Accelerating the SpaceX Long Term Goal

[Jim]

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). 

How is more money going to fix those things?

[Lar]

I'd spend the new funds on finding and removing bottlenecks.
- More pads.. build Boca Chica as fast as possible commensurate with quality work
- More parallelism at each pad (something off with one payload? work on the next one in line at the same time)
- Tweak manufacturing processes where they make the most good
- Improve and extend McGregor testing facilities.

None of that will use up the whole 30B, I bet all of it together would use less than 1B.

Once the launch cadence is smoking, use some of the rest to invest in increasing the pace of Raptor and BFR and MCT development, and on developing a reusable self ferrying tanker stage (ACES is awesome but beat ULA to the punch.. license IVF if you have to or do a version yourself)  Almost any conops for a Mars mission you can imagine (except ineffective throwaway ones) can make good use of a tanker.

[go4mars]

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

How is more money going to fix those things?

I think you're guiding to the heart of the issue: I'm not suggesting that more money will fix the current launch tempo, but a better launch tempo could increase money and experience toward the next generations of hardware and ops.   

We've seen some exciting necessary steps to de-risk elements of the architecture: return 1st stage from orbit to watering on the ocean (can that be called landing?).  We've enjoyed grasshopper and we've seen announcement of the Dragonfly program and unveiling of the saddled Dragon.  I'm not too worried about those programs getting paid for.  They will be and they'll probably ramp up production.  FH too.  And I suspect that can be done from revenue (I'm still assuming launch tempo can increase).  But that stuff is all "basically" Earth orbit or cislunar hardware. 

I suspect that the other stuff needs significant money to get going.  Raptor, autogenous crossfeeding BFR factory, MCT, ISRU, life support, pads and GSE that can handle BFR's, Mars cars, rocket-launched high altitude VTVL electric supersonic semi-ballistic aircraft, etc. etc.            I'm not sure how much those things are constrained by money versus experience from various milestones.  What of the really expensive stuff could reasonably be fast-tracked?

No bucks, no Duck Dodgers

[Jim]

1.  - More parallelism at each pad (something off with one payload? work on the next one in line at the same time)

2.  (ACES is awesome but beat ULA to the punch.. license IVF if you have to or do a version yourself)

1.  There is nothing preventing the next spacecraft from shipping.  Astrotech is available .  Spacecraft don't want to ship unless their ride is going to be ready

2.  Only works with a LH2 vehicle

[Jim]

I think you're guiding to the heart of the issue: I'm not suggesting that more money will fix the current launch tempo, but a better launch tempo could increase money and experience toward the next generations of hardware and ops.   

What if it doesn't get better, because rocket science is hard.

[ChrisWilson68]

I think you're guiding to the heart of the issue: I'm not suggesting that more money will fix the current launch tempo, but a better launch tempo could increase money and experience toward the next generations of hardware and ops.   

What if it doesn't get better, because rocket science is hard.

Semiconductor manufacturing is hard too.  Tens of billions of dollars in an intensely competitive market have been making amazing improvements in that industry year after year for decades.

That doesn't necessarily mean so much money in a competitive market would have the same improvements in space launch, but it does mean that we should at least consider the possibility.  Something being hard isn't sufficient reason to conclude huge amounts of money in a competitive market can't do it.

[beancounter]

I think you're guiding to the heart of the issue: I'm not suggesting that more money will fix the current launch tempo, but a better launch tempo could increase money and experience toward the next generations of hardware and ops.   

What if it doesn't get better, because rocket science is hard.

P'raps that's why they want more pads.  Just in case!  Not that I think that's the reason but it's always prudent to have a fall-back plan.
Cheers

[Lar]

1.  - More parallelism at each pad (something off with one payload? work on the next one in line at the same time)

2.  (ACES is awesome but beat ULA to the punch.. license IVF if you have to or do a version yourself)

1.  There is nothing preventing the next spacecraft from shipping.  Astrotech is available .  Spacecraft don't want to ship unless their ride is going to be ready

2.  Only works with a LH2 vehicle

1. They cannot have multiple vehicles in their current staging facility, you told us that yourself, it's not about just shipping to Astrotech. I predict that if they want to increase cadence there will need to be fewer steps for the vehicle and payload. And more parallel facilities. Maybe even leaving Astrotech out someday. Remember this is a what-if exercise.

2. Ok. Then something similar to ACES but that works for Methalox, perhaps. I can't believe that wouldn't work, methane is a cryo fuel too... Musk has already said they want to get away from separate gasses and use only the primary fuel and oxidizer for everything.

[RanulfC]

No doubt he wants to be the transportation company and others do the colony building. But I get the impression he comes around to the thought that there will be no one doing it unless he at least starts the colony building and that he now is aiming at doing that.

Where do you get this impression from? So far I haven't seen anything that looks like he's moving towards colony building with SpaceX assets. I'm curious if I've missed something?

Randy

[Jim]

1. They cannot have multiple vehicles in their current staging facility, you told us that yourself, it's not about just shipping to Astrotech. I predict that if they want to increase cadence there will need to be fewer steps for the vehicle and payload. And more parallel facilities. Maybe even leaving Astrotech out someday. Remember this is a what-if exercise.

They aren't using Astrotech, that is the issue.

[baldusi]

2.  (ACES is awesome but beat ULA to the punch.. license IVF if you have to or do a version yourself)

2.  Only works with a LH2 vehicle

Or CH4/LOX. And using a dedicated APU that burns the main propellants was done in the N-1. Self pressurization is done as a matter of course on some vehicles, so nothing new there. Main issue might be RCS where CH4/LOX combo is really hard to ignite wrt H2.

[guckyfan]

Main issue might be RCS where CH4/LOX combo is really hard to ignite wrt H2.

The moon lander testbed Morpheus demonstrates it can be done with its methane/LOX main engine and RCS.

[aero]

Main issue might be RCS where CH4/LOX combo is really hard to ignite wrt H2.

The moon lander testbed Morpheus demonstrates it can be done with its methane/LOX main engine and RCS.

No - Morpheus didn't ignite while in flight - unless I missed a test flight.

[Lar]

1. They cannot have multiple vehicles in their current staging facility, you told us that yourself, it's not about just shipping to Astrotech. I predict that if they want to increase cadence there will need to be fewer steps for the vehicle and payload. And more parallel facilities. Maybe even leaving Astrotech out someday. Remember this is a what-if exercise.

They aren't using Astrotech, that is the issue.

Presumably due to cost? or control of their own destiny? Had you heard either of those reasons?  So, as I say, more facilities of their own might help accelerate things. If I was allocating a windfall for investment I'd look at that. Maybe there is never any way to ever make any process better ever. But if one does not look? If you were looking for process and cost improvements to get to 24 launches what would you do, Jim?

[guckyfan]

Main issue might be RCS where CH4/LOX combo is really hard to ignite wrt H2.

The moon lander testbed Morpheus demonstrates it can be done with its methane/LOX main engine and RCS.

No - Morpheus didn't ignite while in flight - unless I missed a test flight.

I am talking about the RCS-thrusters. They fire short bursts all the time, as RCS thrusters do. They use LOX-methane like the main engine. And also as this is a moon lander testbed it is safe to assume the main engine can be air/vacuum started too.

[KelvinZero]

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.

Im probably slightly misinterpreting you just so I can insert one of my favorite points, but...

IMO it is important to understand that ISRU is the goal, not getting to Mars. From the point of view of space settlement the only reason we obsess about Mars is because we perceive it is rich in resources we can utilize to allow us to become self sufficient there.

This does point out an amusing contradiction with lunar propellant though, especially for Mars. If you could produce enough volatiles on the moon per person to merely lift them off it again every six months, let alone send them further to Mars, then you are probably acquiring multiple times the mass in CHON elements that they would consume each year in food before you even factor in recycling. By producing enough propellant to go somewhere else you have just proven you don't need to go anywhere else.. if your goal is settlement, start settling!

[Jim]

Presumably due to cost? or control of their own destiny? Had you heard either of those reasons?  So, as I say, more facilities of their own might help accelerate things. If I was allocating a windfall for investment I'd look at that. Maybe there is never any way to ever make any process better ever. But if one does not look? If you were looking for process and cost improvements to get to 24 launches what would you do, Jim?

Vs the cost of delaying?  The spacecraft would control its own destiny at Astrotech and would not be impacted by pad ops or other launch ops.

[aero]

Presumably due to cost? or control of their own destiny? Had you heard either of those reasons?  So, as I say, more facilities of their own might help accelerate things. If I was allocating a windfall for investment I'd look at that. Maybe there is never any way to ever make any process better ever. But if one does not look? If you were looking for process and cost improvements to get to 24 launches what would you do, Jim?

Vs the cost of delaying?  The spacecraft would control its own destiny at Astrotech and would not be impacted by pad ops or other launch ops.

Do you mean this Astrotech?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/lockheed-martin-to-acquire-satellite-firm-astrotech-space-operations-for-61-million/2014/05/29/97bc63ca-e733-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

So are you proposing that SpaceX pay Lockheed-Martin to process their payloads?

[baldusi]

Presumably due to cost? or control of their own destiny? Had you heard either of those reasons?  So, as I say, more facilities of their own might help accelerate things. If I was allocating a windfall for investment I'd look at that. Maybe there is never any way to ever make any process better ever. But if one does not look? If you were looking for process and cost improvements to get to 24 launches what would you do, Jim?

Vs the cost of delaying?  The spacecraft would control its own destiny at Astrotech and would not be impacted by pad ops or other launch ops.

Do you mean this Astrotech?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/lockheed-martin-to-acquire-satellite-firm-astrotech-space-operations-for-61-million/2014/05/29/97bc63ca-e733-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

So are you proposing that SpaceX pay Lockheed-Martin to process their payloads?

Payload's owner pays for processing facilities, as I understand it.

[Jim]

So are you proposing that SpaceX pay Lockheed-Martin to process their payloads?

Astrotech does not process payloads, it provides facilities for the spacecraft contractors to process their payloads.

Anyways, the sale is not finalized.