Can Elon Musk -- and Save Taxpayers Billions of Dollars?

"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.

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.

I hope I’m long dead before electric cars become acceptable!
..............
meaningful volume won’t start for another 5-6 years or so.

another big up and comer is natural gas trucks and vehicles. Their growth rate is slower than electric cars.

if another type vehicle came along imho that would be fine too.

I’m mostly interested in cutting the demand and there for the price of gasoline.

I don’t see that happening in the next decade.

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.
..........................

Researchers developing cheap, better-performing lithium-ion batteries
3 hours ago

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-cheap-better-performing-lithium-ion-batteries.html

Researchers at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering have improved the performance and capacity of lithium batteries by developing better-performing, cheaper materials for use in anodes and cathodes (negative and positive electrodes, respectively).

The USC Viterbi team developed a cost-effective (and therefore commercially viable) silicon anode with a stable capacity above 1100 mAh/g for extended 600 cycles, making their anode nearly three times more powerful and longer lasting than a typical commercial anode.

“Our method of producing nanoporous silicon anodes is low-cost and scalable for mass production in industrial manufacturing, which makes silicon a promising anode material for the next generation of lithium-ion batteries,” said Zhou. “We believe it is the most promising approach to applying silicon anodes in lithium-ion batteries to improve capacity and performance.”

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.
........................
Researchers developing cheap, better-performing lithium-ion batteries
3 hours ago

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-cheap-better-performing-lithium-ion-batteries.html

Researchers developing cheap, better-performing lithium-ion batteries
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-cheap-better-performing-lithium-ion-batteries.html

From that article:

The USC Viterbi team developed a cost-effective (and therefore commercially viable) silicon anode with a stable capacity above 1100 mAh/g for extended 600 cycles, making their anode nearly three times more powerful and longer lasting than a typical commercial anode.

So: 1100mAh/g * 1.2V * 1A/1000mA * 1W/1VA * 1kW/1000W * 1000g/1kg = 1.32 kWh/kg.

And gasoline: 33.7kWh/gal * 1gal/3.785l * 1l/.75kg = 11.9 kWh/kg

It's not even close.

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.

Can Elon Musk Convince the U.S. Senate to Level the Playing Field -- and Save Taxpayers Billions of Dollars in the Process?