Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Why Air Force Space Programs Are Mismanaged | Main | I Did Not Know That »

First Launch

I took a lot of notes at the SpaceX press conference in El Segundo today, but I think that the proceedings will be available at their web site, so I'll just put down some highlights and thoughts. While I was there, I'm probably less valuable as a reporter than as a participant, because I asked several questions. Fortunately (for me, though not necessarily for the company from a PR standpoint), as I noted earlier, the attendance by the media was sparse, so I was front and center, with an opportunity to almost interview Elon in real time. I should note that he didn't say a lot that was new here, but it was a good opportunity to hear it all in one place at one time. This may ramble a little, because I'm one of those guys in their pajamas who don't have editors...

He was clearly confident and happy with the current situation. When asked if he was nervous, he responded that he was actually relieved, because he feels that they've now done everything possible (or at least reasonable) to ensure success of this critical first launch, and are "at peace with themselves."

I think that what came through most to me was that there is clearly a vision to this venture, and that while he's happy for the business from DARPA and the Air Force, the ultimate purpose is not to deliver military satellites cheaper.

He is clearly doing this because he believes that it is important, even imperative, that we help life expand out into the universe (he even explicitly said that--unlike many, he didn't do this to get himself into space--he did it so others could). That's not a usual motivation (at least voiced) for an entrepreneur, and it could cause some stockholders to be concerned that it will take primacy over returns, but this is mitigated by the fact that he is clearly a successful businessman with a track record.

Along those lines, when asked about his lawsuit against Boeing and Lockmart, he noted that many times, if there were victories in such things, they were often posthumus. He said that he wanted his legal victory to be "prehumus."

He gave some hint of what he has in mind for a tourist market, mentioning that a Falcon 9 could deliver a "loop around the moon." One more bit of evidence (besides the launch contract) that he's been talking to Bob Bigelow.

Some interesting (to me) tidbits:

• This will be the first orbital launch from Kwajalein
  
• The Merlin II engine will be the largest (by thrust) in the world (though not in history--it won't beat the F1)
  
• First stage is most mass efficient in the world
  
• Second stage is most mass efficient in the world for a pressure-fed engine
  
• He's planning to raise funds early next year to complete Falcon 9 (he thinks he needs another hundred million) but will fund it himself if this is unsuccessful
  
• He'll be designing the Falcon 9 to 40% structural margin (airframe, meaning passengers) rather than the traditional unmanned spacecraft margin of 25%, and make it triple redundant (rather than the single-string Falcon 1)
  
• He agrees that "human rating" may be a chimera, and agrees that it's senseless to design a vehicle to less reliability for hundred-million-dollar satellites than for people
  
• He's encouraged by recent legislation, and will lobby for ITAR relief (specifically mentioning the ridiculous situation that we treat Canada and New Zealand exactly like North Korea), but it isn't the company's highest priority
  
• He's had dinners with Jeff Bezos, and he shares the vision for expanding humanity into space, and they may collaborate at some point, but there are no specific plans
  
• Paul Allen may be visiting the plant soon, but has expressed no explicit interest in investing
  

He did say one thing that concerned me. When asked if he had considered a dummy upper stage on a first-stage test, he pointed out that Apollo had tested all up. I'm not sure that Apollo was the best model to follow, given that they had unlimited funds, and were in a race. Also, he said that he thought a successful launch would validate their design, but he's mistaken about that. It might merely validate their luck. You can't go and focus on manufacturing quality from a single successful launch--it will take many launches to develop a level of confidence in both design and manufacturing. I hope that they will rethink this philosophy.

Overall, though, I was encouraged, and will be cheering for them next Friday.

[Update late evening]

Michael Belfiore was live blogging it. Clark Lindsey also has good notes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 18, 2005 08:08 PM

Comments

It's encouraging to see real progress being made in opening up spaceflight. There was so much hope with so many startups back in the late 90s that fizzled when the LEO commsat market dried up, with little of substance to show for it. Now we've got sub-orbital manned flights on the cheap (Rutan / SS1) and legitimately new booster concepts on the launch pad (Falcon I) and so much more in development (from XCOR, Armadillo, Bigelow, etc.) that has a lot more firmness and bent metal behind it than the endless parade of viewgraphs that has served as the backdrop of the cycles of hope and disillusionment of the past. I'm really excited to see the evolution of this industry over the next few years / decades, it should be interesting and hopefully it will end up being revolutionary.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow\ at November 18, 2005 11:14 PM

Hurray for Elon!

He is clearly doing this because he believes that it is important, even imperative, that we help life expand out into the universe (he even explicitly said that--unlike many, he didn't do this to get himself into space--he did it so others could)

100% Spot on. Settlement is the only sustainable "why" for doing space.

That's not a usual motivation (at least voiced) for an entrepreneur, and it could cause some stockholders to be concerned that it will take primacy over returns, but this is mitigated by the fact that he is clearly a successful businessman with a track record.

Fret not about this.

This is more far money to be made selling supplies to settlers than selling joy-rides to tourists.

Posted by Bill White at November 19, 2005 07:21 AM

Heh!

There is [far more] not [more far} money to be made selling supplies to settlers than selling joy-rides to tourists.

Posted by Bill White at November 19, 2005 07:22 AM

This is more far [more] money to be made selling supplies to settlers than selling joy-rides to tourists.

This is true, and utterly irrelevant to any near-term business plan. There are many billions to be made from "joy rides" (and other reasons people want to go into space). Any profits from selling to settlers are much farther off in the future, however large.

Just because you believe that there is little market for public passenger travel, doesn't make it so, Bill. Your notion that one can build a business plan on space colonization that anyone sane would fund is, well...nuts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2005 08:04 AM

You miss my point.

Selling space tourism as a steppingstone to settlement will sell more tourist seats than merely selling tourism as an end unto itself. And it will allow the space tourism operators to make more money from the ancillary marketing.

I have heard it alleged that Harley Davidson makles more money selling logo-ed merchandize than they do selling motorcycles. Why should Virgin Galactic be any different? Branson made money from 7-Up and Volvo before flying a single passenger.

We will rally greater public support and money if space tourism is tied into "human destiny" rather than space tourism merely being about some rich guys wanting to play astronaut.

Posted by Bill White at November 19, 2005 08:26 AM

Selling space tourism as a steppingstone to settlement will sell more tourist seats than merely selling tourism as an end unto itself.

I doubt that. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for it, or are you just projecting your own preferences on a vast public that seems decidedly indifferent to space settlement?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2005 08:29 AM

The sea launch Zenit engine (RD-170) has more thrust than the F1. I think he meant that it would be the biggest single chamber engine since the F1.

Posted by Rod at November 19, 2005 08:35 AM

Bill does have a point, Rand. The guys who made money in the California and Yukon gold rushes were not the guys digging for gold; the ones who made money were the guys selling shovels.

Posted by Ed Minchau at November 19, 2005 11:29 AM

The guys who made money in the California and Yukon gold rushes were not the guys digging for gold; the ones who made money were the guys selling shovels.

They did indeed, but that's not what Bill is saying. Bill is saying that the public demand for space settlement exceeds the public demand for space tourism. There's zero evidence to think that, and quite a bit to believe otherwise.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2005 03:42 PM

Godspeed Falcon 1! The only regret I have is that I can't just drive out to see it go.

Posted by Mazoo at November 20, 2005 06:56 AM

Hoerr has a business case for a settlement ship cycler in _The Rocket Company_. It may be fanciful, but it is no further off than regular colonization service to America was in 1492. At this point, the US government may be the only entity with the resources to get it started, but that could quickly change. Worden thinks a $1 billion one-way colonization trip to Mars is feasible with Elon's prices. Being profitable would require the effort to be as lucrative as the Harry Potter juggernaut. It doesn't take an interested public, only a few rich folks to get started.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at November 20, 2005 08:17 AM

The selfish part of me wants SpaceX to get delayed one day to the 26th. Then perhaps I will be able to someday look back and claim the true space age, the one I have awaited since I was sixteen (the launch of Columbia and the false promise of and diversion by the Shuttle), begain on my 40th birthday.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 20, 2005 09:31 AM

Bill is saying that the public demand for space settlement exceeds the public demand for space tourism.

Nope, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that tourism plus settlement will need more lift-to-LEO than tourism alone. Care to argue that point? ;-) I've also said that I do not believe tourism alone will create sufficient demand (all by itself) to drastically lower cost to LEO. Tourism is great, but adding additional soures of demand for lift-to-LEO is also a good idea.

Hopefully, SpaceX will lower cost-to-LEO but then permanent settlement (multi-planet species & spacefaring) is a big part of what motivates Elon Musk.

An Elon quote from the other article:

Musk said he also hopes to launch Falcon family rockets from Cape Canaveral, Fla., in the future, and believes that it is essential to push humans further into space.

“Becoming a spacefaring civilization or a multiplanet species … it may well be the hardest thing that humanity ever does,” Musk said. “Life has a duty to extend itself and we, as life’s representatives, should do so.”

Posted by Bill White at November 20, 2005 08:40 PM

I'm saying that tourism plus settlement will need more lift-to-LEO than tourism alone.

You have said that there will be more demand for tourism if it is seen to be contributing to settlement. I can look up the cite if I need to, but do you deny this?

Care to argue that point?

Of course not, but it's not the point that you've previously made. Also, it's pointless, since there is nearer-term demand for tourism than for settlement, because the latter requires much more technology and infrastructure development.

I've also said that I do not believe tourism alone will create sufficient demand (all by itself) to drastically lower cost to LEO.

Yes, you have said that as well, and provided zero evidence for it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 20, 2005 08:50 PM

Yes, you have said that as well, and provided zero evidence for it.

That cuts both ways. The evidence for inverse of his statement is hardly overwhelming. But then when should reality get in the way of good rhetoric.

Posted by at November 21, 2005 06:46 AM

The evidence for inverse of his statement is hardly overwhelming.

Not knowing for certain what you mean by the "inverse of his statement," at least evidence for interest in visiting space (regardless of its tie-in to space settlements) exists, in the form of many public-opinion polls and market research studies.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 21, 2005 07:18 AM

...at least evidence for interest in visiting space (regardless of its tie-in to space settlements) exists, in the form of many public-opinion polls and market research studies.
i>

That was not Bill's issue, and it's never been mine. Talk about strawmen and their use Rand!

There's no question there is interest in visiting space, what Bill said, and he's hardly unique in this position is "I do not believe tourism alone will create sufficient demand (all by itself) to drastically lower cost to LEO."

The polls and the market surveys are not at all clear on this being a sufficiently large market. Just knowing there is a market for something doesn't mean the market is large enough. Even looking at something very public like the Futron study, you have dig through the numbers to find the hidden gems that will have not escaped the attention of the non-fan investment base like, for example, 50% of the respondants saying they wouldn't go at any price point.

While that doesn't devalue the survey, because they factor that in, it does raise questions about what happens if they then have their S curve analysis incorrect. Which, given the nature of S curves, they almost certainly are. You can do an interesting adjustment to the S curve based on the expected growth versus actual and then adjust the timeline of the S-curve according to the new market data.

Fortunately for the space industry you've a small number of mega-rich people who can afford to turn large fortunes into small ones. It still might not be anywhere near enough.

Bill is quite right. Tourism alone won't do this.

Posted by Daveon at November 21, 2005 10:29 AM

There's no question there is interest in visiting space, what Bill said, and he's hardly unique in this position is "I do not believe tourism alone will create sufficient demand (all by itself) to drastically lower cost to LEO."

I didn't say he was. Please try to follow. What's unique in his position is that people will be more interested in tourism if it's tied to settlement. There remains zero evidence for this.

The polls and the market surveys are not at all clear on this being a sufficiently large market.

I didn't say they were. What I said is that there is more evidence for this position, than for Bill's (because his has none at all).

you have dig through the numbers to find the hidden gems that will have not escaped the attention of the non-fan investment base like, for example, 50% of the respondants saying they wouldn't go at any price point.

This is a true strawman. Has anyone ever claimed that there was universal desire to go? If not, then this is utterly irrelevant (and hilariously illogical to even bring up, and but nothing new for you).

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 21, 2005 10:43 AM

The headline should read "Cost overruns, schedule delays plague rocket program."

Posted by Joe Athelli at November 21, 2005 11:18 AM

Joe, it might as well read "Water still wet" then.

I don't think Musk has ever stated the goal of SpaceX was to be the first rocket company not to have delays and cost overruns.

Posted by cuddihy at November 21, 2005 12:08 PM

What's unique in his position is that people will be more interested in tourism if it's tied to settlement.

No Rand, that's how you bizzarely read him - not what his position here and elsewhere has consistently been.

You are doing to him what you accuse Mark Whittington of doing to you.

Has anyone ever claimed that there was universal desire to go? If not, then this is utterly irrelevant (and hilariously illogical to even bring up, and but nothing new for you).

Nope, sorry Rand, you're focusing on the wrong thing and in doing so creating another strawman - do you know what that means BTW?

The issue is whether or not the market is large enough to actually support the growth which you seem to suggest it can.

While somethings are pretty much mass markets, in that at the right price points, an overwhelming percentage of the population of the industrial world will go - thus creating mass tourism markets. Some things are not.

You have often claimed a "vast" market. It is a large market - it is not necessarily a mass market.

Your inability to understand this subtle distinction, it's impact on space as a potential business and the apathy in the population at large astounds me.

Posted by Daveon at November 21, 2005 01:08 PM

>What's unique in his position is that people will be more interested in tourism if it's tied to settlement.

No Rand, that's how you bizzarely read him - not what his position here and elsewhere has consistently been.

No, that is what he has said. I don't know how you can imagine you're in a position to deny this, since you don't know everything that he has said.

The issue is whether or not the market is large enough to actually support the growth which you seem to suggest it can.

Yes, it is, and the fact that half of the people aren't interested in the product means absolutely nothing in terms of that, because even without them, it's adequate. You can play whatever word games with "vast" and "mass" that you want. The fact remains that it is probably sufficient, and there's much more evidence for that proposition than the counter one. And there's zero evidence that people care about settlement in any great numbers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 21, 2005 01:16 PM

I don't know how you can imagine you're in a position to deny this, since you don't know everything that he has said.

Never claimed I was. I can only go by what I've read him write and what I've read is consistent with the position I put there. I cannot possibly be held responsible for what you think he says. You do realise this is _exactly_ what you accuse others of.

Yes, it is, and the fact that half of the people aren't interested in the product means absolutely nothing in terms of that

A point I addressed and you conviently ignored, cheers mate.

Then... well, you know, I couldn't make this stuff up...

RS: it's adequate.(refering to the market)

A firm statement referring to 50% of the market addressed in the Futron study.

RS: The fact remains that it is probably sufficient

Probably? Look, either it is, or it isn't. For space tourism to lead to development of space is a pretty bleedin' binary issue. If you are wrong then the long term development of space, something I think we all care rather a lot about, is screwed.

I happen to think it's a little bit more important than that, which is why I'm not prepared to believe your libertarian commercial fantasies and find that Mark Whittington and others make a hell of a lot more sense.

Thank (whatever diety or believe system you like) that alt-space has people who can afford to screw up big time. But the long term development of space for the human race, so we can move our eggs out of this basket has to have a little more to rely on than that!

Posted by Daveon at November 21, 2005 02:43 PM

Probably? Look, either it is, or it isn't.

Yes, and no one can know for sure which it is, with a high level of certainty. That's why intelligent people use words like "probably." If you demand guarantees in such things, I'd recommend that you grow up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 21, 2005 03:05 PM

If you demand guarantees in such things

Did I hell! Talk about warping peoples words to suit your own twisted little ego Rand!

If you want money, then you'd damn well better be able to show that there really is a return and how you are going to get it. Sure, there should be risks associated, and no guarentees, but either there's a market or there's not.

You brought up the conditional, not me.

I don't think you even know what you argue for anymore, just as long as you argue.

Posted by Daveon at November 22, 2005 05:43 AM

Did I hell!

Absolutely. How else would any rational person, conversant with the English language, interpret your nutty demand that I state it as an unmodified binary state?

What you're asking me to do is indulge in investor fraud. Sorry, but it's illegal here. Good luck with it over there.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 22, 2005 02:38 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?