Author Topic: SpaceX has a larger effective budget for HSF development than NASA.  (Read 9022 times)

Offline rory

An external take:
Quote
Elon Musk’s ‘Big F**king Rocket’ Is a Big F**ing Deal
Quote
But we have now reached another and very different stage in the journey to deep space. There is clearly a creative tension between the ingrained habits of state-funded projects where defense contractors have grown used to burning up billions of dollars performing on contracts made with sclerotic bureaucracies and people like Musk and Bezos who cut through all the orthodoxy with the energy of entrepreneurs and the experience of building huge businesses from scratch, like Henry Ford and Bill Boeing before them.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-big-fking-rocket-is-a-big-fing-deal

Not the most well-researched one, mind you:

Quote
To get the spaceship into deep space—it will weigh around 330,000 pounds, fully loaded—will require a massive new rocket, with 31 engines instead of the nine used in the Falcon Heavy.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2018 09:41 PM by rory »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 1096
Quote
SpaceX has a larger effective budget for HSF development than NASA.

Dude, see my signature.

Jeff Bezos personal fortune is EIGHT times NASA annual budget or, put otherwise, Bezos gets as much money from Amazon in a single year, as NASA got from the U.S Government over the last nine years.

Or, even more mind-blowing: Apollo cost $20 billion in 1970's dollars, nowadays with inflation it would cost around $100 billion...well, Bezos could paid the entire Apollo program from his own, very deep pockets, and let the Government screw the federal budget with the  Vietnam war !

JFK "We choose to go the Moon... we choose to go to the Moon only six times, and never come back, because we had to pay for the Vietnam war"

Bezos "Forget it John, your government takes care of Vietnam, I'll pay for Apollo expense"

Ain't that crazy when you think about it ?

EDIT: dang, not 115 billion but 135 billion. I shall correct that.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2018 07:02 PM by Archibald »
...you have been found guilty by the elders of the forum of a (imaginary) vendetta against Saint Elon - BLAAASPHEMER !

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1274
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 1042
I agree. with Khagers comments

Space Exploration Technologies is a NASA customer.  I don't see NASA bidding on anything SET.
I'd also say that NASA has invested substantial time/energy/knowledge in SET, a monetary investor-No, but NASA is certainly invested in SETs success.  A monetary investor does so for financial gain, that's not what NASA is doing.

There is a lot of co-operation going on, including but also for hard mission support. Be it comms or something basic like testing the Dragons RADAR during STS missions.
SET isn't doing anything space 100% on their own, at least thus far.

Let's remember the old NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics). On March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research, which it did until it dissolved 1958 and was reformed as National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
If it wasn't for NACA, Aeronautic research would have been slower and would have cost more human life. Many companies would have had to resort to trial and error barring the resources for true wind tunnel testing.  It used government money to make an strong American base for the entire American Aeronautical industry to be built upon.  NACA's influence isn't limited to airplanes either, there isn't an automotive hotrodder that hasn't used or contemplated some derivation of one of the many NACA ducts on their rod.  No auto manufacturer manufactures cars/trucks that's shape hasn't been influenced by many of the basis principles of aerodynamics laid down a century ago by NACA and its influences.
NACA had 8,000 employees and a yearly nut of US$100,000,000 back in 1957.  Those were the times when we were getting a tad nervous about what a group of countries was doing on the other side of the polar ice cap.  The US decided that Space required the same "bump" that Aeronautics needed after the turn of the decade. The US government took the worlds best and brightest dropped in some federal tax dollars and one of the best drinks in town was created: the US Space Industry.
There were trials and tribulations along the way, but every American space company today and many non space companies, build their own private money making ventures atop that strong base laid down by NASA.

So yes, perhaps a private space company does have a larger effective budget for HSF development than NASA at this moment, but so what? Global events similar to those that began in the 1950's could change that almost overnight.  NASA takes and orders and enacts them, they only do what they are instructed to do.


(edited for brutal grammar)
« Last Edit: 03/20/2018 11:38 AM by Hog »
Paul

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Why is this such a big deal?  Other than the military, everything outside the gov't should be bigger than gov't equivalent.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Liked: 547
  • Likes Given: 273
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Advisory_Committee_for_Aeronautics

Thanks Hog for the reference. It’s got me interested in how it relates to the battles between Curtis and the Wrights over patents leading up to 1915.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 33
Quote
Maybe it is just because it seems more tangible and easily visualized, but I can't stop thinking about the physical wealth that sits out in space, waiting for someone to tap into it. And by this I mean the quintillions of dollars of precious minerals inside asteroids.

And if SpaceX can establish unmatched access to space, surely they are in a prime position to get access to this ocean of wealth before anyone else. They just need to partner with the right mining company. A 50/50 venture with a company with the right mining expertise could set up asteroid mining to generate trillions for them in 10-20 years time. In that case Starlink revenue can provide the startup cash for an even bigger source of wealth down the line.

How in the bloody Hell are mining rights going to be established? Every time I try to read some legalese on this topic, my eyes glaze over.

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1092
  • Liked: 983
  • Likes Given: 155




How in the bloody Hell are mining rights going to be established? Every time I try to read some legalese on this topic, my eyes glaze over.
I like the fishing analogy: nobody owns the fish in the ocean, but once you catch them, they are yours.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 33
Quote
I like the fishing analogy: nobody owns the fish in the ocean, but once you catch them, they are yours.

Yeah, but fishing rights are regulated. Fish without a license long enough and you get slammed with a nice fat punitive fine.

Do we even have outlines from the sort of think-tanks and the like that governments are likely to source their interplanetary/exoEarth law from? And of course, summaries for those of us who don't read legalese?

Possession being 9/10ths of the law is great and all, but Earth is going to be Mars' most important customer, by far. Meaning Earth will set the rules. Obviously the Asteroid Belt will be hard to regulate against black/grey mining, but again, Earth is going to be the big client for the foreseeable future.

Edit: and perhaps more to the point, who on Earth is going to set the rules of who owns the rights to what? I can just see countries trying to hammer that one out. On the other hand, if they don't, then whoever has the muscle (USA, China, Russia, smaller players, everyone else) will make the rules unilaterally, or amongst themselves anyway. I suppose you had a better point than I gave you credit for; maybe things will evolve piecemeal, as needed.



« Last Edit: 03/20/2018 06:29 AM by JQP »

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 19
I think $4 bill+ a year is a better estimate of SX revenues 2018. Given 30 launches and other contracted work.

The issue of NASA vs SX:- as far as I can see NASA is spending a massive amount of its human spaceflight budget on the development of SLS/Orion. The resources are being applied in a really inefficient way to maintain jobs in congressional districts, the technology being used is probably 30-40 years out of date and the end product is so expensive it ensures than manned space flight BEO will always be an very intermittent activity at best and probably will be cancelled soon.

Once SX has shown significant progress in the next couple of years it would seem to me that the resources NASA is spending on transportation would be better spent on development of the technologies for men to live in space and the surface of other worlds and some research on nuclear propulsion . This would enhance what SX is doing and lead to a greater whole. At present NASA is acting as if the BFR/BFS programme doesn't exist. If it does become a reality everything NASA is planning around SLS/Orion and the DSG is redundant.

NASA has a human space exploration budget of around $8.5 bill. About 3.5 bill goes on Orion SLS stuff. It would be such much more productive if they where spending most of that money on rovers, habitats, robots and nuclear power for space and contracted to Musk for delivery.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 33
Quote
NASA has a human space exploration budget of around $8.5 bill. About 3.5 bill goes on Orion SLS stuff. It would be such much more productive if they where spending most of that money on rovers, habitats, robots and nuclear power for space and contracted to Musk for delivery.

And if NASA and SpaceX sat down and had a nice long heart-to-heart about what projects SpaceX wants to handle in-house, beyond spaceflight, and the two partner up in the areas of overlap to leverage each party's strengths (or divvy up the areas). Or NASA and ULA and SpaceX, whatever works.

I bet Musk has non-NASA pot boiling somewhere for each mission-critical area you mentioned, a backup for each need that SpaceX isn't going to handle in-house. Maybe for the ones they plan on handling in-house, too, in case a project goes kaput for whatever reason. A Mars base's moving parts have moving parts. If Musk is as serious as we hope he is, he's not going to want some problem with habs or power plant to hold up his Mars base for 2 years so they can design and build a new one.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2018 10:13 AM by JQP »

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1274
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 1042




How in the bloody Hell are mining rights going to be established? Every time I try to read some legalese on this topic, my eyes glaze over.
I like the fishing analogy: nobody owns the fish in the ocean, but once you catch them, they are yours.
Unless those fish are flown F-1 rocket engines.
Paul

Online Slarty1080

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • UK
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 20
I think $4 bill+ a year is a better estimate of SX revenues 2018. Given 30 launches and other contracted work.

The issue of NASA vs SX:- as far as I can see NASA is spending a massive amount of its human spaceflight budget on the development of SLS/Orion. The resources are being applied in a really inefficient way to maintain jobs in congressional districts, the technology being used is probably 30-40 years out of date and the end product is so expensive it ensures than manned space flight BEO will always be an very intermittent activity at best and probably will be cancelled soon.

Once SX has shown significant progress in the next couple of years it would seem to me that the resources NASA is spending on transportation would be better spent on development of the technologies for men to live in space and the surface of other worlds and some research on nuclear propulsion . This would enhance what SX is doing and lead to a greater whole. At present NASA is acting as if the BFR/BFS programme doesn't exist. If it does become a reality everything NASA is planning around SLS/Orion and the DSG is redundant.

NASA has a human space exploration budget of around $8.5 bill. About 3.5 bill goes on Orion SLS stuff. It would be such much more productive if they where spending most of that money on rovers, habitats, robots and nuclear power for space and contracted to Musk for delivery.

I couldn't agree more. I think it’s too early to say the NASA emperor isn't wearing any clothes, after all SpaceX hasn't even built the BFR/BFS yet. But on past performance I suggest the emperor's mankini is looking a little tight already.
The first words spoken on Mars: "Humans have been wondering if there was any life on the planet Mars for many decades … well ... there is now!"

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10749
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7648
  • Likes Given: 5482
Quote
NASA has a human space exploration budget of around $8.5 bill. About 3.5 bill goes on Orion SLS stuff. It would be such much more productive if they where spending most of that money on rovers, habitats, robots and nuclear power for space and contracted to Musk for delivery.

And if NASA and SpaceX sat down and had a nice long heart-to-heart about what projects SpaceX wants to handle in-house, beyond spaceflight, and the two partner up in the areas of overlap to leverage each party's strengths (or divvy up the areas). Or NASA and ULA and SpaceX, whatever works.

There may be nay-sayers within NASA about working this way, but I suspect they are a minority. CONGRESS is who needs convincing. Not NASA.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2018 06:45 PM by Lar »
"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

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6239
  • Liked: 4069
  • Likes Given: 5590
Quote
NASA has a human space exploration budget of around $8.5 bill. About 3.5 bill goes on Orion SLS stuff. It would be such much more productive if they where spending most of that money on rovers, habitats, robots and nuclear power for space and contracted to Musk for delivery.

And if NASA and SpaceX sat down and had a nice long heart-to-heart about what projects SpaceX wants to handle in-house, beyond spaceflight, and the two partner up in the areas of overlap to leverage each party's strengths (or divvy up the areas). Or NASA and ULA and SpaceX, whatever works.

There may be nay-sayers within NASA about working this way, but I suspect they are a minority. CONGRESS is who needs convincing. Not NASA.

1) There are more than a few on NASA payroll at Marshall, Goddard, HQ that nay-say or completely ignore what's happening. 
2) The defense giants won't ever be convinced -- they are really calling the shots. 
3) Congress only passes what the above want (and pay for).
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags: