Mars, no really; again

It ain't gonna happen tomorrow.
The day after looks pretty dubious as well.
Brief sketch: establishment of a "spaceport" orbiting the moon; a space station orbiting Mars.
Little things like a reusable lander at the Mars station would need to be developed as well.
As usual, the big hurdle is getting everything out of Earth gravity

Its big, its ambitious; just what Lockheed Martin likes I would think.
Upside, most seems to be stuff we have done, or already have a good idea how to do
The talk of 1000 day missions, likely makes a small pool of candidates even smaller:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...umans-to-mars/

1k days given current propulsion is not unreasonable. Can easily spend 200 on each leg of the trip in 'spam in a can' mode. Plus, the return leg is governed as much by orbital positioning as well as anything else. Leaving 200 days earlier than planned doesn't help much if the trip is 170 days longer because of the departure date chosen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

1k days given current propulsion is not unreasonable. Can easily spend 200 on each leg of the trip in 'spam in a can' mode. Plus, the return leg is governed as much by orbital positioning as well as anything else. Leaving 200 days earlier than planned doesn't help much if the trip is 170 days longer because of the departure date chosen.

---

The 1k days will zoom by if we provide them with internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The 1k days will zoom by if we provide them with internet.

---

If they are less selective on who can apply, there would not be a candidate shortage too. But yes, give them a boat load of games, movies, nations favourite.. and it would be a NEET paradise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The 1k days will zoom by if we provide them with internet.

---

I cannot imagine the ping scores for that distance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I cannot imagine the ping scores for that distance

---

Has to be better than my current... I used to think my internet was bad, and that was over 10 times faster than now. Used to pay for 200Mb and used to get (if lucky) 56Mb. Now I pay for 20Mb and receive like 3.2Mb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Has to be better than my current... I used to think my internet was bad, and that was over 10 times faster than now. Used to pay for 200Mb and used to get (if lucky) 56Mb. Now I pay for 20Mb and receive like 3.2Mb.

---

I remember the days of dial up. Heck, my computing lessons used to talk about bawd rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I remember the days of dial up. Heck, my computing lessons used to talk about bawd rates.

---

Try university internet rates, at least their wifi.:thumbsdown: You would think the Engineering and Industries building, where the College of Engineering is located, would have good wireless. Nope.

As far as the Mars trip, radiation is also a major concern. I don't really see the point in a Mars trip myself, though I guess the scientific advances that would help get there would probably be a major boon here, and the trip would be the cause of that research.

I admit, the idea of a manned mission seems a little odd.
The value of having a human travel to Mars is difficult to justify. Face it, data and images can just be piped here.
It might have the cache of "...going boldly...etc" but there isn't much added by sending a person there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

I admit, the idea of a manned mission seems a little odd.
The value of having a human travel to Mars is difficult to justify. Face it, data and images can just be piped here.
It might have the cache of "...going boldly...etc" but there isn't much added by sending a person there.

---

But that cachet is everything in this.

In a literal value of science performed and knowledge/resources gained from the direct returns on the space effort the ENTIRETY of manned space flight has been a waste of time. But as Vincent correctly notes, it is the spinoffs/other uses of those ideas -- needed to put people safely into an environment which is totally anathema to terrestrial life and to cross the distances etc involved -- which have more than paid for the investment in the program. NASA and the manned space program may be THE definitive example of the long term value of basic (as opposed to applied) scientific research.

The infrastructure put in place to support future manned missions to the Moon and Mars are what will be the stepping stones for private industry to step up exploration. The upfront costs are tremendous for what appears to be purely prestige milestones. If further exploration manned or otherwise will be done in the future it will require that infrastructure in the form of essentially orbital spaceports. If large vessels for mining or exploration or colonization are to ever be built in the future they'd have to be built in near Earth or Moon orbit using materials gathered from outside our planet as well.
If we ever have an orbital station that's available for 'public/commercial' use that will be the thing that actually leads to future colonization via larger space stations and even more distance in the future moon/mars bases.
For ventures this large and expensive however its unrealistic to expect private industry to be the leader, it's always required government assistance for grandiose ideas such as this. The Space X rockets doing resupply missions for the ISS as just a tiny example of it.

In the words of President Kennedy "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

I've always thought that the post-Vietnam lack of pride in the Space program that led to the cancellation of the Apollo missions, allowed Skylab to fall into the atmosphere and pinned all our hopes on the Space Shuttle was a setback that's almost unforgivable. The retirement of the space shuttle with no replacement is the epitome of our short sighted thinking. If it takes 'prestige' missions of such a massive scale to get the public behind NASA then so be it.
At the very least it'll encourage more kids to pursue science or engineer which has an incalculable payoff for our future only if we have a government and industries supporting and fostering that drive.

I think both Seamus and spmetla raise valid points.
In a sense, manned missions are the advertisements that help pay for the program.
The science can be done by robots, mining (likely the biggest commercial use of space) is also better handled by robots; nothing galvanizes the public the way manned missions do.
I suppose we have science fiction to thank for that; the narrative is human travel, exploration and heroism; robots are bit players.

554 persons have been in space, with another 200 odd trained to do so but never getting the chance, dying in an accident, or not yet having launched. So roughly 800 persons. 25 of whom died in action or in directly related training.

That's one out of every 32 participants or more than 3%. By way of comparison, the US military experiences a lower percentage death rate from combat operations (0.028%) and that includes all of the really dangerous jobs like special forces, pararescue, and combat air crew. Space is two ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more dangerous than combat.

It is no wonder it is fixating to the public attention.

It was a friend of mine who is an astrophysicist who pointed out to me the advances that came about as a result of the space race. But I am not convinced it will occur anytime soon. Gregg Easterbrook, who is a sports writer but also comments on other things, has some sound scientific points about the problems with it in some of his TMQ (Tuesday Morning Quarterback) articles, propulsion and weight being of major concern.

Now, I have an electrical engineering degree (and therefore by association enjoy sci-fi), so it goes that I love the idea of space stations and such. I guess we will never get to that point if we don't work on our exploration. It is not leaps and bounds, but rather steps that move progress forward. Can't get out of the solar system if we don't get to the closest planets first, I guess. We will always need pioneers. I for one prefer to stay on planet Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

554 persons have been in space, with another 200 odd trained to do so but never getting the chance, dying in an accident, or not yet having launched. So roughly 800 persons. 25 of whom died in action or in directly related training.

That's one out of every 32 participants or more than 3%. By way of comparison, the US military experiences a lower percentage death rate from combat operations (0.028%) and that includes all of the really dangerous jobs like special forces, pararescue, and combat air crew. Space is two ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more dangerous than combat.

It is no wonder it is fixating to the public attention.

---

Does that list include Sullivan Carew?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does that list include Sullivan Carew?

---

No it did not but THANK YOU, lmfao

We will have to see if this proposal goes the way of most recent ideas from the Executive.
Short answer, without a clear plan and goals, in addition to the funding for them, this is just another moon age daydream:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...e-exploration/

This might be something that really doesn't count now, but if we get serious about space exploration it has to be addressed.
What exactly is the legal framework?
I could see much of the outline being hammered out at the UN but enforcement and jurisdiction might get tricky.
The Wild West with an unlimited expanding frontier?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...r-martian-law/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

This might be something that really doesn't count now, but if we get serious about space exploration it has to be addressed.
What exactly is the legal framework?
I could see much of the outline being hammered out at the UN but enforcement and jurisdiction might get tricky.
The Wild West with an unlimited expanding frontier?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...r-martian-law/

---

When there is an accessible frontier again, you will see pioneers and pirates, people who cast of their old persona for a new dream, and people who seek an empire in the power vacuum.

It will be a lively time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

When there is an accessible frontier again, you will see pioneers and pirates, people who cast of their old persona for a new dream, and people who seek an empire in the power vacuum.

It will be a lively time.

---

Fan of Firefly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Fan of Firefly?

---

Never read that one. Any good?


Heinlein, Asimov, Weber and other space operas, Omega Force series....

Always fascinated by it.


And my response was mostly prompted by my own musings about the American Western Frontier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Never read that one. Any good?

---

Cult classic tv series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(TV_series)

Every journey begins with the first step

https://www.space.com/39594-spacex-f...h-preview.html

The Falcon Heavy is probably the result of countless little steps but hey I was stuck for an appropriate cliche :p

https://youtu.be/B1KHv3-dHDM?t=2230
Replay of the launch at one minute out.

Wow! it went beautifully :yes:
Have to admit, watching an experimental rocket on it first flight is a bit like watching NASCAR
"Gorgeous machine ya got there! Shame if it blowed up *droool*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Wow! it went beautifully :yes:
Have to admit, watching an experimental rocket on it first flight is a bit like watching NASCAR
"Gorgeous machine ya got there! Shame if it blowed up *droool*

---

Nice part about NASA (and other Space launchers) over NASCAR is that there pretty much HAS to be a huge flipping explosion and fire (with most of us hoping it happens in a controlled manner).

I'm not gonna lie, watching that rocket launch was the best part of my day.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/chin...heavy-success/
China Has Mixed Feelings About Elon Musk’s Falcon Heavy Success

Quote:

---

On Tuesday, in its first test flight, Elon Musk’s SpaceX successfully launched Falcon Heavy — one of the world’s most powerful rockets — from the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral in Florida.

Along with millions around the world, Chinese people were deeply impressed by SpaceX’s victorious launch, particularly the company’s breathtaking reusable launch system.

Soon after two of Falcon Heavy’s booster rockets landed safely on the launch pad, news reports with photos and video footage swept Tencent Wechat and Sina Weibo — two of China’s most important social media platforms. Thousands of Chinese netizens reposted the information on their own social media accounts and applauded Musk’s great achievement.
However, China’s national media expressed mixed feelings about Musk’s Falcon Heavy rocket.

For example, Global Times, one of China’s most nationalistic state-run newspapers, issued a series of articles on both its website and its social media account, introducing the launch in detail.

On the one hand, Global Times highly complimented SpaceX’s advanced technology, used in the latest launch, saying that the Falcon Heavy rocket has “totally crushed all other current rockets in the world.”

On the other hand, Global Times couldn’t help but attribute Musk’s feat to the United States as a whole and compare China’s space technology with that of the United States.

One of many Global Times’ articles on SpaceX wrote emotionally:

What really shocks us Chinese is not only that our country currently doesn’t have rockets of such magnitude, but the fact that we are almost 10 years behind; more importantly, what our country has to desperately catch up with is actually a private U.S. enterprise…

To put it more bluntly, this time the Americans showed us Chinese with pure power that why they are still the strongest country in the world and how wide the gap really is between us and them …

On February 7, Global Times even published an editorial in Chinese under the title of “The road for China to catch up with the United States on science and technology is still very very long.” Taking a rare tone, the editorial admitted China’s backwardness on technology and, at the same time, directly criticized some rising perceptions that “China has generally surpassed the United States as a whole.” However, the editorial didn’t forget to vow that China will take steps to improve its space technology.

Interestingly, the newspaper hasn’t translated this fairly balanced editorial (compared to its many other strongly worded editorials) into English so far.

China’s national TV station, CCTV, showed another interesting tendency in reporting the launch. CCTV focused most of its attention on the fact that the third booster of Falcon Heavy rocket failed to land on its launching pad on the sea, not the overall success of the launch.

While nationalism is deeply embedded in China’s national media reports, many Chinese citizens, impressed by Musk’s feat, reflected upon China’s problems from a totally different angle.

For example, one comment by an unknown Chinese netizen has been widely reposted. It reads:

The real difference [between China and the United States] is that Americans put this line “Made on Earth by humans” on Tesla’s engine … rather than “made in America.” The Tesla plays on loop “Space Oddity,” created by great British artist David Bowie in the 1970s, rather than the American national anthem. Inside the car lay a copy of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, known as the science fiction bible written by British writer Douglas Adams… What truly makes miracles come true is mankind’s spirit of exploration and adventure… rather than so-called national pride.

---

Interesting to see some of their perspective on it. I just hope the private enterprise space industry picks up speed. Also seen some folks on the facebook talking about how this shows the government should stay out of space travel, to that I keep having to point out that the infrastructure of the Kennedy Space Center allowed him to launch when his facility at Vandenberg had delays. Also helps to have existing facilities and standards and procedures to conform to instead of having to start from scratch.

They will figure everything out, some people just happen to be rediculously intelligent. I'm not one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/chin...heavy-success/
China Has Mixed Feelings About Elon Musk’s Falcon Heavy Success


Interesting to see some of their perspective on it. I just hope the private enterprise space industry picks up speed. Also seen some folks on the facebook talking about how this shows the government should stay out of space travel, to that I keep having to point out that the infrastructure of the Kennedy Space Center allowed him to launch when his facility at Vandenberg had delays. Also helps to have existing facilities and standards and procedures to conform to instead of having to start from scratch.

---

The government seems to have enabled Musk to afford this passion project. :shrug:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...531-story.html

This is what NASA's deputy administrator between 2009-2013 is saying:

Quote:

---

NASA has spent more than $15 billion to try and develop their own heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), with a first flight planned in roughly two years — assuming all goes according to plan.

Once operational, SLS will cost NASA over $1 billion per launch. The Falcon Heavy, developed at zero cost to the taxpayer, would charge NASA approximately $100M per launch. In other words, NASA could buy 10 Falcon Heavy launches for the coat of one SLS launch — and invest the remainder in truly revolutionary and meaningful missions that advance science and exploration.

It is understandable that government employees, contractors and their elected officials want to keep this expensive rocket development program going. A large share of NASA’s roughly $19billion budget has been spent on this constituency, and in turn is protected by them. We have come to accept this “tax” on the agency, but It is time for the nation to decide if we want a space program — or a jobs program.

---

I haven't checked the numbers presented here, but the sentiment isn't exactly uncommon among people who might know what they are talking about.

?

I'm not saying that Musk shouldn't receive any various subsidies, or that he shouldn't re-invest subsidy-driven profits from his business elsewhere into a venture like SpaceX - just that claims of SpaceX showing how private enterprise can offer cheaper options than public orgs like NASA are highly misleading.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...e-exploration/

It looks like private will be the top option in the foreseeable future for high-payload launches, but we should keep in mind the impact of subsidies is easily disguised once a degree removed, while inputs and outputs are highly transparent with NASA. Don't get captured. (Let's be honest, they always get captured.)

As your own article points out, and which should be correct, SpaceX has received very little subsidies (and Tesla isn't fairing all that well economically; so I don't know that there's much money to invest in SpaceX originating from there):

Quote:

---

On a smaller scale, SpaceX, Musk's rocket company, cut a deal for about $20 million in economic development subsidies from Texas to construct a launch facility there. (Separate from incentives, SpaceX has won more than $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the U.S. Air Force.)

[...]

SpaceX, though it depends far more on government contracts than subsidies, received an incentive package in Texas for a commercial rocket launch facility. The state put up more than $15 million in subsidies and infrastructure spending to help SpaceX build a launch pad in rural Cameron County at the southern tip of Texas. Local governments contributed an additional $5 million.

---

If Musk had a fortune that was <$5.5 billion greater than what it were, he would have had enough money to develop his Falcon rockets without government money in any shape or form. That's more or less the story with Jeff Bezo's Blue Origin (the company does appear to have at least received smaller sums, but with Bezos' wealth, these certainly aren't needed).

I would say that it is correct that it is not simply 'the private market' that are driving the prices down, but very wealthy people like Musk and Bezos that have their own highly ambitious and futuristic visions (yes, Bezos too). The cost of entry for this market is very high, so it makes sense that great pre-existing wealth is a requirement.

It is true that a very large share of launches globally (including for SpaceX) have state entities as their primary customer(s), but the relevance of that is, of course, heavily dependent on the precise argument being made.

Directly or indirectly, the subsidies Musk has had access to have certainly been part of the SpaceX effort. Monty is clearly correct on this. I'm not necessarily saying that that is a bad thing.

Government funding underpinning a private effort may be the best model for improving space development. Then cut the taxpayer in on the backside for any direct and indirect payoffs (asteroid mining, tech licensing for consumer goods etc.) at a reasonable percentage. Industry does things to build towards success, so take advantage of it and (to a reasonable degree) subsidize it. This isn't paying corporate farms to plow corn under, it's providing a support framework for R&D.

Government run/government funded efforts seem to get too bureaucratized. The space program worked pretty well during its crusade phase, but following Buzz and Neil's triumph it had a lot more clunkiness and limited successes. It became a long running science project and, while shuttles did contribute to our satellite connected world, they didn't prove cost effective when compared with simpler techs.

I think NASA does have a role in space exploration, but unless it is a crusade-mode effort I think the private with government support model is likely better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

As your own article points out, and which should be correct, SpaceX has received very little subsidies (and Tesla isn't fairing all that well economically; so I don't know that there's much money to invest in SpaceX originating from there):



If Musk had a fortune that was <$5.5 billion greater than what it were, he would have had enough money to develop his Falcon rockets without government money in any shape or form. That's more or less the story with Jeff Bezo's Blue Origin (the company does appear to have at least received smaller sums, but with Bezos' wealth, these certainly aren't needed).

I would say that it is correct that it is not simply 'the private market' that are driving the prices down, but very wealthy people like Musk and Bezos that have their own highly ambitious and futuristic visions (yes, Bezos too). The cost of entry for this market is very high, so it makes sense that great pre-existing wealth is a requirement.

It is true that a very large share of launches globally (including for SpaceX) have state entities as their primary customer(s), but the relevance of that is, of course, heavily dependent on the precise argument being made.

---

With nascent commercialization of space, state organizations are necessarily the biggest costumers. Eventually that might change, but it remains in the realm of science fiction.

So that said, of course government contracts make up more toward the capitalization than subsidies - one can hardly get by with subsidies but no contracts. That would be more like a money laundering front.

Subsidies, like in other fields such as renewable energy (which as noted in linkies Musk is a player in), provide seed money and the necessary capitalization to even be in a position to receive or pursue contracts. You let slip there, the implication that Tesla would probably not be solvent without various subsidies and tax credits and breaks (including on the demand side).

Bezos, without further inquiry, appears to genuinely be self-funding his vision. But still you see, there are no pristine billionaires: that money came from somewhere (Amazon operations > stock/income), and the same questions apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I think NASA does have a role in space exploration, but unless it is a crusade-mode effort I think the private with government support model is likely better.

---

NASA will continue to be the top player in scientific missions and exploration, as well as space tech and research (meaning applicable to life in space).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Directly or indirectly, the subsidies Musk has had access to have certainly been part of the SpaceX effort. Monty is clearly correct on this. I'm not necessarily saying that that is a bad thing.

---

The point is that the subsidies do not appear to have been a factor that made the rockets possible. Compared to $5.5 billion in contracts, $20 million in subsidies is pocket change. SpaceX also charges around $60 million per Falcon 9 launch, meaning that the profit of a single launch should be a large fraction of, or even equal to or greater than, the amount the the company received in subsidies. It is also not clear that these subsidies were even received before the Falcon 9 rocket was flying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So that said, of course government contracts make up more toward the capitalization than subsidies - one can hardly get by with subsidies but no contracts. That would be more like a money laundering front.

---

That is a bit of an oversimplification. If the government needs the services of a company with very high irregularity and where private customers are far and few between, large amounts of subsidies in some shape or form could be necessary for the company to stay afloat in a useful form.

On the other hand, if the government wants to break a monopoly, it could find it to be worth it to pay significant sums to prevent a new and promising, but struggling, company from collapsing.

Quote:

---

But still you see, there are no pristine billionaires: that money came from somewhere (Amazon operations > stock/income), and the same questions apply.

---

This seems to be moving the debate to a very different landscape (and I don't see what the point is supposed to be). Where do governments get their resources from? From private individuals. Where do private individuals get their resources from?

Quote:

---

The point is that the subsidies do not appear to have been a factor that made the rockets possible.

---

I'm emphasizing the indirect subsidies to SpaceX through direct subsidies to Tesla.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

Elon Musk made his early career from selling startups and stock. Before the last few years, SpaceX was mostly about building confidence and valuation to secure long-term contracts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki: SpaceX

As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M (Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, …).[88] The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. As of April 2012, NASA had put in about $400–500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts.[83] By May 2012, SpaceX had contracts for 40 launch missions, and each of those contracts provide down payments at contract signing, plus many are paying progress payments as launch vehicle components are built in advance of mission launch, driven in part by US accounting rules for recognizing long-term revenue.[83]

---

With the new millenium, Musk had however many millions to invest from his previous success; most conservatively he could have put everything in financial instruments and settled down. Tesla and SpaceX were both launched around the same time, in 2002-3, with Musk a cofounder of Tesla.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki:Tesla, Inc./LA Times Article

The company enjoys various forms of federal and state subsidy, which it was estimated in 2015 amounted to at least $30,000 for each vehicle sold, or cumulatively $4.9 billion

---

The Tesla products were (still are?) sold at a loss, and that was only sustainable with subsidies. When Musk assumed full control in 2008, Tesla was nearing bankruptcy. The Obama admin and the states (more troubling since state subsidy is basically just a euphemism for corruption) swept in to save the day.

Quote:

---

By January 2009, Tesla had raised US$187 million and delivered 147 cars. Musk himself had invested US$70 million.[48][51] In May 2009, Daimler AG acquired an equity stake of less than 10% of Tesla for a reported US$50 million,[52][53] again saving Tesla.[54] Toyota provided a similar amount in 2010.[53]

In June 2009, Tesla was approved to receive US$465 million in low-interest loans from the 2007 US$8 billion Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program by the United States Department of Energy.[55] The funding came in 2010 and supported engineering and production of the Model S, as well as the development of commercial powertrain technology.[55]
[...]
In May 2013, Tesla raised $1.02 billion ($660m from bonds) partially to repay the DOE loans (early[66]) after their first profitable quarter.[67][68] In February 2014 the company sold $2 billion in bonds (to build GigaFactory 1).[68] In August 2015 Tesla sold $738 million in stock (for the Model X)[69] and in May 2016, $1.46 billion in stock ($1.26 billion for the Model 3).[70] As of January 29, 2016, Musk owned about 28.9 million Tesla shares, or about 22% of the total.[71][72]

Tesla stated that its automotive branch had a gross margin of 23.1% as of 2Q2016, and has generally been above 20%.[73] However, expenditures[74][75] for expanding future production (such as Gigafactory 1[76] and Model 3[77]) are bigger than product profit, resulting in a net loss.[78]

---

Look at the graph for production and sales. This is what Musk has succeeded at, offering a promise and keeping it afloat long enough to draw widespread attention.

Musk famously draws no salary; his continuing income from his companies is dependent entirely on his stock options and performance bonuses. In other words, the more hype, the more value and investor interest it attracts, which directly contributes to his cash flow. Without the success of Tesla over the past decade, almpst certainly predicated on subsidies, it's arguable that SpaceX would have trouble demonstrating ability to fulfill contract milestones, thus impairing its long-term viability as a productive enterprise. You could always speculate otherwise. Maybe an expert analysis could show Musk could have lifted not one finger after 2001 and generated all necessary capital from financial instruments and investments alone, but I don't know how to do that. Maybe in the event of Tesla's failure he would have been willing to sacrifice more of his own wealth, or take on more debt to finance his passion, but that's still detrimental to corporate viability and damaging to confidence in his ability and leadership. Ultimately, subsidies count as a material contribution to the success of Tesla directly and therefore SpaceX indirectly. None of this is meant to demean Musk or the technology (his philosophy is another subject entirely); the petrochemical/automobile industries have received many orders of magnitude more over the past century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Ultimately, subsidies count as a material contribution to the success of Tesla directly and therefore SpaceX indirectly.

---

Tesla subsidies contributing to the success of SpaceX is of course very different from these subsidies being necessary for that success. For the former, I don't have much of an opinion. For the latter, the evidence provided thus far is indirect and incomplete.


Without more information on Musk's finances, we can't really tell where the money he invested 'ultimately' came from; likewise with other investors. Without more details on the early funding history of SpaceX, we can't really tell how important different factors were for the company's success there. Such information may be easily accessible on the web, but I am not inclined to go look for it for the time being..

Overlooked has been the failure of Elon to deliver his payload to a proper orbit.
Earth-Mars orbit? Nah, missed that.
Somewhere around the asteroid belt? Closer...
Collision course with the Earth!!! Maybe :rolleyes3: :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mu...arth-1.4537407

My son stumbled upon the video below which focuses on the sound of the Falcon launch. It is meant to be watched with headphones which will give you a surround sound like experience. Pretty cool stuff.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoQ...ature=youtu.be