Accelerating the SpaceX Long Term Goal

[Vultur]

Recent mammal experiments indicate that induced hibernation in non-hibernating mammals appears not to result in muscle degradation, even after months in hibernation. Testing has not reached the human stage yet, but it's quite possible that passengers on a MCT might end up staying in hibernation for almost the entire trip, without suffering degradation in muscle tone (plus a lot lower strain on ECLSS and consumables, a lot lower living volume needed, and no boredom during the trip).

Maybe.

But this isn't something SpaceX should be pursuing, IMO.

If it comes along in time to help out, great! But it can be done without it, and SpaceX should stick to the things actually needed, which will be expensive and complex enough.

EDIT: Plus biomedical research is totally distant from their fields of expertise.

[guckyfan]

The OP used Giga$ but he also used 30 so I have the clear impression that he meant 30 Billion $. He may still clarify that.

Many of the posts were something like a personal wishlist for things people want to get done. Many very commendable items but not really related to Elon Musks goals as the OP asked for.

I believe the bulk would be spent on actually getting people and equipment to Mars. He must have some roadmap to funding the development or he would not have initiated it.

Some may be spent for ensuring success of MCT development. Not really speeding up the process but make sure expensive things like the factory, engine test stand, structural test stand, launch pad are ready when needed.

Some for habitat, ECLSS, probably a biological ECLSS with food production.

[gospacex]

I am not sure what's the point of this thread.
It's clear a gift of a few billions would speed up things at SpaceX a lot.

But in all likelihood, it is not happening, right? In this case, thinking about it is little more than mental masturbation...

[Borklund]

I am not sure what's the point of this thread.

This sentiment can be applied to a lot of other threads in the SpaceX subforums...

[go4mars]

I didn't think the OP meant $30B. I assumed using "Giga" he meant "huge unlimited money", maybe that's a US english thing.

The prefix giga means billion when applied to metric measurements

Yes.  To clarify, just as kilo means 10^3 (as in kilogram or kilovolt or kilometer), and Mega means 10^6, Giga is a prefix that means 10^9. 

1 Gigadollar is 1 billion dollars. 

Why 30 Gigabucks?  It's arbitrary but large enough to potentially be very useful (maybe?) while small enough to conceivably be obtained by one or a combination of relatively unlikely circumstances within a year or so (like if Elon cashed out of other ventures, or Larry and friends wrote cheques, big oversubscribed IPO, got a raptor contract from ULA, contract for Google's 180 satellites, etc).  I'm not advocating those as a good ideas or ascribing likelyhood; rather I'm just floating what I see as within the realm of 'on the radar of possible outcomes'.

[go4mars]

It's clear a gift of a few billions would speed up things at SpaceX a lot.

Would it though?
If you paid a surgeon double, or hired 2 brain surgeons, how much faster would the operation go?
By analogy, even with plenty of money in 2002, I don't think SpaceX could have built a relatively potent, highway transportable stage that lands on the ocean after orbital missions much quicker than it actually did.  Lessons learned and such.  Looking forward to Mars colonization, I suspect money isn't the only answer, but it's relative importance is much less clear to me than it is to you.  Hence this thread.

How limited is SpaceX by money versus critical path, and what critical path items are most prone to acceleration?

The thread's bobbed and weaved a bit, but it's spurred some thoughts about carts in front of horses, etc.  For example, an incredibly inexpensive, incredibly large rocket must happen before a large self-sufficient colony.  And a big potent, efficient, methane engine before the rocket.  But where do Red Dragon ISRU experiments fit in for example (one of dozens of example questions that could be asked).

[guckyfan]

Why 30 Gigabucks?  It's arbitrary but large enough to potentially be very useful (maybe?) while small enough to conceivably be obtained by one or a combination of relatively unlikely circumstances within a year or so (like if Elon cashed out of other ventures, or Larry and friends wrote cheques, big oversubscribed IPO, got a raptor contract from ULA, contract for Google's 180 satellites, etc).

One of those super rich guys recently mentioned the possibility he leaves his fortune to Elon Musk in his will. Sorry for poor memory, don't know who it was but it was discussed on this forum. So it is not completely impossible that such an amound could suddenly become available.

[RocketGoBoom]

Why 30 Gigabucks?  It's arbitrary but large enough to potentially be very useful (maybe?) while small enough to conceivably be obtained by one or a combination of relatively unlikely circumstances within a year or so (like if Elon cashed out of other ventures, or Larry and friends wrote cheques, big oversubscribed IPO, got a raptor contract from ULA, contract for Google's 180 satellites, etc).

One of those super rich guys recently mentioned the possibility he leaves his fortune to Elon Musk in his will. Sorry for poor memory, don't know who it was but it was discussed on this forum. So it is not completely impossible that such an amound could suddenly become available.

Larry Page, CEO and cofounder of Google. Said he would rather leave his money to Elon Musk than charity. He used it as an example of how there are better uses for money than charity. Investing in certain companies, like SpaceX, can lead to amazing things that are just as admirable as charitable causes.

[Celebrimbor]

If SpaceX had 30 Gigadollars arrive today mandated to augment and accelerate their baseline plans (large-scale colonization of Mars), what would be the best areas to focus on? 

IMHO nothing could be more damaging to SpaceX than to give it a huge injection of cash...

It would bloat out of control and waste money - thus it would lose the good publicity that it currently enjoys, people would ask "Why did we just give $30bn to these guys?".  "More with less" is not just something to say in times of austerity, it applies all the time.

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

Mars colonization has been impacted by money contraints since its inception.  What's changed to make you wonder about this now?

[ChrisWilson68]

The best thing SpaceX could do with $30 billion to further their long-term goals is drastically cut launch prices today.

Likely illegal. It's like Chinese dumping products at below production costs. Predatory pricing. Everyone else would be in court filing lawsuits by the end of the day.

The courts would have to decide if any laws were broken.  It's not pricing below costs per se that has legal implications, it's whether it's intended to drive competitors out of business and then raise prices.

It's common for companies to start off selling a product below production cost as they are ramping up production and working to lower production costs.  For example, Boeing reportedly loses money on every 787 sold today, because it hasn't fully optimized its production.  The 787 is priced to give Boeing profits eventually when the production costs reach their goals.  The chip company I used to work for worked the same way -- every new chip we had initially was sold below cost while we did one or more revisions to the chip to get the costs down.  If SpaceX can convince the courts it has a plan to make its costs eventually come down, through reuse, below the prices it has set, then it will win the court case.

[JamesH]

If SpaceX had 30 Gigadollars arrive today mandated to augment and accelerate their baseline plans (large-scale colonization of Mars), what would be the best areas to focus on? 

IMHO nothing could be more damaging to SpaceX than to give it a huge injection of cash...

It would bloat out of control and waste money - thus it would lose the good publicity that it currently enjoys, people would ask "Why did we just give $30bn to these guys?".  "More with less" is not just something to say in times of austerity, it applies all the time.

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

Mars colonization has been impacted by money contraints since its inception.  What's changed to make you wonder about this now?

Would they really be that dumb? They seem to have been pretty careful with tehir cash so far - why would injecting money mean that they suddenly stop being careful.

Musk is not stupid.

[Celebrimbor]

If SpaceX had 30 Gigadollars arrive today mandated to augment and accelerate their baseline plans (large-scale colonization of Mars), what would be the best areas to focus on? 

IMHO nothing could be more damaging to SpaceX than to give it a huge injection of cash...

It would bloat out of control and waste money - thus it would lose the good publicity that it currently enjoys, people would ask "Why did we just give $30bn to these guys?".  "More with less" is not just something to say in times of austerity, it applies all the time.

Would they really be that dumb? They seem to have been pretty careful with tehir cash so far - why would injecting money mean that they suddenly stop being careful.

Musk is not stupid.

There's only one way to find out: try it

Seriously though, Musk has been careful because he's had to be - and it's his money.

But you don't just give away (even a fictional) $30bn dollars.  You gather experts (hey Elon can be one of them), build a roadmap, set requirements and tender for procurements.  Spend the money bit by bit, never letting any of your suppliers get too comfortable.  This... is what NASA should be doing...

[ChrisWilson68]

But you don't just give away (even a fictional) $30bn dollars.  You gather experts (hey Elon can be one of them), build a roadmap, set requirements and tender for procurements.  Spend the money bit by bit, never letting any of your suppliers get too comfortable.  This... is what NASA should be doing...

It's not at all clear that that's the best way to spend a large amount of money.  That might be good for getting incremental improvements, but perhaps $30 billion would be better spent by giving it all to one brilliant person with the confidence to invest in his or her vision for a radical, expensive step in a new direction.  Get out of the trap of the local maximum.

[majormajor42]

Seems like a huge cash injection could turn SpaceX into a sort of Apollo program, even though $30B in today's money is far less than what was spent on Apollo.

Apollo sort of began with Kennedy laying out the goal. Well, not really, plenty of engineering already taking place but Kennedy greenlit the whole thing and made it what it became. But that goal lacked sustainability of what would come next (were they even thinking about it? Braun was I guess). It was accomplished and basically ended. Well, I don't need to tell this audience what happened.

So what is the big speech that kicks off this cash injection? And what is the approach that takes into account that when the money runs out, the gravy train is over, you got what you've got.

With this in mind, and having rewatched Greason's Island Hopping Gas Station speech recently, I think a worthy $30B goal could be my sig. An ISRU goal. I don't agree that SpaceX just gets $30B to spend on whatever. It may even be better if the money was available to those other than SpaceX. But the main idea is that $30B is seed money or incentive to take that next step toward sustainability.

 Maybe give it to Bigelow. $30 Billion worth of paying commercial space station customers. That and a Lagrangian point station.


*It occurs to me though that this $30B thought experiment could be quite plausible if SpaceX IPO'd. Shotwell says it may happen once they are fulfilling their launch manifest. This may be actually happen in a couple more years.

[ChrisWilson68]

An ISRU goal.

That's the classic mistake of elevating a sub-goal to the status of *the* goal.

There's an old story about a nail factory in Soviet Russia.  The authorities want to get the most out of the factory, so they declare that the management will be rewarded or punished based on the total weight of all nails the factory produces.  So the factory switches over to producing only very big nails.  Seeing the problem, the authorities come up with a new goal: maximize the total number of nails produced.  The factory switches over to producing only very small nails.

Really, what they should have been asking for was to maximize the value of the nail factory to the economy as a whole.  In a market system, profits, more or less, tell you that, so by maximizing for profit, the nail factory can maximize its value to the economy as a whole.

As our presence in space grows, there will first be a period when all resources are brought from Earth.  Then, as the scale grows, at some point it will start making sense to get some of those resources in space.  That point will come at different times for different resources.

It's foolish to declare that right now is the time to start using ISRU for any particular resource without knowing all the technical details of how a particular ISRU plan would work.  Timing is everything.  Too soon and we're just wasting resources that would best be used to scale up in other ways.

If the goal is to extend our presence in space, the funds should go directly to extending our presence in space, and let the market decide which resources to bring up from Earth's surface and which to get off-world at any particular point in that expansion.

[majormajor42]

An ISRU goal.

That's the classic mistake of elevating a sub-goal to the status of *the* goal.

...

If the goal is to extend our presence in space, the funds should go directly to extending our presence in space, and let the market decide which resources to bring up from Earth's surface and which to get off-world at any particular point in that expansion.

nice snip of my post. My own thoughts were evolving as I wrote it. Your argument against Greason's gas stations is valid. what is the metric of payment? fine.

I think my final point of $30B being in the hands of folks like Bigelow and other potential SpaceX customers may be what is really best for SpaceX and sustainability as a whole. And like you say, let ISRU develop naturally as a way to make it cheaper to get certain resources into the hands (and fuel tanks) of people and craft in space.

But, you don't think ISRU will initially need some seed money to get started? It will most likely not be cost effective the first time it is done, and may require some extra incentive that isn't quite market driven.

So your analogy of ISRU and nail factories falls apart because nail factories exist and nails are a common product on the market. The Soviets (do we really need to use communism as an example of how not to do things?) were trying to increase production at an existing factory apparently? There are no ISRU factories. If it is determined to be part of the space sustainability puzzle, it may eventually need to be incentivized, not that that is SpaceX's job, and going off topic but worthy of discussion elsewhere.

[Go4TLI]

But you don't just give away (even a fictional) $30bn dollars.  You gather experts (hey Elon can be one of them), build a roadmap, set requirements and tender for procurements.  Spend the money bit by bit, never letting any of your suppliers get too comfortable.  This... is what NASA should be doing...

It is.  You have just outlined essentially how all business works. 

[AncientU]

An ISRU goal.

That's the classic mistake of elevating a sub-goal to the status of *the* goal.

...

If the goal is to extend our presence in space, the funds should go directly to extending our presence in space, and let the market decide which resources to bring up from Earth's surface and which to get off-world at any particular point in that expansion.

nice snip of my post. My own thoughts were evolving as I wrote it. Your argument against Greason's gas stations is valid. what is the metric of payment? fine.

A fuel distribution network in cis-lunar space and then in Martian space would be $30B well spent.  ULAs ACES and similar competitive concepts (including Meth/LOX, of course), developed cmpetitively with a set initial operability date would be as much of a stimulant as giving the cash to SpaceX directly (IMO).  Fuel deliveries would initially be from Earth, but would diversify as demand rose.  ISRU from where ever it made sense...

Note: ULA estimated $40B for developing and deploying a system and had IOC six years after start.  With competition, this price could be significantly reduced...
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Exploration/DepotBasedTransportationArchitecture2010.pdf

Edit: added note

[Celebrimbor]

But you don't just give away (even a fictional) $30bn dollars.  You gather experts (hey Elon can be one of them), build a roadmap, set requirements and tender for procurements.  Spend the money bit by bit, never letting any of your suppliers get too comfortable.  This... is what NASA should be doing...

It's not at all clear that that's the best way to spend a large amount of money.  That might be good for getting incremental improvements, but perhaps $30 billion would be better spent by giving it all to one brilliant person with the confidence to invest in his or her vision for a radical, expensive step in a new direction.  Get out of the trap of the local maximum.

I agree, the best way to spend money is not at all clear - ever.  I'm not sure I would have what it takes to take one big gamble though.  I certainly don't play with my own money in this way.  Incremental improvements are more certain to turn up some kind of positive change that you can evaluate in objective terms.  Changing direction is easier and so you are more likely to move towards a critical point where something revolutionary can take off (like a self-sustaining off-earth economy).

But I suppose I'm not playing along with the spirit of the thread, which is to speculate what SpaceX would get up if money were no object.  I think they would do some cool stuff, and I'd find it entertaining, but that's because I frequent this site...  But I suspect the activities would be open to attack as wasteful.  Particularly if what we get is an "Apollo to Mars".

[go4mars]

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

What's changed to make you wonder about this now?

Diminished financial transparency, and  a launch tempo that is slower than I'd hoped to see by now (doesn't seem to balance against G&A).