I liked Musk’s observations that the live footage had to be real because it looked fake. He said if it was their CGI it would have looked better and not so fake.
Elon’s words, not mine. He should have said that it is projected that the Roadster will exceed Mars orbit and make it to the asteroid belt.
Psst. Post #505.
Indeed. Sometimes people say Musk is just another PT Barnum, which isn’t true–but so what if it is? People like circuses (or used to, at least). They’re fun, and get people excited. Sure, hype falls flat when it isn’t backed by anything real, but that’s not the case here–SpaceX is doing genuinely world-changing things and they’ve done so in a way that makes people cheer and get interested in space again.
I love NASA but they have a way of making amazing things boring. The last time I remember being really excited about their stuff was the Curiosity rover and the “seven minutes of terror” thing. SpaceX is simply much better at marketing.
Part of it is politics, so I don’t fully blame NASA. It’s obvious that many decisions are based not on what’s smart or even what’s cool, but on what will retain Congressional support. So you get lame and wrongheaded stuff like the SLS. And there’s no way you’ll ever get anything like the SpaceX blooper reel because even the tiniest whiff of a wasted taxpayer dollar in a test gone wrong will bring out the detractors. It’s much easier to waste dollars in boondoggles that over-test by a factor of ten, or even just get quietly cancelled after a while.
Yes.
Imagine going to any other rocket maker NASA or anybody else and asking them to strap together 3 of their medium lift rockets to make it a heavy lift rocket…and ohhh…do it for 500 million…and ohhhh, make most of the rocket resuable…I can hear the howls of laughter…
And that reminds me…the two side boosters were reused booster to boot!
I’ve never seen a NASA estimate for a Heavy-like vehicle, but they did estimate the costs for developing the Falcon 9 1.0. Using their “NAFCOM” model, they estimated a cost of $3.9B. With a version of the model adjusted toward commercial companies, they estimated $1.7B. The actual development cost of both Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 combined was $390M.
That said, the resusability part of the Falcon program did cost at least a billion or so. Still pretty cheap. That R&D has carried forward to both current vehicles, and will contribute to BFR development as well.
Kind of like those “Where in the world is my flight” graphics.
It may just be the fact I move in nerdy and geeky circles (including my family) but my overwhelming impression seems to be that people really want Musk to keep doing what he’s doing, even if a fair proportion of the stuff he does has a veneer of silliness. I think that if we (my family and friends) had generated an insane amount of disposable income we’d like to think that we’d spend it in exactly this sort of way. i.e. cool stuff, rockets to mars, new transportation systems etc.
No-one can complain because it is his money and his vision and it stands or falls on the quality of execution and ultimately the commercial utility. Some things will come to nothing, in other cases (like this) we get a tenfold reduction in the cost to put stuff in orbit (Falcon heavy is a fifth of the price of the next best which can only put half as much in orbit).
I think he is right that this is a game changer, The answer to the question “how much to put 60 tons in orbit?” is now “90 million dollars” and that is astonishing.
Musk is certifiably crazy. He looks and acts like a snake oil salesman.
So what? Crazy guys peddling far fetched ideas are the cause of most of the greatest advances in history. I love what he is doing. The whole Falcon Heavy launch and landing was awesome.
Maybe the Falcon-H reuseable concept ends up being a big bust… who cares. At least he is trying something new.
I think that’s really it. The man is the embodiment of geek culture. And I don’t mean that in even a slightly snarky or condescending way (given that I’m fully immersed myself). Hitchhiker’s Guide, Monty Python, Lord of the Rings, The Culture, Spaceballs, Foundation, Heavy Metal, etc. It’s obvious that this stuff inspires every aspect of the man, from the companies he runs to the stream of silliness and in-jokes on Twitter and elsewhere.
I mean, my coworkers are nerds and we had a nice chat over dinner about the Heavy launch, but no one else at the table understood DON’T PANIC. That was a direct shout-out to a special kind of geek. Certainly don’t want to sound like I’m gatekeeping here, but in my experience there’s a strong correlation between people that appreciate this silliness and those that don’t.
All that said, Musk’s reputation at this point exceeds all that. Most rational people–though not all–give at most an exasperated sigh at this point and admit that he done some great stuff. A few are still incapable of even that.
Quite, he is definitely “crazy” but certainly not stupid and we do need such people willing (and financially able) to push the boundaries of what is possible. You look at the projects he is involved with and when you strip away the superficial “coolness”, none of them are frivolous. All have the potential for the betterment of mankind and though I’m sure he’ll want to have a financial payback from them all, I rather get the feeling that even if they were never going to make him a profit the’d still be doing them.
It is pretty much a certainty that one of his big projects will go tits-up at some point but I’m sure he’s got a million other ideas ready to go (and the cash to back them up). He is a modern-day amalgamation of P.T. Barnum, Edison and Brunel
Full disclosure - I didn’t read the thread and I don’t really know the politics and popular thinking regarding Space-X and Elon Musk, but I just had to get this out; I’m busting.
That was the coolest fucking thing I ever saw. I mean, I was impressed with the launch but they landed the goddamned booster rockets! They just came floating back down to their landing pads, in unison, like a perfectly done movie CGI. I’m still not convinced that’s not what it was. I was seriously gob-stopped. I knew they were talking about the reuse of the modules and all that but I had no clue they could land them like that. When the commentators were talking about, “we’ll see the boosters coming back to earth any minute now,” I was expecting to see the things floating down by parachute. Then I watched them land just like Buck Fucking Rogers.
I literally stood up and applauded all alone in my man-cave.
I don’t believe that for a second.
and that’s a delightful and typical, unvarnished, unrehearsed reaction to seeing that for the first time. At a very primal level it is cool thing to do, just like your body can’t help but start funking to the opening bars of Prince’s “Kiss” you just have to have a silly grin on your face when those boosters touch down.
Ok. I mean, we can believe your gut feeling, or we can believe NASA:
Commercial Market Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems
Although I did specify this in my original post, I should emphasize that this refers only to Falcon 9 1.0, and not the subsequent 1.1 or various Full Thrust flavors, nor does it include the reusability development.
Since COTS was essentially a $390 million development contract, why did they raise hundreds of millions of dollars in their early years from private investors? Was that for the coffee fund? Not to mention that $1.6 billion CRS contract - if none of that money as used for development work, I’ll eat my hat.
Musk put in ~$100M. You know, before he was a billionaire. The remaining ~$300M presumably came from private investors.
Dragon was totally separate. COTS paid for its development. The CRS money is just payment for services rendered: 12 flights, each with a Dragon capsule. $133M per flight is an excellent deal for both launch and payload, especially given the sophistication of Dragon compared to the competition. Also, it’s not like they got the $1.6B upfront anyway.
And of course SpaceX plowed the profits from that program into future development–F9-1.1, etc.
So you are saying that taxpayers did not pay a single cent for the development of F1 and F9 v1.0?
When you buy a car as a commercial item, does the cost of that car include the development of that product (or the development of future products)? Of course it does. It’s obvious that the CRS contract went toward SpaceX development costs, just not in the traditional government Part 15 manner.
They did not pay a single cent for F1, except perhaps in the form of tax breaks or effective subsidies related to launch sites. I can’t quantify those.
For Falcon 9, only $100M was paid out of the CRS contract prior to its maiden flight (see page 20). So that is an absolute upper bound, though it would not be fair at all to count the full amount given that it was partial pre-payment for actual flights.
But really, that’s academic. NASA never stated anything about where the funds came from. If some portion should be rightly ascribed to NASA, so be it. It’s still $390M according to them and SpaceX.
Here is an interview with Alan Lindenmoyer, who was the program manager for commercial cargo and crew since 2005.
I won’t make the argument that DARPA subsidizes F1 development with the purchase of the first two test flights. I am sure I’ll be told that it doesn’t count for some reason.