Explaining the space business to the commander in chief. Photo: NASA.
Posted on 03/30/2014 7:07:43 PM PDT by ckilmer
March 30, 2014 | Comments (2)
Explaining the space business to the commander in chief. Photo: NASA.
"SpaceX was founded to radically improve space transport technology. ... Today, it is one of the leading aerospace companies in the world, with nearly 50 missions contracted ... eight [Falcon 9 rockets launched] with 100% mission success, including four launches for NASA, three to the International Space Station, and sophisticated geostationary spacecraft for the world's leading satellite companies."
So began SpaceX founder Elon Musk when he sat down before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee earlier this month. But while all this sounds impressive already, Musk was just getting warmed up -- and his next promise will shock you.
Musk wants to wipe out two-thirds of the cost of launching satellites into space, and break Boeing (NYSE: BA ) and Lockheed Martin's (NYSE: LMT ) monopoly over space launches in the process.
Elon Musk has a plan
As Musk reminded the Senate panel members, the U.S. government pays the United Launch Alliance ("ULA" -- a Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture) $1 billion a year to stand ready to send rockets into space. Washington pays even if no launches actually happen. The actual cost when a satellite goes up? On average, $380 million.
Musk says SpaceX can do the same job for just $100 million and would waive the $1 billion annual retainer. By his calculations, if the U.S. had availed itself of SpaceX's services over the last 36 launches that ULA handled, taxpayers would have saved $11.6 billion.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 can go up, up, and away -- for cheap. Photo: SpaceX.
No use crying over spilt rocket fuel
Of course, that's all history. Waterlogged dollar bills under the bridge. But Musk still thinks he can save taxpayers some money on future rocket launches. His purpose in appearing before the Senate, in fact, was to argue that SpaceX should be certified as a contractor to launch military satellites into space under the U.S. Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, or EELV, project, and that future EELV contracts should be decided on the basis of competitive, fixed-price bidding between SpaceX and ULA.
To date, SpaceX has achieved Air Force "certification" of one EELV mission, and is waiting for its two subsequent launches to be certified. And if they are?
Well, 14 such EELV launches are planned for fiscal 2015. If Musk is right about his company's ability to do the work for less than $100 million apiece -- and $280 million less than what ULA would charge -- then opening this work up for bidding could save taxpayers nearly $4 billion.
Over the next 15 years, the Pentagon plans to spend $70 billion on space launches. If SpaceX could actually cut that cost by 74%, as argued, taxpayers could save more than $50 billion.
Death of a sales-monopoly
That sounds like good news for taxpayers. It would not be good news for Boeing or Lockheed Martin shareholders, who would lose a corresponding $50 billion in revenue. At the same Senate subcommittee hearing at which Musk spoke, ULA CEO Michael Gass argued against introducing price competition into the space launch business. According to Gass, the sector simply "won't work in a competitive environment."
In Gass' view, the high fixed costs of space launch mean that a provider needs a lot of launches to spread the expense around -- otherwise, it risks losing money, especially in a slow year. Duplicating these fixed costs by allowing two providers, Gass warned, risks both companies going broke. This was the same logic Boeing and Lockheed raised back in 2006 in arguing that they be allowed to form ULA, rather than compete against each other.
Musk countered that since Boeing and Lockheed stopped competing against each other in 2006, the cost of space launches has doubled. So apparently, ULA's cost-saving plan isn't working very well.
The Russia factor
Final point. You've all heard about the diplomatic kerfuffle between Washington and Moscow over Russia's annexation of Crimea, right? Well, in a parting shot, Musk pointed out one more wrinkle in these relations as they relate to space launch. Turns out, one of the two rocket families that ULA uses to send U.S. military satellites into space -- Lockheed's Atlas V -- uses a Russian-made engine.
On the one hand, therefore, continuing to favor ULA over SpaceX has the unintended side effect of subsidizing the Russian military-industrial complex. On the other hand, if the diplomatic standoff continues, and Russia decides to embargo sales of its rocket engines to the U.S., that would throw a bit of a monkey wrench into ULA's ability to launch satellites for the Pentagon. Cost savings aside, this point alone seems to argue strongly in favor of bringing SpaceX in as an alternative launch provider and ending the ULA monopoly over military space launch.
ULA's Atlas V is a great way to launch satellites into space... so long as Russia approves. Photo: NASA.
All true except that Musk is not currently risking any public dollars.
Musk being a major Obama fanboi also is an immense strike against him in my eyes.
And that erstwhile conservatives want us to celebrate a tax parasite who adores the radar eared dictator in making is distressing.
Musk already paid back the government loans years ahead of time. Musk is the good guy here, saving billions for tax payers
Musk is someone I respect, even though he’s a believer of global warming. He actually put his money where is mouth is and created 3 great American companies. If government is handing out money, you be a fool not to take it. I don’t fault Musk for taking it
SpaceX and Tesla are 2 great private companies. By constantly claiming its tax payers funded, you’re giving credit to those who claim government could allocate resources well
250 miles per charge, and how long to charge? How much weight and volume used by the batteries? How common are the materials, and how cleanly and cheaply can they be extracted?
Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot to like about electric power trains. Electric motors are far lighter, need much less maintenance, provide effective torque over a much wider range of RPMs and hence need much simpler transmissions, but batteries simply aren’t ever going to power the bulk of vehicles.
If electric vehicles ever supply more than a few percent of ge vehicles on the road, they’ll be powered by fuel cells or capacitors, not by batteries.
His first one was Zip2
“Zip2[edit]
Musk started Zip2, a web software company, with his brother, Kimbal Musk. The company developed and marketed an Internet “city guide” for the newspaper publishing industry.[8] Musk obtained contracts with The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune[17] and persuaded the board of directors to abandon plans for a merger with a company called CitySearch.[9] Compaq acquired Zip2 for US$307 million in cash and US$34 million in stock options in 1999.[19] Musk received 7% or $22 million from the sale”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Career
I’m with you. This guy is pretty impressive.
If Space X suceeds with propulsive landing and reuse of its boosters - they’re going to be able to really reduce lanuch costs.
I’ll give odds that this doesn’t stand a chance to pass the political logjam to get through Congress.. Between Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the unions, the lobbying and political ties will prevent it.. Too bad a $50 Billion savings isn’t small change.. :)
A person from an exurb could barely make it to work and home with stops at the store, the doctor and the kids play without getting close to a dead battery.
How long must he charge to get an effective round trip in? How much will his electric bill be spiked while owning this coal fired automobile?
Also how effective are they in a cold weather climate? How do they operate in real World subfreezing temperatures for two months straight in the winter in Fargo or Minneapolis?
These cars are cool. It is nice that someone made an effective vehicle that can be relatively reliable for those with the funds and the time to recharge every night. The are a long way from replacing or even competing with a vehicle that gets 350+ miles to a tank and can be refueled and on it's way again in ten minutes or less.
A visit to Cape Canaveral and the Apollo control center showed me the Government was not the main facilitator of putting men on the moon. They opened their check-book, Air Force bases and provided the mission and organization, but the real success was due to the technology and brainpower in companies like Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, IBM, Sperry, etc...
Now that NASA has a typical government/bureaucratic monopoly - how likely is the USA to return men to the moon (or space, for that matter) in the next 10 years?
I don't really hate people who take my taxpayer dollars to give to the rich to subsidize their electric sports car purchases. What I really hate is people who add to my electric bill simply to pad their company's bottom line. The rooftop solar installations that he owns provide expensive and unreliable power and make no sense in my part of the country (Virginia).
Solar City is a complete scam.
Take a look at the picture at the beginning of this piece and maybe it will dawn on you.
Musk is crony capitalist, Obama-loving parasite, sucking down massive federal subsidies, grants and pay-offs for all three of his allegedly beneficial high-tech scams (Solar City, Tesla and SpaceX) and continually shooting off his rather large and uninformed mouth on many subjects about which he knows little or nothing.
Other than that, he's a peach.
Well, uh, yeah.
If Musk was speaking up for conservatism while at the same time accepting every bit of the subsidies for his space project that he currently is (subsidies that are far less than NASA's long time cuddle-buddies have received) he would be cheered to the skies (no pun intended) here on FR.
Heck, look at the Musk fanbois in this thread.
Now that NASA has a typical government/bureaucratic monopoly - how likely is the USA to return men to the moon (or space, for that matter) in the next 10 years?
...........
If you read the article above—you’ll notice that what musk does is make the return more likely because of his cost cutting.
If Space X suceeds with propulsive landing and reuse of its boosters - they’re going to be able to really reduce lanuch costs.
................
agree. that’s the promise implied by the videos put out last summer of their rockets taking off and landing again.
I’ll give odds that this doesn’t stand a chance to pass the political logjam to get through Congress.. Between Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the unions, the lobbying and political ties will prevent it.. Too bad a $50 Billion savings isn’t small change.. :)
..............
I wouldn’t take that bet even with the odds. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the unions will do everything they can to kill any SpaceX finger dipping into their rice-bowl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.