
Elon Musk: 'Europe's rocket has no chance' - rglovejoy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20389148
======
InclinedPlane
This shouldn't be a controversial statement. The Ariane 5 is one of the more
expensive launch vehicles on the market right now. It's telling that CNES/ESA
has brought the Soyuz to Guiana for launches, because it is massively cheaper
than the Ariane 5.

2013 is going to be the defining year for SpaceX, I think. They've already
proven that they are rather uniquely capable in banging out rockets and
spacecraft that work at a tremendously low cost, but 2013 will prove their
operational mettle, especially for commercial launches. It will show whether
or not they can meet schedules, launch reliably, and maintain their existing
cost structures. And if they do all of that, they will gain the trust of the
people who hold the purse strings of the world's satellite launch budgets
(although they already made a tremendous first effort in that regard).

More so, the Falcon Heavy and the Falcon 9 v1.1 are a much bigger deal than
people give credit for. Things like the "grasshopper" Falcon 9 first stage
reusability test-bed and the manned Dragon capsule development gain a lot of
attention, but the v1.1 and the heavy are going to be the crowbars that
utterly disrupt the spaceflight industry.

See, with Falcon 9 v1.0 they are already on a dramatically different cost
structure. With v1.1 they will reduce their manufacturing costs, increase
reliability, and increase the payload capacity by about 40%. This will make it
a lot easier to do dual and multiple launches at extremely competitive prices.
Also, it will allow them to underbid the competition incrementally while
raking in massive profits. The Falcon Heavy will use just under 3x the
components of a Falcon 9 v1.1 but it will have nearly 5x the payload capacity.
This means that it can do multiple launches for crazy cheap. Also, it will be
a pretty tempting target for governments to use for manned spaceflight. For
example, it could be capable of sending a manned capsule into lunar orbit,
which would be super useful for any sort of activities NASA decides to perform
out there. Additionally, it might encourage folks to develop extremely massive
payloads (next generation commsats or manned space station components) which
are incapable of being launched by any other vehicle. SpaceX is rapidly moving
into territory where they are untouchable. Already no other company (and no
government either) can return large cargo from the ISS, for example. Soon they
will be the only commercial company capable of sending astronauts into orbit.
And just as soon they will be the only launch provider capable of putting 50
tonne payloads into LEO or 10 tonne payloads into GEO or on an interplanetary
trajectory.

~~~
w1ntermute
> it will allow them to underbid the competition incrementally while raking in
> massive profits

I never thought of SpaceX as being something Musk was in for the money (based
on interviews with him that I've read), but it sounds like if he can
significantly lower costs and keep his technology secret, incrementally
underbidding the competition will make him extremely rich.

~~~
InclinedPlane
You have to think about it several ways. The more profit they rake in the
easier it will be to stick around. Also, the more they'll be able to spend on
R&D for manned spaceflight, reusable launchers, future redesigns, Mars
missions, etc. Apparently they're working on a next gen rocket engine which
will probably be much larger and powered by methane and oxygen, which they
might use as the basis of a super heavy lift launcher which would make manned
Mars missions almost easy.

~~~
larrydag
The big picture for Musk and SpaceX is Mars. The more profitability yields
more R&D. The more R&D yields more capable rockets. The more capable rockets
yields a better pathway to Mars. It's pretty much spelled out at the SpaceX
website.

~~~
tsotha
While that's all true, a Mars mission can't possibly funded by SpaceX itself,
which means he's going to have to convince Congress or some international
consortium that it's worth doing at probably $1T.

I don't see that happening. Space buffs are all excited over SpaceX (with good
reason), but the general public has pretty much lost interest in manned space.
Manned launches to the ISS don't even make the general news anymore despite
NASA's rather formidable PR machine. The first manned Dragon launch will make
the news, but only the first.

Politicians (particularly presidents) keep proposing Mars missions but always
push funding decisions far enough into the future someone else is going to
have to deal with paying for it. The public has caught on by now, so every new
Mars mission proposal is greeted with a collective yawn.

~~~
cryptoz
The idea that a Mars mission would cost on the order of $1T is absurd. More
reasonable estimates place it around $50 billion. The rest of your comment is
ridiculous as it's based on such an absolutely outrageous estimate. SpaceX
could probably do it alone if they have to. For example, Apple has enough in
the bank to afford it alone right now. And we're talking about 10-15 years of
SpaceX development and revenue before a Mars mission. Also note that most Mars
mission costs include R&D to build a rocket to go there, of which SpaceX has
_already_ done huge amounts.

Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive.

~~~
tsotha
>Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive.

This is what I hate about space enthusiasts. You do a back-of-the-envelop
calculation ignoring all the political wrangling, the on-again, off-again
political support, the inevitable development setbacks, etc. In other words,
you ignore the cost drivers of every single other space program in history and
come up with a number that's an order of magnitude (at least) too low. If you
actually got political approval for such a thing taxpayers would (justly) feel
hoodwinked as program costs spiral upwards. It would be lucky to survive to
completion.

Based on other big government projects (like the F-22, for instance), the $1T
figure is probably a little on the low side. The idea you could send people to
Mars and bring them back for $50Bn, less than it costs to build a HSR line
from LA to San Francisco, is sheer stupidity.

~~~
cryptoz
The mission we're talking about _does not require political support_. All of
your arguments stem from big government waste, taxpayer indecision, etc. And
you'd be right, if we were talking about NASA. _But we're not_. Why are you
comparing daring space missions to rail or airplanes?! How about comparing to
other space missions? Take the Apollo program. The entire program, with _six_
moon landings, cost about $100 billion in 2010 dollars, and it was done half a
century ago.

We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a
half a century of technology and advancement. Yes, Mars is tougher than the
Moon - but not _that_ much tougher. Space travel just isn't as expensive as
you think it is. Not anymore.

~~~
tsotha
>We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a
half a century of technology and advancement.

That's a pipe dream. For private industry to do this there has to be a profit
motive, and in this case there isn't. There's no way you can make money going
to Mars, and getting sponsored by Red Bull isn't going to defray the costs
much. When Elon Musk says Mars is the goal, he means he's intent on providing
a capability the rest of us will be expected to pay for.

>Yes, Mars is tougher than the Moon - but not that much tougher. Space travel
just isn't as expensive as you think it is. Not anymore.

There's a hell of a lot more to a Mars mission than getting everything to
Mars. We couldn't do it today even if the rocket was free. And it won't be.

Even beyond the obvious engineering problems there are still a lot of things
we just don't know how to do in the constraints of the vessel. We have no
practical way of protecting the crew from the radiation they'll be exposed to,
for example. We don't know how to build an environmental system that
guaranteed (more or less) to work for five years. We don't know how to keep
astronauts in good physical and mental condition over those kinds of time
frames. The list is endless.

Mars is like Apollo in the same way an Everest ascent is like camping in your
back yard. You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of what you're
proposing, which is why you find your tiny cost estimate credible.

~~~
cryptoz
> That's a pipe dream. For private industry to do this there has to be a
> profit motive, and in this case there isn't.

A ridiculous proposition. Anyone who can not think of a potential profit
motive for going to Mars isn't thinking very big or very long. Making a list
is left as an exercise to the reader.

> When Elon Musk says Mars is the goal, he means he's intent on providing a
> capability the rest of us will be expected to pay for.

For colonization, yes. But that's fair - and it ties to a profit motive ("Live
on Mars, for the price of a middle-class home!" the ad campaigns may go). But
for the initial trip, whereby he proves his company and technology? Surely
not.

> Even beyond the obvious engineering problems there are still a lot of things
> we just don't know how to do in the constraints of the vessel. We have no
> practical way of protecting the crew from the radiation they'll be exposed
> to, for example. We don't know how to build an environmental system that
> guaranteed (more or less) to work for five years. We don't know how to keep
> astronauts in good physical and mental condition over those kinds of time
> frames. The list is endless.

That's what the $50 billion and more-than-a-decade is for.

> Mars is like Apollo in the same way an Everest ascent is like camping in
> your back yard.

I'm not going to even answer that. So absurd.

> You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of what you're proposing,
> which is why you find your tiny cost estimate credible.

You are the only one on the planet who I have heard of who suggests the cost
would approach anything near $1T. It is you who is way off the mark when
compared to professional estimates.

~~~
_delirium
> But for the initial trip, whereby he proves his company and technology?
> Surely not.

So far, he hasn't even proven an ability to do that _in earth orbit_ without
taxpayer money: SpaceX is almost entirely funded by government contracts.
Wouldn't you want to see them prove financial independence there first, before
speculating on whether they can get to Mars without taxpayer money? It might
be possible, but so far the evidence for SpaceX being a viable concern purely
on private-sector funding is weak imo.

~~~
cryptoz
> So far, he hasn't even proven an ability to do that in earth orbit without
> taxpayer money

So far, no human has been put in orbit without taxpayer money, anywhere.
That's the past, though. It would be silly to suggest that because that's the
way things used to be, that things will always be that way. Or else, everyone
could make that argument about every endeavour by every company, and you'd be
stuck in an argument that _ONLY_ governments will ever be able to put humans
into orbit. And of course that's nonsense.

> SpaceX is almost entirely dependent on government contracts.

False. Wouldn't you want to see their launch manifest first, before
speculating on where their money comes from?

<http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php>

~~~
_delirium
Bills aren't paid by counting up _numbers_ of customers. Of those customers
listed, most are small-fry, kicking in a few million here and there, while
NASA is the main source of cash. Over the 10 years of SpaceX's existence, NASA
has put in approximately as much money as _all_ other funders (Musk, his
investors, and every non-NASA customer) combined. Private-sector customers
account for less than 30% of revenues.

~~~
CamperBob2
In other news, customers are customers, and government customers count.

~~~
_delirium
In this case the money they're receiving is closer to grant money than payment
from a customer. But in any case, the further-up-the-thread post was just
arguing that whether SpaceX will go to Mars (or anywhere else) depends in
significant part on convincing their one dominant "customer", the U.S. Federal
Government, to spend taxpayer money on the goal. The alternative, funding a
trip to Mars entirely from private-sector funds and private-sector customers,
does not appear so far to be close to materializing, considering that they
haven't even successfully funded a trip to low-earth orbit via that means.

------
drzaiusapelord
Its hopeless for the ESA. On one hand you have a super nimble startup vs a
nationalized industry whose decisions makers span different countries, all of
whom have a political dog in this fight. SpaceX's biggest advantage isn't Musk
or its team, its that its not hamstrung by the Congress and Senate on how to
do things and historically their demands to move pork into their home states.

Nor is the air force demanding design requirements like they did with the
shuttle.

Too many cooks for the ESA.

~~~
shardling
This comment would be a lot more worthwhile if you could point to _specific_
instances.

It's not that I find it terribly implausible, but I really get sick of
rhetoric thrown around without any supporting details. As is it's just an
anti-government rant.

~~~
rbanffy
IIRC, parts of the shuttle were manufactured in about 400 different electoral
districts of the USA. It's extremely unlikely all the best prices were that
evenly distributed.

~~~
Tloewald
Indeed the infamous o-rings sealed connections between pieces which logically
wouldn't have been separate.

~~~
iamthad
I believe this is incorrect. If I remember correctly, transport was not the
only issue with building the solid rocket boosters in one piece: physically
pouring a solid rocket motor of that size was infeasible.

~~~
Tloewald
I of course don't remember the details so I looked them up. Here's an
interesting document that doesn't actually go into the fundamental question of
why the engines were built in one place, partially assembled in another, then
snapped together in a third:

[http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/Ethics%20Challenger%20D...](http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/Ethics%20Challenger%20Disaster.pdf)

The point being that if the rockets were welded and fueled near the launch pad
there would have been no need for o-rings. The reason for o-rings was that
cylinders full of fuel needed to be shipped around and welding them together
would have meant too big a lump of explosives. Casting a big engine had
nothing to do with it.

------
rdl
It's cute that ESA tries to claim SpaceX will get more expensive and less
reliable as they scale up to (sort of) mass production. Uh, no. If you're
going for FUD, at least be plausible.

More likely would be "SpaceX might go out of business if the market softens or
they hit serious technical problems, whereas EADS can guilt European
governments into funding it indefinitely" (true) or "SpaceX won't customize
launchers for unique European requirements" (wtf) or "EADS allows Europeans to
maintain employment and skills in critical launch industries in the event
ICBMs become necessary" (I really hope this is never the reason...).

~~~
_delirium
> "EADS allows Europeans to maintain employment and skills in critical launch
> industries in the event ICBMs become necessary"

EADS is the world's 2nd-largest producer of missiles, and produces a pretty
large proportion of European militaries' missiles, so not entirely
implausible. Of course, they could refocus: most of the missiles (the French
Exocet, the British ASRAAM, etc.) are not ICBMs and don't share all that much
technology with space launches.

------
guylhem
It may be a bold claim, but he is making a falsifiable statement.

(yet IMHO he is right - things are quite messed up in Europe at the moment -
in France mostly)

However matching french Guyana launch site geographical advantage and
infrastructure, and European funding, to Elon Musk ships could be a winning
move.

------
nachteilig
I was really pretty pessimistic about space travel when NASA announced they
would shift some of their duties to the private sector, but Elon Musk has
really made this idea exciting in the same way he did with electric cars. It
really makes me believe that companies need a strong personality like his or
Jobs' to get the public excited about new/revitalized sectors.

------
jobigoud
"The upgrade of Ariane 5 - known as Ariane 5 ME"

I have a bad feeling about this…

~~~
StavrosK
"Take ME home"?

~~~
dantkz
Windows ME

~~~
StavrosK
Yeah, that was the slogan.

------
josephagoss
Haha,

"12 years"

"soon as that"

"I don't want to be so old that I can't go" (to mars)

This guy does so much, so right. Unlike most people in high positions he
doesn't seem to have a negative side at all. (not that it really matters too
much if he did, its just really interesting.)

------
znowi
ESA is in a difficult situation to compete with a privately owned, agile,
startup in spirit company. I suspect ESA is not much different to NASA in
operation. And as Musk pointed out, the latter has two major problems: 1) fear
of innovation and 2) inefficient production. First is a catch 22 where no
components can be used in space unless proven to work in space. Second is
multiple chains of subcontractors until you reach a manufacturing process.
It's fine tuned to cash extraction, not product efficiency.

I looked up some numbers. Falcon 9 costs about $5k per kg to launch. Falcon
Heavy is expected at almost $2k. While competitors run at $10k and more. The
only viable competitor seems to be the Russians with their trusted Soyuz and
Angara series, currently in development.

------
rational_indian
Just curious...can someone knowledgeable in these matters comment on how the
Indian GSLV (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launch...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle)
) compares to the SpaceX rockets?

------
microcentury
This is slightly off topic, but I would just _love_ to know how Musk manages
his time. He has the same number of hours as the rest of us - how does he
divide them between his personal research and actually getting stuff done?
What percentage does he spend on marketing versus engineering, PR versus
logistics, and on and on... Man I would love to have a drink with that guy.
There has been no other contemporary person in any sphere of human endeavour I
have been so fan-boyish about.

------
startupfounder
With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the
cost of rocket fuel, which is 1% of the total cost of the flights currently
going into orbit. That is 100x cost savings.

~~~
danielweber
Even airlines flights aren't the cost of fuel. It's a promising technology,
but it isn't _that_ promising.

~~~
kalininalex
They are mostly fuel and wages of (frequently unionized) employees. For
example, numbers for Southwest for the last quarter, of the total $4.2 bil
expense:

Fuel: $1.5 bil

Salaries: $1.2 bil

Depreciation + Maintenance: $0.5 bil (basically all airplane related expenses)

So, maintenance expenses are only 12% of the total, while fuel is 35% and
salaries 28%.

If the cost of fuel in orbit launches was indeed just 1% of the total cost,
then compared to air travel those launches are very inefficient and there may
be a huge room for improvement.

------
j_col
My understanding is that one of the key advantages that Ariane has over it's
rivals is it's launch site near the equator
(<http://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-intro/overview.asp>). Is this saving
negated by other factors, when compared to SpaceX?

~~~
InclinedPlane
That's only an incremental advantage. Note that SpaceX also has an equatorial
launch site but they haven't used it since the Falcon 1 because it's just not
as practical as operating out of Florida/California.

Comparatively, SpaceX is operating a much simpler rocket that is manufactured
much less expensively than the Ariane 5, by about a factor of 10 or so.

------
jakeonthemove
How about the ESA just starts using Falcons - then the prices will go down
even further and they can focus more on actually putting good stuff in space
rather on how to do it...

------
luckystarr
ESA has to battle its 'cash cow syndrome'. This is going to be interesting.

------
sentinel
Actually, he was apparently misquoted:
<https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/270776170184847360>

------
riffraff
no comments on the recent VEGA thingy? Was that DOA ?

<http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMBTKYXHYG_index_0.html>

~~~
maaku
1,5000kg to LEO doesn't put it anywhere near F9 or FH.

