
1 engine per day
1 core every 14 days
14 1st stages in 2018
20 2nd stages in 2018
24-28 launches in 2018
roughly 18 launches in 2019
60% of launches globally
BFR to start flying in 2024

Especially the 1 core per 14 days combined with "currently", does make me wonder if they are storing ready stages at Hawthorne at this moment, or less likely, we are totally missing some transports to McGregor....

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #24 on: 05/23/2018 09:09 pm »
So real quick summary, please add or correct where needed:
20 2nd stages in 2018
24-28 launches in 2018

30 second stages, I thought.

Offline DavidRPainting

Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #25 on: 05/23/2018 09:25 pm »
Assuming commercial flights are at the rate between this year and last year till BFR has taken over (post 2024), then there will be around 160 F9 flights. If we add to that 170 F9 flights for Starlink, we have 330 in total. Assuming 10 flights per core, that gives us 33 stage 1 boosters. Add a few as centre Falcon Heavy cores, then we're up to the numbers Elon predicted.

Offline vaporcobra

Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #26 on: 05/23/2018 09:32 pm »
So real quick summary, please add or correct where needed:
1 engine per day
1 core every 14 days
14 1st stages in 2018
20 2nd stages in 2018
24-28 launches in 2018
roughly 18 launches in 2019
60% of launches globally
BFR to start flying in 2024

Especially the 1 core per 14 days combined with "currently", does make me wonder if they are storing ready stages at Hawthorne at this moment, or less likely, we are totally missing some transports to McGregor....

99% sure she said 30 S2s in 2018, and I believe her 2024 BFR comment was in relation to the first launch(es) to Mars :)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #27 on: 05/23/2018 09:57 pm »
Assuming commercial flights are at the rate between this year and last year till BFR has taken over (post 2024), then there will be around 160 F9 flights. If we add to that 170 F9 flights for Starlink, we have 330 in total. Assuming 10 flights per core, that gives us 33 stage 1 boosters. Add a few as centre Falcon Heavy cores, then we're up to the numbers Elon predicted.
the 10 flights per core may be high (teething troubles, deliberate expends) or low (doesn't allow for flights after the first refurbishment) .... but yeah
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 3853
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #28 on: 05/23/2018 10:02 pm »
So real quick summary, please add or correct where needed:
1 engine per day
1 core every 14 days
14 1st stages in 2018
20 2nd stages in 2018
24-28 launches in 2018
roughly 18 launches in 2019
60% of launches globally
BFR to start flying in 2024

Especially the 1 core per 14 days combined with "currently", does make me wonder if they are storing ready stages at Hawthorne at this moment, or less likely, we are totally missing some transports to McGregor....

Nothing she said means they are actually producing at those numbers.  She said they 'could' do those numbers.

Stock piling boosters would be a very expensive, upper stages maybe worth having a few.  Launch contracts are bought far enough in advance they can plan production to meet demand.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline groundbound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #29 on: 05/23/2018 10:12 pm »
So real quick summary, please add or correct where needed:
1 engine per day
1 core every 14 days
14 1st stages in 2018
20 2nd stages in 2018
24-28 launches in 2018
roughly 18 launches in 2019
60% of launches globally
BFR to start flying in 2024

Especially the 1 core per 14 days combined with "currently", does make me wonder if they are storing ready stages at Hawthorne at this moment, or less likely, we are totally missing some transports to McGregor....

Nothing she said means they are actually producing at those numbers.  She said they 'could' do those numbers.

Stock piling boosters would be a very expensive, upper stages maybe worth having a few. Launch contracts are bought far enough in advance they can plan production to meet demand.

I thought they had explicitly stated on multiple occasions that they plan to stockpile Block 5 boosters as soon as they reasonably can. Am I misremembering this?

Online DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • England
  • Liked: 1696
  • Likes Given: 2824
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #30 on: 05/23/2018 10:31 pm »
So real quick summary, please add or correct where needed:
1 engine per day
1 core every 14 days
14 1st stages in 2018
20 2nd stages in 2018
24-28 launches in 2018
roughly 18 launches in 2019
60% of launches globally
BFR to start flying in 2024

Especially the 1 core per 14 days combined with "currently", does make me wonder if they are storing ready stages at Hawthorne at this moment, or less likely, we are totally missing some transports to McGregor....

99% sure she said 30 S2s in 2018, and I believe her 2024 BFR comment was in relation to the first launch(es) to Mars :)
It was a very quick "currently". I assume this refers to what they were able to do with Block 4, but is not sufficient detail to clearly state that for Block 5, which ISTM has probably been going much slower, whilst they iron out any new kinks in changed manufacturing processes. AIUI we've only seen 2 B5s (is there also one at McGregor?). So I doubt they have got any, and definitely not "many" stashed in secret! However I suppose there could be 4 in production approaching completion...
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline Torbjorn Larsson, OM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #31 on: 05/23/2018 10:47 pm »
So real quick summary, please add or correct where needed:
1 engine per day
1 core every 14 days
14 1st stages in 2018
20 2nd stages in 2018
24-28 launches in 2018
roughly 18 launches in 2019
60% of launches globally
BFR to start flying in 2024

Especially the 1 core per 14 days combined with "currently", does make me wonder if they are storing ready stages at Hawthorne at this moment, or less likely, we are totally missing some transports to McGregor....

Nothing she said means they are actually producing at those numbers.  She said they 'could' do those numbers.

Stock piling boosters would be a very expensive, upper stages maybe worth having a few. Launch contracts are bought far enough in advance they can plan production to meet demand.

I thought they had explicitly stated on multiple occasions that they plan to stockpile Block 5 boosters as soon as they reasonably can. Am I misremembering this?

Quote
@elonmusk
Replying to @Everman
SpaceX will prob build 30 to 40 rocket cores for ~300 missions over 5 years. Then BFR takes over & Falcon retires.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/block-5-spacex-increase-launch-cadence-lower-prices/

I believe Musk said to build 30-50 Block 5 in an interview. With a current capacity of 1 core / 2 weeks, or 26 cores/year, they may produce Falcon cores for another 1-2 years. Presumably BFR will take over as product after that, meaning BFS production is planned to start sometime 2020 ED (Elon Date) if the BFS pad jumper goes well.



Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #32 on: 05/24/2018 02:10 pm »
I believe Musk said to build 30-50 Block 5 in an interview. With a current capacity of 1 core / 2 weeks, or 26 cores/year, they may produce Falcon cores for another 1-2 years. Presumably BFR will take over as product after that, meaning BFS production is planned to start sometime 2020 ED (Elon Date) if the BFS pad jumper goes well.

I would hazard a guess that the factory is the single most expensive piece of capital they have by far.  Finishing block 5 production full stop to free up the factor for BFR is probably considerably cheaper then continuing to build block 5 at a steady pace.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1437
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #33 on: 05/24/2018 06:48 pm »
Ms Shotwell gave us a piece of the missing puzzle for the production trade between S1 and S2. The trade using her production numbers are 3 additional US for every S1 not built. So building 5 S1 results in 57 US. This without changing general production capacity. 6 S1 results in 54 US. This tradeoff looks to be the likely production rate to support the 50+ launches per year rate.

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #34 on: 05/24/2018 07:28 pm »
I believe Musk said to build 30-50 Block 5 in an interview. With a current capacity of 1 core / 2 weeks, or 26 cores/year, they may produce Falcon cores for another 1-2 years. Presumably BFR will take over as product after that, meaning BFS production is planned to start sometime 2020 ED (Elon Date) if the BFS pad jumper goes well.

I would hazard a guess that the factory is the single most expensive piece of capital they have by far.  Finishing block 5 production full stop to free up the factor for BFR is probably considerably cheaper then continuing to build block 5 at a steady pace.

They are bulding another factory for BFR to the port of LA.

However, the hawthorne factory will probably build the raptor engines.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14152
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14030
  • Likes Given: 1391
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #35 on: 05/24/2018 08:06 pm »
30-50 makes perfect sense.  10 uses per rocket on average, with a comfortable margin since every time you don't recover a rocket, the rest of the fleet has to fly more, and you also need a margin for the case that BFR is a couple years late taking over the family business.



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #36 on: 05/25/2018 04:52 am »

They are bulding another factory for BFR to the port of LA.

However, the hawthorne factory will probably build the raptor engines.
[/quote]



I'd guess only fuselage is built in port factory along with final assembly. Hawthorne would build all other parts and sub systems including engines.
« Last Edit: 05/25/2018 04:52 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline sleepy-martian

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Transfer Orbit
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #37 on: 05/25/2018 04:28 pm »



I would hazard a guess that the factory is the single most expensive piece of capital they have by far.

Any estimates what the factory could be worth?

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1437
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #38 on: 05/25/2018 07:01 pm »



I would hazard a guess that the factory is the single most expensive piece of capital they have by far.

Any estimates what the factory could be worth?
The cheapest part of the factory is floor space. The expensive stuff is the tooling. Some of it is bolted to the floor and would be expensive to move. But a lot of it is mobile in that it can be moved to rearrange the floor for creating a small Raptor engine line of approximately 1/3 of the engine manufacturing floor space. To support a flight rate of 50-60 flights per year with BLK 5's flying 10 times for each set of engines they need 2/3 of the current floor space to maintaining production rates of M1DSLs and M1DVACs. Note the M1DVAC lines will double and the M1DSL lines will be the one to shrink by more than half. Going from about 150 engines to only ~60.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #39 on: 05/25/2018 07:45 pm »



I would hazard a guess that the factory is the single most expensive piece of capital they have by far.

Any estimates what the factory could be worth?
The cheapest part of the factory is floor space. The expensive stuff is the tooling. Some of it is bolted to the floor and would be expensive to move. But a lot of it is mobile in that it can be moved to rearrange the floor for creating a small Raptor engine line of approximately 1/3 of the engine manufacturing floor space. To support a flight rate of 50-60 flights per year with BLK 5's flying 10 times for each set of engines they need 2/3 of the current floor space to maintaining production rates of M1DSLs and M1DVACs. Note the M1DVAC lines will double and the M1DSL lines will be the one to shrink by more than half. Going from about 150 engines to only ~60.

Are the factory buildings (there are quite a few now) owned or leased?

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #40 on: 05/25/2018 08:22 pm »
The cheapest part of the factory is floor space. The expensive stuff is the tooling. Some of it is bolted to the floor and would be expensive to move. But a lot of it is mobile in that it can be moved to rearrange the floor for creating a small Raptor engine line of approximately 1/3 of the engine manufacturing floor space.

Would it be efficient to keep two part-size supply lines open in this fashion?  Dont they try to avoid this practice?

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1437
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #41 on: 05/25/2018 08:56 pm »
We are wandering the discussion away from Ms Shotwells's statements and their implications. There is a thread for the question about facilities rental or bought. Actually multiple threads.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=80.0

Offline DavidRPainting

Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #42 on: 05/25/2018 09:03 pm »
Here's a detailed look at the potential launches over the next few years, showing the handover from F9 to BFR, based on the recent interview and statements from Musk et al. If it is anything close to right, there's a short term $15bn cashflow issue given the stated development costs for BFR and Starlink...

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1437
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #43 on: 05/26/2018 02:39 am »
Here's a detailed look at the potential launches over the next few years, showing the handover from F9 to BFR, based on the recent interview and statements from Musk et al. If it is anything close to right, there's a short term $15bn cashflow issue given the stated development costs for BFR and Starlink...

Thinking about this. Due to the revenue start from operations start of Starlink in beginning 2022 and the mostly end of development of BFR in 2023, the negative cash flows mostly end by beginning of 2024. This is due to the FCC requirement of 50% of the constellation deployed by APR 2024 and the time-frame of when this accelerated launch schedule would provide 800 sats on orbit. Basically your launch numbers for Starlink in 2021 and 2022 should each be 30. Otherwise the requirement of 2200 sats by APR 2024 would not be reached. In order to deploy that first 800 sats would cost ~ $1.6B. After-which additional launches costs are mitigated increasingly as the subscriber base enlarges until Starlink operations become cash positive. SpaceX believes this could happen rapidly after once operational and before the full constellation deployment of 4400 sats is reached by APR 2027. In all the highest total negative cash value would be ~$8B. A little less than half of that would be contributed by Starlink until it becomes cash positive at around the same timeframe as BFR becomes operational. So Starlink is not likely to help fund BFR. But the profits from those 20 commercial launches of F9 each year will be yielding about $500M each year. Or a total of $2.5B. So the net needed investments to get through to that point would be ~$5.5B. After which no more investment should be needed.

The question is will the prospect of quick payback from Starlink draw in new investment into SpaceX that would be enough to cover the complete cost of deployment of the first half of the constellation of 2200 or a value of $4.4B. Big business finance is a colossal juggling act of revenue, investments, payouts, and spending.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6333
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4204
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #44 on: 05/26/2018 04:42 am »
Here's a detailed look at the potential launches over the next few years, showing the handover from F9 to BFR, based on the recent interview and statements from Musk et al. If it is anything close to right, there's a short term $15bn cashflow issue given the stated development costs for BFR and Starlink...

Thinking about this. Due to the revenue start from operations start of Starlink in beginning 2022 and the mostly end of development of BFR in 2023, the negative cash flows mostly end by beginning of 2024.
>
The question is will the prospect of quick payback from Starlink draw in new investment into SpaceX that would be enough to cover the complete cost of deployment of the first half of the constellation of 2200 or a value of $4.4B. Big business finance is a colossal juggling act of revenue, investments, payouts, and spending.

Sounds like all SpaceX needs to do is ask...

CNBC....

Quote
>
But, more importantly, SpaceX finds it "the easiest" to raise new funding compared with any private technology company, according to Robert Hilmer, global head of business development at private market analysis group Equidate.

"SpaceX is one of [the most], if not the most, popular pre-IPO tech companies globally," Hilmer told CNBC, speaking about how often the company is referenced in conversations with investors.
>
"Everywhere I travel around the world, investors of all types — individuals, family offices, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds or private equity — want to get into SpaceX," Hilmer said. "It's almost all investors I talk to."


Such vast, unparalleled interest from private investors gives SpaceX "a lot of runway" to continue its "very long-term approach" to the development of its business, Hilmer said.
>
« Last Edit: 05/26/2018 04:45 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Chudnovsky-Law

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #45 on: 05/26/2018 06:36 am »
Thank you for posting this!

It's amazing how SpaceX is now worth $28 billion. I think that makes it one of the most valuable private companies in the US.  Keep up the great work Elon and co!

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #46 on: 05/26/2018 09:17 am »
Sounds like all SpaceX needs to do is ask...
They really don't want to dilute the equity in the company if they don't have to.
As external ownership rises, various things can cause takeovers and 'let's not go to Mars'.
However, the closer you are to a viable in-market product you are, the lower the cost of your borrowing gets.

Starlink, with one or perhaps two planes can demonstrate every single aspect of the system to potential investors - just only half an hour a day.
This starts to get 'sure thing' prices, not 'it might work'.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1437
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #47 on: 05/26/2018 03:19 pm »
The implications is that this info gives high confidence to the schedule of events stated by Ms Shotwell. Such that the stated first BFR (cargo) to Mars occurring in 2024 synod has a high likelihood and if not then, then in the 2026 synod is a near certainty. For a BFR (cargo) to do a Mars run in 2024 all the features except maybe manned ops is fully operational. Meaning BFR could do cargo runs to the Moon delivering 150mt of cargo to the surface of the Moon and then returning to Earth in 2024.

This would be at about the same time frame as the first manned Orion launch on SLS does a brief  Lunar flyby or brief Lunar orbital stay (only a couple of days).

The missing info from her statements is when manned flights of BFR would occur. I would guess at a few years after (could be as many as 5) the BFR becoming fully operational Cargo and Tanker with demo of on-orbit refueling is completed. I estimate 2026 at the earliest and 2029 at the latest. So a manned Mars flight of BFR is likely to occur before 2030.

Unfortunately the manned portion of the BFR schedules are probably not as reliable for Ms Shotwell to mention the dates for a manned mission to mars. Or did she and I missed her statement?


Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #48 on: 05/26/2018 04:30 pm »
Here's a detailed look at the potential launches over the next few years, showing the handover from F9 to BFR, based on the recent interview and statements from Musk et al. If it is anything close to right, there's a short term $15bn cashflow issue given the stated development costs for BFR and Starlink...

I understand how difficult it is tp project launches as far out as 9 years from now.  Imagine going back to 2009 and predicting where we are today.  Given that there are a few comments about your spreadsheet that I would like to share.

1.  I went back and listened again to Shotwell's interview.  The commentator stated more than once that SpaceX is currently on track to achieve Manned Mars missions per their aspirational goal of 2024.  Many of us believe that will be difficult to achieve.  But if it is to occur, then the two cargo missions will need to be launched in 2022.
2.  We understand that each BFR  cargo and manned mission will require a minimum of 5 launches. One BFS to earth orbit plus 4 tankers.  That fact will drive up the number of BFR launches considerably.
3.  Indications are hat SpaceX is still on track for the first BFS hop in the first half of 2019.  Should that schedule hold i would imagine more than 2 hops in 2019.
4.  I would think SpaceX would want to complete hop testing by year end 2020.  Much like the Falcon 9 Grasshopper flights test program being short lived.  Hops are fine for developing the terminal landing model.  However they can't all the data needed without returning from orbit.
5.  If they are currently on track in BFR development, then I believe BFB testing will begin in 2020.  Sure it will lag BFS development but there likely be design schedule overlap.
6.  A stated goal for BFR is rapid reusability.  That probably will require additional launches to your matrix.
7.  BFR launches are supposed to cost less than Falcon 9 therefore, SpaceX should want to transition Starlink launches from Falcon 9 ASAP after it is available even if it impacts the Mars effort.
 
My comments are predicated on a smooth BFR/S development effort.  Failures will of course shift my schedule comments to the right.  Accomplishments in hardware and facility construction during the next year will provide considerably more visibility. 

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #49 on: 05/26/2018 05:05 pm »
Sounds like all SpaceX needs to do is ask...

The problem with that is that that Musk's share of the stock is only slightly above 50%.  If they sell much more, they stop being a majority owned company which they dont want to do.  And what little wiggle room they do have they probably want to prioritize for employee incentives.  So the only way they raise more money is if half that money is coming from Musk, i.e. if he sells a big chunk of his minority stake of Tesla.

7.  BFR launches are supposed to cost less than Falcon 9 therefore, SpaceX should want to transition Starlink launches from Falcon 9 ASAP after it is available even if it impacts the Mars effort.

The price difference shouldn't matter in the short run.  They will have plenty of first stage boosters to spare and the BFR performance would suffer from the need to distribute the satellites so widely.  The potential savings from minimizing launch costs are probably going to be small compared to the cost of the satellites themselves and the revenues that Starlink could provide by getting up there as quickly as possible.  So I expect the question will be what is the fastest way not what is the cheapest.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14152
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14030
  • Likes Given: 1391
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #50 on: 05/26/2018 07:30 pm »
I am a very strong believer in SpaceX's future (and present..).  However, I will be very surprised to see BFS hop in 2019, not to mention in the first half.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but 2019 is only six months away.  We just saw a comoposite mandrel in a tent.  I think there's a lot to cover from here to a hopping test article - more than a year's worth.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1677
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #51 on: 05/26/2018 08:03 pm »
I am a very strong believer in SpaceX's future (and present..).  However, I will be very surprised to see BFS hop in 2019, not to mention in the first half.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but 2019 is only six months away.  We just saw a comoposite mandrel in a tent.  I think there's a lot to cover from here to a hopping test article - more than a year's worth.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down



I agree.  The flight engine is in work and so is the test stand.  These will have to be completed, then a test regime passed.  It would be far more likely the end of 2019 is a stretch goal.

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #52 on: 05/26/2018 08:22 pm »
I am a very strong believer in SpaceX's future (and present..).  However, I will be very surprised to see BFS hop in 2019, not to mention in the first half.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but 2019 is only six months away.  We just saw a comoposite mandrel in a tent.  I think there's a lot to cover from here to a hopping test article - more than a year's worth.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down



I agree.  The flight engine is in work and so is the test stand.  These will have to be completed, then a test regime passed.  It would be far more likely the end of 2019 is a stretch goal.

What I wouldn’t give to have a candid off the record conversation with Shotwell and or Musk to get the true skinny on the Mars effort.  Surprisingly with more than half a year since IAC 2017 they are both saying that SpaceX is on the schedule per the IAC 2017 reveal.  I find that encouraging.  There is lots of information both here on the public side of the forum and much more in L2. However, with the aggregate of the data I can see one arguing that SpaceX is truly on schedule and yet one could also argue the opposite. The next year will be very telling.
« Last Edit: 05/26/2018 08:24 pm by testguy »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14152
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14030
  • Likes Given: 1391
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #53 on: 05/26/2018 08:29 pm »
I am a very strong believer in SpaceX's future (and present..).  However, I will be very surprised to see BFS hop in 2019, not to mention in the first half.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but 2019 is only six months away.  We just saw a comoposite mandrel in a tent.  I think there's a lot to cover from here to a hopping test article - more than a year's worth.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down



I agree.  The flight engine is in work and so is the test stand.  These will have to be completed, then a test regime passed.  It would be far more likely the end of 2019 is a stretch goal.

What I wouldn’t give to have a candid off the record conversation with Shotwell and or Musk to get the true skinny on the Mars effort.  Surprisingly with more than half a year since IAC 2017 they are both saying that SpaceX is on the schedule per the IAC 2017 reveal.  I find that encouraging.  There is lots of information both here on the public side of the forum and much more in L2. However, with the aggregate of the data I can see one arguing that SpaceX is truly on schedule and yet one could argue the opposite. The next year will be very telling.
I would too...

And yes, who knows what else is happening at Hawthorne.

And of course, a spaceship in my lifetime is already mind-blowing...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #54 on: 05/27/2018 12:25 am »
Sounds like all SpaceX needs to do is ask...

The problem with that is that that Musk's share of the stock is only slightly above 50%.  If they sell much more, they stop being a majority owned company which they dont want to do.  And what little wiggle room they do have they probably want to prioritize for employee incentives.  So the only way they raise more money is if half that money is coming from Musk, i.e. if he sells a big chunk of his minority stake of Tesla.

There is another possibility. They could establish Starlink as a subsiduary of SpaceX and sell a minority stake in the former.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6333
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4204
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #55 on: 05/27/2018 03:11 am »
Sounds like all SpaceX needs to do is ask...

The problem with that is that that Musk's share of the stock is only slightly above 50%.  If they sell much more, they stop being a majority owned company which they dont want to do.  And what little wiggle room they do have they probably want to prioritize for employee incentives.  So the only way they raise more money is if half that money is coming from Musk, i.e. if he sells a big chunk of his minority stake of Tesla.

There is another possibility. They could establish Starlink as a subsiduary of SpaceX and sell a minority stake in the former.

Musk controls way more than 50% of SpaceX's voting stock, which is all that matters. Non-voting stock exercises no real control.

https://electrek.co/2016/11/16/elon-musk-stake-spacex-tesla-shares/

Quote
>
Today, SpaceX filed with the FCC to obtain the rights to operate a massive constellation of 4,400 satellites to offer internet services from orbit, a plan that was announced last year.

In the filing, SpaceX disclosed Musk’s stake in the company which surprisingly stands at 54%:

“SpaceX is a privately held company in which the sole shareholder who is the beneficial owner of a 10% or greater interest is Elon Musk, as trustee of a private trust. Mr. Musk’s trust currently owns 54% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX and has voting control of 78% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX."
>
« Last Edit: 05/27/2018 03:16 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #56 on: 05/27/2018 04:38 am »
There is another possibility. They could establish Starlink as a subsiduary of SpaceX and sell a minority stake in the former.

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that pretty much the most paralyzing arrangement you could possibly come up with?  Minority shareholders are protected against "oppression" whereby the company suffers in order to further the aims of the controlling interest outside the company.  What you are proposing is an arrangement whereby Starlink would be serving as a piggybank for SpaceX.  Suppose 5 years after Starlink is incorporated, a minority shareholder thinks that the price of a Falcon 9 launch should be lower or that Starlink should have demanded a more favorable launch schedule?  Even if they are wrong they have the right to a long and tortuous discovery process.  They certainly wouldn't ever meet an "arms length transaction" standard so they would be forced to meet a "fair dealings" standard which is much, much more complicated.  The arrangement you are talking about is reminiscent of the railway barons.  Laws were put in place after those experiences.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2018 04:38 am by johnfwhitesell »

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #57 on: 05/27/2018 06:20 am »
So real quick summary, please add or correct where needed:
1 engine per day
1 core every 14 days
14 1st stages in 2018
20 2nd stages in 2018
24-28 launches in 2018
roughly 18 launches in 2019
60% of launches globally
BFR to start flying in 2024

Especially the 1 core per 14 days combined with "currently", does make me wonder if they are storing ready stages at Hawthorne at this moment, or less likely, we are totally missing some transports to McGregor....

Nothing she said means they are actually producing at those numbers.  She said they 'could' do those numbers.

Stock piling boosters would be a very expensive, upper stages maybe worth having a few.  Launch contracts are bought far enough in advance they can plan production to meet demand.
But it takes them 18-24 months to produce an F9.
I do not think they will have to plan for production of new F9 boosters 2 years from now.
2nd stage will be ongoing, but even here I can see Merlin 1D (Vac) production stopping in 2019/20.

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #58 on: 05/27/2018 08:50 am »
There is another possibility. They could establish Starlink as a subsiduary of SpaceX and sell a minority stake in the former.

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that pretty much the most paralyzing arrangement you could possibly come up with?  Minority shareholders are protected against "oppression" whereby the company suffers in order to further the aims of the controlling interest outside the company.  ....  The arrangement you are talking about is reminiscent of the railway barons.  Laws were put in place after those experiences.

They have their advantages and disadvantages, but are a common enough arrangement. Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway has a number of subsidiaries with minority interests, for example. I wasn't recommending such an arrangement for SpaceX, just noting the possibility.

Offline sleepy-martian

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Transfer Orbit
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #59 on: 05/27/2018 11:16 am »


So real quick summary, please add or correct where needed:
1 engine per day
1 core every 14 days
14 1st stages in 2018
20 2nd stages in 2018
24-28 launches in 2018
roughly 18 launches in 2019
60% of launches globally
BFR to start flying in 2024


But it takes them 18-24 months to produce an F9.
I do not think they will have to plan for production of new F9 boosters 2 years from now.
2nd stage will be ongoing, but even here I can see Merlin 1D (Vac) production stopping in 2019/20.

What?

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #60 on: 05/27/2018 11:51 am »
Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway has a number of subsidiaries with minority interests, for example.

Which?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Berkshire_Hathaway

To me it looks like the vast majority of their companies are majority owned, they have one major investment where a different company is the majority owner then they have three major investments where the companies have an independent C-suite and board.  Not one of these 60 cases seems comparable to the Starlink inversion.  And this in a company that is incredibly successful at judicious use of other people's capital.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2018 11:55 am by johnfwhitesell »

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #61 on: 05/27/2018 03:04 pm »
Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway has a number of subsidiaries with minority interests, for example.

Which?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Berkshire_Hathaway

To me it looks like the vast majority of their companies are majority owned, they have one major investment where a different company is the majority owner then they have three major investments where the companies have an independent C-suite and board.  Not one of these 60 cases seems comparable to the Starlink inversion.  And this in a company that is incredibly successful at judicious use of other people's capital.

The idea would not be to maximize SpaceX profits at the expense of the Starlink subsidiary. Instead, the purpose would be to maximize Starlink profits, while SpaceX sells them launch services at normal market related prices. Companies deal with transfer pricing issues all the time, and manage it quite effectively. This would be no different.

Let's say SpaceX owns 60% of Starlink, with 40% owned by investors who provided capital to get it off the ground. If Starlink earns $30bn revenue a year as expected, with say a 15% profit margin, that's around $5bn profit a year, $3bn of which SpaceX as 60% owner can have access to by way of dividend payouts.

Alternatively, Starlink's market valuation shoots through the roof if it retains its profits rather than paying it out as dividends, and the shares grow in value as an asset in SpaceX's books. They can then obtain financing against said asset, or they can raise more investment funding based on a much higher market valuation, and thereby get more money for fewer shares issued. Etc.

The point is, I believe launching Starlink as an (initially) wholly owned subsidiary makes a heck of a lot of sense, and leaves room for a lot of investment funding without relinquishing any control in SpaceX itself, as the holding company.

Incidentally, Spacex could then repeat this model many times as they expand in the future, with the next big move in my view being a subsidiary focused on asteroid mining, which would eventually be even more valuable than Starlink. Again, outside funding can be obtained into this venture without relinquishing any shares in SpaceX itself, who remains the holding company of yet another subsidiary in that hypothetical case.

SpaceX could end up with numerous space related ventures, each run through a different subsidiary, with the holding company retaining majority shareholding in each, but getting different partners/investors involved to capitalize and drive each of the sub ventures towards success.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2018 03:06 pm by M.E.T. »

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #62 on: 05/27/2018 06:04 pm »
The implications is that this info gives high confidence to the schedule of events stated by Ms Shotwell. Such that the stated first BFR (cargo) to Mars occurring in 2024 synod has a high likelihood and if not then, then in the 2026 synod is a near certainty. For a BFR (cargo) to do a Mars run in 2024 all the features except maybe manned ops is fully operational. Meaning BFR could do cargo runs to the Moon delivering 150mt of cargo to the surface of the Moon and then returning to Earth in 2024.

This would be at about the same time frame as the first manned Orion launch on SLS does a brief  Lunar flyby or brief Lunar orbital stay (only a couple of days).

The missing info from her statements is when manned flights of BFR would occur. I would guess at a few years after (could be as many as 5) the BFR becoming fully operational Cargo and Tanker with demo of on-orbit refueling is completed. I estimate 2026 at the earliest and 2029 at the latest. So a manned Mars flight of BFR is likely to occur before 2030.

Unfortunately the manned portion of the BFR schedules are probably not as reliable for Ms Shotwell to mention the dates for a manned mission to mars. Or did she and I missed her statement?

I believe the interviewer said that Shotwell indicated that SpaceX was still on plan for the 2024 mission.  I took that to mean boots on the ground, not cargo.  I'm just trying to cite what the company line is today.  Of course reality may be different, but I think it is important to understand their aspirational goal and use that goal to judge their performance.

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Liked: 448
  • Likes Given: 251
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #63 on: 05/27/2018 08:15 pm »
I do not think they will have to plan for production of new F9 boosters 2 years from now.
2nd stage will be ongoing, but even here I can see Merlin 1D (Vac) production stopping in 2019/20.

I think they will start stockpiling engines, not so much complete first stages. I think Elon mentioned sometime that Raptor and Merlin are similar in size so that they can repurpose the manufacturing equipment/assembly line.
Since they still have to manufacture Falcon 9 second stages, they might retain some capabilities to manufacture first stages. The tooling for the main body for Falcon 9 has no use for BFR, so no repurposing that.

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #64 on: 05/28/2018 12:27 pm »
Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway has a number of subsidiaries with minority interests, for example.

Which?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Berkshire_Hathaway

The ones listed as not 100% owned! (Though the ones listed are only the major subsidiaries - Berkshire Hathaway has thousands of them.)

Quote
To me it looks like the vast majority of their companies are majority owned, they have one major investment where a different company is the majority owner then they have three major investments where the companies have an independent C-suite and board.  Not one of these 60 cases seems comparable to the Starlink inversion.  And this in a company that is incredibly successful at judicious use of other people's capital.

I get it, you're not keen on the idea. However, the fact subsidiaries with minority interests exist demonstrates that people find them useful, at least occasionally, and are therefore another option for SpaceX to consider.

The point is, I believe launching Starlink as an (initially) wholly owned subsidiary makes a heck of a lot of sense, and leaves room for a lot of investment funding without relinquishing any control in SpaceX itself, as the holding company.

Another advantage is that it provides a financial fire-break between the subsidiary and SpaceX itself, so that a financial failure of the former is less likely to bring down the latter.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #65 on: 05/28/2018 12:38 pm »
I do not think they will have to plan for production of new F9 boosters 2 years from now.
2nd stage will be ongoing, but even here I can see Merlin 1D (Vac) production stopping in 2019/20.

I think they will start stockpiling engines, not so much complete first stages. I think Elon mentioned sometime that Raptor and Merlin are similar in size so that they can repurpose the manufacturing equipment/assembly line.
Since they still have to manufacture Falcon 9 second stages, they might retain some capabilities to manufacture first stages. The tooling for the main body for Falcon 9 has no use for BFR, so no repurposing that.

Aren't the tubes for hyperlink about same diameter (12.2ft/3.66m)?  I believe the test tubes set up in Hawthorne could have been made with similar technology/tooling.  Only need to withstand one atmosphere... friction stir welding would certainly be used for seams... framing could be moved to exterior or not.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #66 on: 05/28/2018 01:15 pm »
Aren't the tubes for hyperlink about same diameter (12.2ft/3.66m)?  I believe the test tubes set up in Hawthorne could have been made with similar technology/tooling.  Only need to withstand one atmosphere... friction stir welding would certainly be used for seams... framing could be moved to exterior or not.
Off the shelf steel pipe seems vastly likelier to be cheaper than custom Al/Li pipe, especially given any tooling is likely to be optimised for hundreds of meters a year, not many tens of thousands.

Offline IntoTheVoid

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • USA
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 134
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #67 on: 05/30/2018 01:51 pm »
I am a very strong believer in SpaceX's future (and present..).  However, I will be very surprised to see BFS hop in 2019, not to mention in the first half.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but 2019 is only six seven months away.  We just saw a comoposite mandrel in a tent.  I think there's a lot to cover from here to a hopping test article - more than a year's worth.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

While there is still clearly plenty of work to be completed before any hop tests, six seven months is not the limit on the schedule accuracy. 13 months from today is both "more than a year" and "first half of 2019". There's no need to make the schedule look even more aggressive than it already is.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14152
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14030
  • Likes Given: 1391
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #68 on: 05/30/2018 02:12 pm »
I am a very strong believer in SpaceX's future (and present..).  However, I will be very surprised to see BFS hop in 2019, not to mention in the first half.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but 2019 is only six seven months away.  We just saw a comoposite mandrel in a tent.  I think there's a lot to cover from here to a hopping test article - more than a year's worth.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

While there is still clearly plenty of work to be completed before any hop tests, six seven months is not the limit on the schedule accuracy. 13 months from today is both "more than a year" and "first half of 2019". There's no need to make the schedule look even more aggressive than it already is.
You are right, on both counts...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #69 on: 05/30/2018 08:30 pm »
Call me crazy but I dont think first half of 2019 is actually an aggressive timeline.  We are talking about a vertical flight, not a horizontal one.  They could go no higher then a couple hundred feet if they wanted to.  The hardest part was the fuel tank and they finished that before they even set the date.  The next hardest part is the engine and they were already at nearly full scale full duration tests before they set the date.  The only real unknown was the body itself.  If they were trying to make an orbital vehicle that would be an ambitious timeline.  But this is just a grasshopper.  It could have serious structural deficiencies by orbital standards and perform the mission just fine.  So building a new body within a year isn't easy but it's not superhuman.

Online DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • England
  • Liked: 1696
  • Likes Given: 2824
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #70 on: 05/30/2018 08:36 pm »
Call me crazy but I dont think first half of 2019 is actually an aggressive timeline.  We are talking about a vertical flight, not a horizontal one.  They could go no higher then a couple hundred feet if they wanted to.  The hardest part was the fuel tank and they finished that before they even set the date.  The next hardest part is the engine and they were already at nearly full scale full duration tests before they set the date.  The only real unknown was the body itself.  If they were trying to make an orbital vehicle that would be an ambitious timeline.  But this is just a grasshopper.  It could have serious structural deficiencies by orbital standards and perform the mission just fine.  So building a new body within a year isn't easy but it's not superhuman.
"Completed the fuel tank"... really? Maybe I missed that. I thought we had no 9m dia construction complete yet?
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13846
  • Likes Given: 5915
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #71 on: 05/30/2018 08:39 pm »
The Starlink FCC paperwork has been done by a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX from the beginning. I think it's likely they'll find financial partners to help build the constellation.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2018 08:41 pm by gongora »

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #72 on: 05/30/2018 08:52 pm »
"Completed the fuel tank"... really? Maybe I missed that. I thought we had no 9m dia construction complete yet?

Then what was the big tank?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #73 on: 05/30/2018 09:05 pm »
"Completed the fuel tank"... really? Maybe I missed that. I thought we had no 9m dia construction complete yet?

Then what was the big tank?
Just a test tank, of no particular significance other than that.

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #74 on: 05/30/2018 09:15 pm »
Just a test tank, of no particular significance other than that.

But wasn't it full size?

I wasn't trying to refer to the particular hardware, I just meant that they had prototypes of the components.  The tank is the new thing and I believe it is a full prototype.  The engine is less knew but the prototype was very close.  All that leaves is the hull which is new but not super new.

Online DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • England
  • Liked: 1696
  • Likes Given: 2824
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #75 on: 05/30/2018 09:18 pm »
"Completed the fuel tank"... really? Maybe I missed that. I thought we had no 9m dia construction complete yet?

Then what was the big tank?
Just a test tank, of no particular significance other than that.
The "big tank" was in EM's 2016 IAC in Mexico. It was part of the ITS (12m) programme. The picture shows it at a dock, soon to be tested to destruction at sea. EM said the test was successful.

Although it was for the ITS, not the 2017 BFS, it is relevant, as the smaller 9m tanks for the BFS will build on the experience of that tank.
I don't think we have been told a 9m tank has been made yet.

Edit: I also believe the BFS will come together rather more quickly than other SX projects have, and that they have more parts, and experience, lined up for the BFS, unlike the early F9 etc.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2018 09:22 pm by DistantTemple »
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline IntoTheVoid

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • USA
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 134
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #76 on: 05/30/2018 09:23 pm »
Call me crazy but I dont think first half of 2019 is actually an aggressive timeline.  We are talking about a vertical flight, not a horizontal one.  They could go no higher then a couple hundred feet if they wanted to.  The hardest part was the fuel tank and they finished that before they even set the date.  The next hardest part is the engine and they were already at nearly full scale full duration tests before they set the date.  The only real unknown was the body itself.  If they were trying to make an orbital vehicle that would be an ambitious timeline.  But this is just a grasshopper.  It could have serious structural deficiencies by orbital standards and perform the mission just fine.  So building a new body within a year isn't easy but it's not superhuman.

Hmm...
I haven't heard that they've even started a new tank, since they tested their test tank to destruction, nevermind finished a new one.
We recently heard that the 1st production engine was 'in work', not at all tested.
We, to my knowledge, have not heard that there will be a grasshopper, though it seems many want to speculate such. We have heard that they plan hop tests with a BFS in 1st half of 2019, without statements of reduced construction fidelity.
We know they leased land for a factory on a site without usable buildings.
So... they plan to build a brand new spaceship, in a not yet built factory, and with zero parts known to be complete at this time, and fly it in about a year. What's not aggressive?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #77 on: 05/30/2018 09:26 pm »
Well if you (or we) haven't heard about it, it obviously isn't happening.  8)

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #78 on: 05/30/2018 09:42 pm »
Hmm...
I haven't heard that they've even started a new tank, since they tested their test tank to destruction, nevermind finished a new one.
We recently heard that the 1st production engine was 'in work', not at all tested.
We, to my knowledge, have not heard that there will be a grasshopper, though it seems many want to speculate such. We have heard that they plan hop tests with a BFS in 1st half of 2019, without statements of reduced construction fidelity.
We know they leased land for a factory on a site without usable buildings.
So... they plan to build a brand new spaceship, in a not yet built factory, and with zero parts known to be complete at this time, and fly it in about a year. What's not aggressive?

Hops not grasshopper... okay cool but it's still vastly less stress which is the crux of the argument.
No reduced fidelity on the construction... yeah I'm not saying they are going to design it to fail but surely you can see how an early test could be part of the QC instead of waiting for the QC to finish
I didn't say a production engine was tested.  I said a nearly full scale engine was tested.  And that was tested before IAC 2017.

The idea I'm advancing here is that they already waited for all the really unknown stuff to be tested before setting a deadline and the deadline was for a very conservative goal then is typical.  If you want to take issue with the way I phrased particular items you are free to do so but it feels like you are nitpicking me simply for the sake of nitpicking.

Online DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • England
  • Liked: 1696
  • Likes Given: 2824
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #79 on: 05/30/2018 09:45 pm »
Call me crazy but I dont think first half of 2019 is actually an aggressive timeline.  We are talking about a vertical flight, not a horizontal one.  They could go no higher then a couple hundred feet if they wanted to.  The hardest part was the fuel tank and they finished that before they even set the date.  The next hardest part is the engine and they were already at nearly full scale full duration tests before they set the date.  The only real unknown was the body itself.  If they were trying to make an orbital vehicle that would be an ambitious timeline.  But this is just a grasshopper.  It could have serious structural deficiencies by orbital standards and perform the mission just fine.  So building a new body within a year isn't easy but it's not superhuman.

Hmm...
I haven't heard that they've even started a new tank, since they tested their test tank to destruction, nevermind finished a new one.
We recently heard that the 1st production engine was 'in work', not at all tested.
We, to my knowledge, have not heard that there will be a grasshopper, though it seems many want to speculate such. We have heard that they plan hop tests with a BFS in 1st half of 2019, without statements of reduced construction fidelity.
We know they leased land for a factory on a site without usable buildings.
So... they plan to build a brand new spaceship, in a not yet built factory, and with zero parts known to be complete at this time, and fly it in about a year. What's not aggressive?
There is speculation that the tent where the Mandrel is will be a temporary factory. SX "must" be doing that, or similar as they could not have given the 2019 timeline knowing the factory will be hardly started by then!

Only the CF body and final assembly need to be made in the tent, as engines and other parts will be likely made at SX's Hawthorne factory. "We" are assuming SX will make its own tanks, but the mandrel is not suitable for a spherical (ish) tank, or tank ends, so we don't know for certain if they will appear ready made from another contractor. (no one has said this).
But IMO it is an aggressive timeline.

So its legitimate debate and scathing comments are ott.

And Lars-J, SX do a lot of things we don't hear about, so your inferred logic, has a defect, and could be categorised as starting just a little on the browbeating spectrum.
Edit: Perhaps I missed your irony?
« Last Edit: 05/30/2018 09:51 pm by DistantTemple »
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #80 on: 05/30/2018 09:52 pm »
And Lars-J, SX do a lot of things we don't hear about, so your inferred logic, has a defect, and could be categorised as starting just a little on the browbeating spectrum.
Edit: Perhaps I missed your irony?

You missed the irony. :)

Offline IntoTheVoid

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • USA
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 134
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #81 on: 05/30/2018 09:52 pm »
Well if you (or we) haven't heard about it, it obviously isn't happening.  8)

I have no dog in the fight.
We also haven't heard of manned flights to Pluto; do you presume they have those planned as well?
There are many things we haven't heard about. And sure there are certainly things that they are doing that we haven't heard about. But not hearing about them doesn't constitute evidence of them being done.
 
I personally expect some sort of BFS to do some sort of flight testing in 2019. (my opinion, which counts as evidence for nothing) But none of that means that a new spaceship, with no known built parts, in about a year isn't an aggressive schedule, which was the point.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2018 09:55 pm by IntoTheVoid »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6333
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4204
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #82 on: 05/30/2018 10:22 pm »
ISTM the only major hull segment  they need to make in the tent is one cylinder segment.

Engines: Hawthorne

Thrust structure: Hawthorne (bolted, see Block 5)

Tanks: Ascent or Janicki*

Ogive nose: ibidem*

Deltas: Hawthorne

* IIRC the LA docs state 3 shipments/mo from WA, so perhaps both Ascent and Janicki are suppliers.
DM

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2445
  • Liked: 2403
  • Likes Given: 10203
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #83 on: 05/30/2018 10:25 pm »
There is speculation that the tent where the Mandrel is will be a temporary factory. SX "must" be doing that, or similar as they could not have given the 2019 timeline knowing the factory will be hardly started by then!

The factory will be built in two phases.  It might be possible to construct the first phase 65,000 square-foot building in time.

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: CNBC Interview with Gwynne May 22, 2018
« Reply #84 on: 05/31/2018 01:12 am »
We also haven't heard of manned flights to Pluto; do you presume they have those planned as well?

I would assume he doesn't because I would by default assume he doesn't believe ridiculous things.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0