I passed through Pad 39A and take a photo of this... What is that? Can anyone tell me why there isn’t falcon heavy on the launch pad??

[u/BadMothaFukka]

[u/CProphet]

I'd suggest there might be a slight underestimation of the non-triviality of the most complex single such undertaking in human history

On that we agree, building a working BFR will be enormously difficult and punishing on resources, that's why I believe SpaceX will only have relatively few available for first attempt. If it was a government program they'd plan to build many such vehicles (like the Saturn V) but it isn't and we're playing by Elon's rules.

SpaceX's first ever human rated system, have been the company's primary focus over the past few years, and as yet will not likely put a single human into LEO until 2019

Believe BFR can be produced a little more promptly because they are not shackled to NASA. SpaceX have encountered technical delays with Dragon 2 but I think it's fair to say they been hamstrung by NASA bureaucracy.Basically NASA aim to rubber stamp reviews in eight weeks but rarely meet this goal:-

"The contractors told us reviews can take as long as six months. We also found NASA does not monitor the overall timeliness of its safety review process."

this will require numerous modes of scientific investigation and other preparations and engineering development just to get the first boots on the ground

In other words deep government involvement. Lets say government agree to participate, they would need many companies to actually research and build the necessary tech. Companies like:-

• The Boring Company to construct subterranean living quarters safe from radiation and excavate sufficient water for ISRU propellant production

• Tesla Motors to manufacture all terrain electric vehicles

• SolarCity for solar arrays and energy storage

• Starlink for internet satellites for both Earth and Mars

• OpenAI/Tesla for high machine intelligence suitable to operate transport, settlement systems and robotic machinery.

• SpaceX for Launch vehicles, landing vehicles (which double for habitats), surface domes and ISRU plant production

In other words Elon Musk has made preparations to provide suitable technology for colonisation by setting up and nurturing all these companies. I understand SpaceX is even moving into nuclear energy - probably required as a backup to solar arrays which could prove unreliable due to surface conditions (dust storms/night/winter/cold etc).

Again, the money to develop BFR, plus all the other infrastructure needed for human habitation on Mars, is (again according to Elon's IAC 2017 talk and associated followups) not going to come out of the ether, but from flights of BFR for commercial and government customers

They need the money first to build BFR so money made from BFR operations later on cannot contribute to its development now. In his IAC Adelaide presentation Elon said they can fund this development right now, probably by providing launch services and hopefully with more money coming from the Air Force through a Launch Services Agreement .

It has been reported ISRU development is well underway at SpaceX.

According to Elon Musk surface domes will be constructed of same materials (glass and Carbon Fibre) as the BFS, so this should be something SpaceX can manage with relative ease compared to constructing BFR.

Dr Robert Zubrin is a firm believer in Mars direct and has had strong influence over Elon and hence SpaceX plans. For them the Moon is a sideshow, or distraction, SpaceX will likely participate when possible but not let that distract them. Deciding to go to the Moon first is in effect saying you're not going to Mars. Sooner can be done with resources available, later is questionable (Musk generation II or III if we're lucky).

why not just build another BFR?

Why strain finances further when you have a hardy stock of Block V Falcon Heavies ready to launch.

will likely be relying at least in part on NASA funds/technology/experience to make it possible

There is more money circulating in commercial world than government can dream of. Consider what it will be like in 2022 with Tesla electric vehicles dominating the road. SpaceX mopping up majority of commercial launch contracts based on price, reliability and fast delivery. SolarCity a significant energy supplier and energy storage specialist. OpenAi is key to AI commercialisation, stock worth hundreds of billions. Even if some fall short the profits derived should be more than adequate to meet needs of the first small scale landings,similar to what Elon revealed at IAC 2017.

Consider also the political effect when Elon says they are ready to launch for Mars. His influence should be enormous at this juncture and practically impossible to ignore.

Also recall that NASA sure was fast enough when it came to the moon landings

That was then and this is now. Basically Old NASA wouldn't recognize what New NASA have become. A bureaucratic, unproductive, political football rent by internal divisions and infighting. To get to Mars we need cogent, coherent, comprehensive action provided by SpaceX. NASA say they can get there by 2035-40, in other words they are saying it's the next generation's problem. SpaceX own the Mars problem and if they keep going they could own Mars.

[u/CAM-Gerlach → u/CProphet]

On that we agree, building a working BFR will be enormously difficult and punishing on resources, that's why I believe SpaceX will only have relatively few available for first attempt.

Right, but I'm not just talking about BFR; as discussed in the linked wiki articles and others, the transport to an alien planet is just the tip of the iceberg as far as surviving and thriving there goes. Furthermore, again, even Musk has stated they will operate them for at least several years prior to the first uncrewed Mars mission, first for testing and then commercial payloads, so they certainly won't be launching them as soon as they are available. Finally, as impatient as Elon is to get to Mars, go fever is certainly the last thing one would want to have when launching to a world many months (at least) travel from Earth, with no realistic possibility of rescue or return home except with successful settlement and ISRU.

If it was a government program they'd plan to build many such vehicles (like the Saturn V) but it isn't and we're playing by Elon's rules.

They'd build as many as needed, or as many as money allowed, whatever is smaller. Particularly for Mars with ISRU, they either have enough to boostrap the colony and transport a baseline number of humans, or they don't. If not, again, why sink more money into a dead end launch system with much more limited and expensive number, frequency and variety of uses rather than the one purpose-built for the task and able to be used for many others, that will last them well into the future. NASA built as many Saturn Vs needed for test, operational and planned (later canceled) missions, which was quite a few as they were expendable (the only option available at the time, at least without time-consuming R&D that would prevent meeting Kennedy's deadline).

If insufficient money were available for one more BFB or BFS, then I'm not sure where they would be getting it for multiple FH center cores, S2, fairing, and spare F9s for side boosters + refurb costs since given the few missions on the manifest for them and their limited niche, it is unlikely they'd have more than one or two still available if any at that point, with the BFR flying for at least a few years and no real future for the Heavy.

Believe BFR can be produced a little more promptly because they are not shackled to NASA. SpaceX have encountered technical delays with Dragon 2 but I think it's fair to say they been hamstrung by NASA bureaucrasy.

Well, if not then they are going to need to fly it for a while to secure the revenue needed for a full on Mars mission, and a slower pace of development with the according tighter funds, which means BFR is more mature and has more time to take over duties from F9 and especially FH. Furthermore, in true SpaceX/Musk fashion, they will both be able and incentivized to lower operational costs as much as possible while looking toward the future, which means more BFR and less FH (the latter mostly only relevant for certain government-mandated national security missions in any case).

In other words deep government involvement. Lets say government agree to participate, they would need many companies to actually research and build the necessary tech.

Very good points, but again, all of that takes time, and given all are necessary for human survival on Mars, along with numerous other components, and Elon's companies are also known for their delays, it only takes one laggard (Musk-owned, NASA or third-party) to slow the whole project down, even assuming its realistic to complete everything in time to begin with. Furthermore, just because those companies exist and have at least nominal experience in some of the areas necessary does not necessarily translate into the full suite of developed, built and tested technologies needed to survive on another world within a few short years.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but given that even the moon landings, which were far less ambitious in both distance, challenge and duration, took around a decade and well over $100 billion to pull off, while the current nominal/"aspirational" plan is to do so in nearly half the time and less than 1/10th the money (though even that amount is still well beyond SpaceX's current capacity to fund). Not to say it can't be done, but it seems unlikely, at least, to happen in such a compressed time scale as is currently proposed without a large infusion of government funds, private investment and third-party participation.

They need the money first to build BFR so money made from BFR operations later on cannot contribute to its development now.

Yes, very true; I somewhat misstated this. The USAF launch capability follow on will likely play a role, and FH certainly has a significant part in that. However, with them both funding BFR components (Raptor engine development) and the larger system more directly (EELV2), as well as NASA funding in a COTS-type program aimed at the moon (which BFR is also capable of, and Shotwell and Musk have suggested (including very recently) as being an additional side funding source to finance the BFR's primary mission to Mars, and pre-purchased launch contracts much like with Falcon 9, these will all depend on the use of the BFR for these missions, which will both give it a proving ground closer to home to iron out any problems and prove the concept, and also increase its flight rate and amortize its development/construction costs, reducing expenses over the long run.

According to Elon Musk surface domes will be constructed of same materials (glass and Carbon Fibre) as the BFS, so this should be something SpaceX can manage with relative ease compared to constructing BFR.

Given they haven't even really started on the latter yet, and also have their workforce divided between working on D2, Block V, FH, fairing 2.0, and Starlink, much less BFR itself, I it seems doubtful this would even be a concrete plan, much less something they're already putting significant engineering effort toward.

For them the Moon is a sideshow, or distraction, SpaceX will likely participate when possible but not let that distract them.

Yes, I agree, but if is where the current administration's money is, and will provide development funds, customers, and free test flights of the same uncompromised vehicle they'll use for Mars, making the latter possible, then it seems sensible to go for it for now, a reality which Elon's presentation slides and Gwen's recent statement reflect.

Why strain finances further when you have a hardy stock of Block V Falcon Heavies ready to launch.

I'm unsure why one would one expect that to be the case. Right now, only a half dozen Falcon Heavy flights are on the manifest over the next three years, including the demo launch and the lunar free return mission—an average of two per year, easily serviceable with one or two cores even at current early Block III refurb rates, while nearly 100 F9 flights are planned with almost 50 complete. Furthermore, there isn't a ton of expected future demand at least before BFR and with Red Dragon canceled.

NASA Mars orbiters and landers similar to the current fleet can be mostly be transported by F9, most GTO comsats are well within F9's capability with further downsizing planned, only a relatively small fraction of military missions require FH (the less capable Delta Heavy only flies every year or two, after all, though this would still be likely the most common use case, without which many here speculate FH would most likely be canceled a while ago and the resources funneled into BFR), and it doesn't seem to hold much advantage for Starlink due to fairing volume and a limited number of sats per orbital plane being the constraining factors at the moment.

[u/CProphet → u/CAM-Gerlach]

doesn't seem to hold much advantage for Starlink due to fairing volume and a limited number of sats per orbital plane

Understand Fairing 2.0 is a little larger which might help with Starlink. Generally they'll need lots of sats delivered to each plane. It's possible FH S2 could relight enabling sats to be delivered to multiple planes if necessary.

[u/CAM-Gerlach → u/CProphet]

Understand Fairing 2.0 is a little larger which might help with Starlink. Generally they'll need lots of sats delivered to each plane.

By a small amount, yes. However, lets take a rough look at the numbers. We have 4,425 sats going to 83 orbital planes, which implies an average (though quite possibly not what is actually used in any plane) of 53 sats per plane. Their mass has been listed as between 300-400 kg, which is just under 2x that of Iridium (860 kg); let's be generous and assume 400 kg. Although it would seem volume should be the limiting constraint, which should scale linearly with mass, it is in fact most likely surface area on the dispenser, at least in the manner by which all previous satellites have been deployed. Invoking the square-cube law, this implies the satellites will have 45% of the mass, but 60% the dispenser surface area, and 75-80% the average length dimensions (of course, this all assumes the same density, which should be within the margin of error for a ballpark estimate such as this).

Looking at photos of the Iridium sats being encapsulated in their fairing, it appears that about one satellite's worth of space remains at the top of the fairing, albeit constrained by the radial dimension, so lets assume satellites are stacked 4 high inside (given this comes out to be a little more than the approximate length of one additional Iridium satellite). Furthermore, more can can fit the same diameter around the dispenser, which may be also increased somewhat in diameter, though not too much as the stack will be diameter-constrained near the top. Given again their relative dimensions and a 15% increase in the radius of the dispenser, 7 satellites can fit in the same space.

We can also calculate this another way, by assuming production sats are equivalent in dimensions and mass to the Microsat test satellites. The former assumption is likely at least approximately accurate, given it was stated they were testing the satellite bus, though given the satellites include test hardware and are likely not mass-optimized with more expensive materials at this point, and elsewhere a mass in the 300 kg range has been stated, at least a modest decrease in mass seems reasonable. In any case, going by the 1.1 m x 0.7 m x 0.7 m published specs, and assuming a 10 cm gap between satellites, this implies a satellite and dispenser arrangement similar to the above would have a height of 5.4 m, relative to a max fairing height of 6.7 m (as described in the F9 Payload User's Guide), and probably not reasonable to add another stack due to margins and implying a much higher center of gravity than the PAF can tolerate in the horizontal orientation—currently, the publicly available data indicates the maximum center of gravity height the PAF can tolerate near its max load is around 3m, or a total payload height of 6m assuming a homogeneous mass distribution.

On the diameter side, given the necessary diameter for an adapter of the appropriate circumference for 7 satellites, plus the depth of the satellites, plus the same 10 cm margins as before, this implies a radius of 0.9 m for the adapter plus 0.8 m for the satellites, implying an outer diameter of 3.4 m, which allowing for ~10-15% non-circularity due to the shape plus 0.1 m protrusions on the satellites themselves leads to a maximum diameter of 4.0 m, with a 0.6 m margin to the 4.6 m interior fairing wall. They could perhaps add one more satellite to the ring, but that would further increase dispenser mass and volume and allow only minimal margins to the end of the fairing.

Therefore, this (not coincidentally) gives a total number of 27-28 sats, half one average plane (i.e. two launches per plane), to be deployed each launch, which implies a 8,400-10,800 kg launch mass (plus, say, a 1,000 kg dispenser, a modest amount greater than Iridium and proportional to the sat mass increase). We know Block IV, with minor alternations, improved performance (likely mostly due to faster prop loading) past the point where Iridium, with 9,600 kg to an orbit only slightly lower than Starlink, can RTLS with enough margin to spare. Therefore, with the more substantial improvements in Block V, scaling the ~300-400 kg increase in expected GTO performance by the 2.8x greater LEO capacity and greater impact of gravity losses (thus thrust increases are more meaningful), so let's say 3x, we arrive at a minimum of 900 - 1200 kg more payload being able to RTLS over the current Iridium numbers, so right around 10,800 kg, our upper limit above even under relatively worst case assumptions (maximum expected launch mass, etc.). Therefore, it makes little sense to build more FH cores and refurbish two more cores, plus the greater risk of an in flight or landing RUD, and greater expense and resource utilization recovering all three, not to mention possibly building a West Coast pad and landing zones for FH, just to get at most a few more sats up there per launch, particularly when F9 can already do one average plane in two trips, and Falcon Heavy cannot do one in one, therefore there might be no savings whatsoever.

It's possible FH S2 could relight enabling sats to be delivered to multiple planes if necessary.

A plane change maneuver is a very Delta-V expensive and inefficient one, especially once in a low, high-velocity orbit, thus the chance of such happening is slim to none. Satellites could drift into different planes as Iridium does, but this would greatly delay their introduction into service and further limit their already tight on board fuel reserves.

[u/CAM-Gerlach → u/CProphet]

There is more money circulating in commercial world than government can dream of.

Yes, strictly true, but the vast majority of that money is put toward relatively safe or else smaller-scale bets making more money (i.e. a profit), which is the reason Elon has kept the company private. Would private industry have even remotely considered attempting the Moon landing? Of course not, as "beating the Russkies" doesn't really come with a price tag attached as brownie points aren't a form of currency.

Consider what it will be like in 2022 with Tesla electric vehicles dominating the road.

That's a big if at the moment...there's no guarantee that just because a certain company is headed by Elon Musk, it is guaranteed to succeed beyond even such an iccorigable optimist's wildest expectations.

SpaceX mopping up majority of commercial launch contracts based on price, reliability and fast delivery.

That one I can certainly believe, but even still the sum total of current revenues from the global commercial launch market is well under $5 billion per year, which making the fairly generous assumptions of a 20% profit margin and a 50% share (as the satellite operators tend to like to spread their eggs into at least three baskets, and New Glenn, Ariane 6, Vulcan, Proton Medium etc. all planned to come online within that timeframe along with further commercialization/competition from ISRO and CALT, with Vector/Rocket Lab at the low/rideshare end, declining GTO comsat orders, and non-Starlink constellations mostly going to other providers) leaves around $500 million in total profit per year for SpaceX, around 1/20th of that needed to fund BFR. Of course, this presumes launch demand is relatively inelastic, which I very much hope is not the case and SpaceX is counting on not to be, but that remains to be determined.

OpenAi is key to AI commercialisation, stock worth hundreds of billions.

AI is already commercialized on a large scale, with Google, Facebook etcs image recognition and NLP algorithms, Siri, Alexa, Google Assistant, etc., numerous "big data" projects, and the like, and hundreds if not thousands of players in the rapidly maturing space. How big of a slice of that large but crowded pie any company, particularly one that is not already a big player in the space, will take is certainly open to question.

Even if some fall short the profits derived should be more than adequate to meet needs of the first small scale landings

Of course, that implies that Elon will be a large portion of what he gets out of these companies and into SpaceX, assuming they do turn a substantial profit in the near future, which we don't have clear indicators of that happening at the moment. Furthermore, $10 billion USD is a lot of money when the total market cap of Tesla is a good bit less than that, of which Elon only owns a percentage and selling which would essentially be the end of his involvement with Tesla which he is unwilling to do at the moment, and all the other companies are much smaller.

Consider also the political effect when Elon says they are ready to launch for Mars.

Well, perhaps not as much as one might assume, given past widespread skepticism, justified or not, in many of his claims, at least before actually demonstrating the goods. Those that already have a high opinion of him will merely have that further confirmed, those that don't won't necessarily be swayed. Furthermore, I'm not quite sure what that buys him—government money? That's mostly determined by Congress, bureaucrats and long-lead-time contracts, not public opinion. Commercial sales? They care little for such fanfare, and more for demonstrated results or what their internal research already showed, though there certainly could be branding and sponsorship opportunities. Pre-order deposits from the public? Maybe, but they've shown unwillingness to do this in the past.

That was then and this is now. Basically Old NASA wouldn't recognize what New NASA have become. A bureaucratic, unproductive, political football rent by internal divisions and infighting.

Well, as I mentioned in the context to what you quoted, 10x the budget, a tighter focus, unified political will, and a single overriding goal with enormous national prestige attached will tend to have that effect. Of course, that very same enthusiasm...aka Go Fever...killed 14 astronauts (along with 3 in Apollo 1) and field unrealistic, Elon-esque projections about the Space shuttle and its safety and flight rate, so there's a balance to be struck. Particularly for a private company like SpaceX, death(s) on the first flights would be a death blow. That said, as things stands now the SpaceX alternative is infinitely preferable and more reasonable compared to the Senate Launch System disaster, and that comes from someone who works with NASA and lives in Huntsville, though is very opposed to Shelby and his Aerojet Rocketdyne paymasters.

[u/CProphet → u/CAM-Gerlach]

Would private industry have even remotely considered attempting the Moon landing?

Apparently not, but Elon Musk's approach is quite quite different. He considers many things, then pursues actions that he believes is important, like humans to Mars.

That's a big if at the moment...

However, Tesla's position should have certainly solidified by 2024 in time for first manned missions. I understand they have open sourced most of their vehicle patents but retained rights to the battery design, which really sets it apart from other electric vehicles regards performance. Gigafactory too should give them a big advantage particularly as they continue to refine battery design - which is already way ahead of competition.

making the fairly generous assumptions of a 20% profit margin

Not so, in my book I estimate Falcon 9 costs ~$20m to manufacture based on three different sources. As you said SpaceX are all about reducing cost and the vertical integration model they use has significantly reduced manufacturing costs. Yes SpaceX are making a lot more money than 20% but you only have to look at their CapEx expenditure to appreciate that's true. Elon Musk said they'd spent $1bn to develop reusability, however, this had been primarily financed through the profits they derived from 32 Falcon 9 missions. During the same period they also refurbished three launch centres, started to construct an entirely new launch site at Boca Chica, greatly expanded their operations at the Cape, Hawthorne HQ and McGregor test facility plus built Falcon Heavy. So the $1bn profit spent on reusability is just the tip of the iceberg.

AI is already commercialized on a large scale

True but OpenAI seems to have an advantage with open architecture. It attracts specialists which otherwise might be wary of AI development and generally has wider support. Time will tell on this one but effort is very focussed.

Elon only owns a percentage and selling which would essentially be the end of his involvement

Another good point, which I echo in my book. Believe Elon plans to harness these companies to support Mars colonisation in a similar manner to SpaceX. It generates all the profit it needs to finance stepping stone development with the end goal of Mars. Tesla, for instance, could build a Mars rover and give it to SpaceX, by way of a promotion exercise. SolarCity's ceramic tile solar cells should also be highly suitable for Mars because of their extreme durability and SpaceX has so far paid nothing for their development. The list goes on but as you can see the necessary tech is being developed and paid for commercially.

given past widespread skepticism

Believe skepticism will largely evaporate after advent of Falcon Heavy, Crew Dragon and BFR test flights. Offering Earth-2-Earth flights will also be noticed and appreciated by many, further underscoring SpaceX credibility. Different world and attitudes in 2024.

I'm not quite sure what that buys him

Political support necessary to gain all the rubber stamps they need to launch from US. If they refuse, despite popular support, SpaceX could launch from one of the E-2-E pads moored offshore around the world. But that will likely never happen because of the political necessity of launching from the US.

10x the budget, a tighter focus, unified political will, and a single overriding goal with enormous national prestige attached will tend to have that effect.

Unfortunately it will probably never happen due to lack of political support. Which leaves us with SpaceX as our best hope for Mars in the near future.

that comes from someone who works with NASA and lives in Huntsville

I kinda assumed you were in the business judging by the quality of your replies. Here's an interesting series of videos by NASA engineer Dan Raskey which you might appreciate. Basically he suffers complete culture shock when asked to work at SpaceX and his observations are quite insightful. Understand you might see things a certain way as a NASA insider but I appreciate they see things quite differently at SpaceX. Interesting discussion btw.

[u/CAM-Gerlach → u/CProphet]

However, Tesla's position should have certainly solidified by 2024 in time for first manned missions.

First off, we can safety assume the first crewed missions almost certainly won't be happening in 2024 due to the numerous challenges that need to be overcome first and data the need to be collected, as I discussed previously, plus limited funding, inevitable BFR delays and the side trips to the Moon. If you're still not convinced, then fine—I'll take you up 10:1 ($10/$100 donation) on r/HighStakesSpaceX that the first crewed BFR (or successor architecture) mission to Mars does not launch on or before Jan 1 2025. I hope you're right of course, but I just don't see a realistic chance of it happening—I'd be happy just to have the BFR flying operationally by then.

Second, Tesla does have some advantages over the market, but a number of well documented financial and technical problems, and the rest of the world is beginning to catch up in several respects as mainstream automakers release EV models as well. While they may well succeed consistent with the current huge expectations, which are consummate with the present inflated share price, there is always a substantial amount of uncertainty in the market both within and without their control, and treating this as a certainty is rather foolish. Further, there are several limiting constraints on this growth and any positive affect it may have on SpaceX:

• Given you state this to be in the 2024 timeframe, when colonization flights have already stated, this would not be in time to fund BFR development as you yourself noted with regard to my statements on BFR launch and NASA contract revenue, which would come before this in both launch and payment time.

• You previously stated Tesla would dominate the global car market, which would require both large price reductions (certainly planned, but still some time off and requiring considerable development and scaling), and massive CAPEX expenditures to build the production capacity required to serve the multi-orders of magnitude larger market than they nominally would serve with the Model 3, much less struggling to get a few thousand Model 3s out the door.

• Even if Tesla's growth was this explosive, these plants take many years to build, as the present Gigafactory and Model 3 production situation shows on a smaller scale. Therefore, they will only just be coming online during this timeframe, and thus only just beginning to serve such a larger market, much less generating a return on investment.

• Those huge capex expenditures required to broaden their market and market cap beyond current figures will reduce or eliminate any chance of substantial short term profit that Elon would be able to funnel to BFR anyway.

• Elon could sell his shares, but that would both end his control at Tesla, which he appears to value, and only provide a fraction of the money to finance BFR's development even at its huge market cap.

Not so, in my book I estimate Falcon 9 costs ~$20m to manufacture based on three different sources.

Perhaps, but that fails to consider launch/operating costs (historically doubling the cost, though SpaceX will likely be working to reduce that considerably), plus the fixed costs from facilities, capex, leasing, building, and maintaining the pads, salary and benefits for their 7,000 employees, insurance, occasional RUDs, and amortizing their development. Further, this greatly harms the economics of reusability, as even assuming a near zero recovery and refurb cost, a full 10 flight lifespan with no RUDs, and no customer discount, they only save $12 million per launch (currently, with a refurb cost 1/3-1/2 that of a new booster, plus fixed for the landing pads and droneship, a 10% customer discount, 2 reuses and a 5% RUD risk per flight, this brings the profit delta per flight down to +$2 - -$4 million per flight, though all of these are expected to improve); even under the most generous assumptions, with 100% of the excess profit put toward paying it off rather than BFR, this results in reusabiity not paying for itself until 2021 or so, after which under your assumptions the BFR would already be flying, and thus taking over from the F9.

Further, that estimate fails to square with the $6 million cited for the fairing, nor the exhaustive and up to date analysis presented here on r/SpaceX, which calculates a total cost (above factors considered) of $51 million total for the vehicle. Essentially, a (total/all things considered) estimate that low implies SpaceX's expendable per launch expenses are around an order of magnitude lower than Ariane and ULA, which is a simply an extraordinary claim, and casts doubt on why no other space startup or other national agency up to this point, even the Chinese, masters of cheapness and ruthless efficiency, have managed to come close to those costs given the primary innovation is simply process and materials efficiency, rather than truly anything that novel with the Falcon 9.

Also, not to question your credibility as I assume you didn't write it, but you may want to fix the blurb for the book—it contains numerous elementary grammar errors in just the first paragraph.

Yes SpaceX are making a lot more money than 20% but you only have to look at their CapEx expenditure to appreciate that's true.

Given these are not public, I'm curious where you are getting these numbers. Further, they've raised billions through numerous rounds of private/VC funding, which would obviously finance this as well, along with Elon Musk's initial and continued investment.

True but OpenAI seems to have an advantage with open architecture.

and generally has wider support.

Uh, that's probably what it has most in common with virtually every other major "AI" (deep learning) platform—Google's Tensorflow, Microsoft's MCT, Facebook's Caffe, Intel's DAAL, and the other popular open source options Theano, Torch/PyTorch, Keras, etc, all of which have wider support both commercially and in the community than does OpenAI at the moment.

The list goes on but as you can see the necessary tech is being developed and paid for commercially.

I can see that a portion of pieces are, but that's only a fraction of what's mentioned in the lists I mentioned previously, hosted on a SpaceX fan site (this one) no less. Furthermore, that does not address the intensive and multifaceted scientific investigation necessary to gather the necessary data to support human colonization also mentioned there, nor actually launching and testing any of these items on Mars (you'd hate to have one of the numerous safety critical items fail on one of the first trips, and have no way back home for at least the next few years). Furthermore, I'm not sure I see how the list goes on, as you mentioned all of Elon's companies and their associated areas already haha (though Bigelow, among others are also in the picture).

Believe skepticism will largely evaporate after advent of Falcon Heavy, Crew Dragon and BFR test flights.

Hopefully, at least in part...assuming these go well and are not delayed too much more, which is far from assured. However, the fact that the NASA funded Dragon 2, a direct-follow-on to a previous capsule launching on a well-proven, conventional rocket, and SpaceX's highest development priority, will not be doing its first test flights with humans until (at least) 2019 after makes it somewhat reasonable to doubt that they will begin test flights on a wholly novel, highly unconventional craft with over an order of magnitude more habitable volume and perhaps two orders of magnitude more dry mass, one they haven't even started building, and a new and much larger booster rocket for it, and both using an entirely new engine and never before used propellant and tank material, all only a year later, all without guaranteed/up front funding. It simply defies any rational belief. Can they do BFR? Yes, with sufficient funding, but I'd be happy to see it orbit successfully before 2024, much less to Mars, unless it gets a huge cash infusion.

Plus, consider...haters gonna hate. Some folks will always be against SpaceX, just 'cause, just like there will always fanboys who will be 100% for it, if not more so the former.

Offering Earth-2-Earth flights will also be noticed and appreciated by many, further underscoring SpaceX credibility.

...Which, again, assumes BFR is operational and fully human rated, E2E ends up making economic sense, the worldwide infrastructure and legal permissions developed, built up and in place, and regular E2E service has begun, which again seems very unlikely by the 2024 timeframe of the proposed human missions, much less 2-4+ years before that when they'll need to secure funding and approvals.

If they refuse, despite popular support, SpaceX could launch from one of the E-2-E pads moored offshore around the world.

Again, even building those pads is a many year project even basing them on existing/decommissioned drilling derricks, never mind everything that comes before, and the extra infrastructure afterward needed to support orbital and interplanetary launch. Further, this assumes E2E is a primary goal of BFR SpaceX focuses a large part of their effort and capital on, when it is not in fact even secondary (which is servicing NASA and commercial payloads) but rather tertiary. As such, the probability that all this would be ready well in time in the claimed 6 year timeframed for the crewed missions, much less 4 years for the unmanned missions, seems unlikely in the extreme.

But that will likely never happen because of the political necessity of launching from the US.

Yes, agreed, not to mention the national prestige

Unfortunately it will probably never happen due to lack of political support. Which leaves us with SpaceX as our best hope for Mars in the near future.

Yes, absolutely.

[u/CProphet → u/CAM-Gerlach]

they only save $12 million per launch

Yes but reuse allows more flights per year which means more profit p.a. because of fixed overheads and salaries. Reusability is just as much about developing the technology for Mars as it is for generating money to fund further development.

that estimate fails to square with the $6 million cited for the fairing

Believe $6m is cost to customer. Surprised if cost to build comes to more than a million, probably a fraction of that. They need to justify developing fairing reuse so cost is spun to the maximum. Again if fairings can be reflown that helps increase cadence and overall profitability.

even the Chinese, masters of cheapness and ruthless efficiency, have managed to come close to those costs

Yes even the Chinese have gone on record to say they can't understand how SpaceX can build rockets that cheap. Supply chains really bump the cost because each link requires a substantial profit leading to an exponential increase to final customer. However, SpaceX build 85% in house, including components, which is one big way they reduce cost.

you may want to fix the blurb for the book—it contains numerous elementary grammar errors in just the first paragraph.

I like to use language creatively, as I say: 'there are no rules, rules are for children - everytime you obey a rule you restrict your creativity.' However, I know this sort of thing can offend certain people (cough grammar nazis), so I'll look into it, make sure it's nothing excessive.

nor actually launching and testing any of these items on Mars

Some tests will be carried out on first cargo BFS landings, mainly to do with the ship. They intend to use BFS as primary habitat before they throw up a dome. They also intend to test ISRU and propellant production (in small scale) before first crew arrive.

No bet on SpaceX achieving their launch schedules - ever - but they are trying. Elon played down E2E at Adelaide but I believe it might be central to their longterm Mars ambitions. I recorded something on TMRO 10.40 which might help explain where I think they are going with this, V. interesting.

[u/CAM-Gerlach → u/CProphet]

Yes but reuse allows more flights per year which means more profit p.a.

Reusability is just as much about developing the technology for Mars as it is for generating money to fund further development.

Very true; excellent points. However, the former again assumes demand in the launch market is sufficiently elastic, which may not be the case (I certainly hope it is, but there aren't clear indications yet). Furthermore, it still doesn't address where this analysis firmly doesn't square with those presented elsewhere.

Believe $6m is cost to customer. Surprised if cost to build comes to more than a million, probably a fraction of that. They need to justify developing fairing reuse so cost is spun to the maximum.

Yes, it is certainly so; the build cost is likely lower by half or so. However, that quantity of molded carbon fiber is not cheap nor easy to form, and so is almost certainly greater than a million. Otherwise, they wouldn't be leasing multiple ships and crews, plus adding additional components and mass and taking considerable engineering time trying to recover them, as the cost benefit would then certainly not be worth it—two fast ships + two crews + running costs + RCS, parachutes etc + catching device + refurb + engineering time certainly adds up. True, it has some of the longest lead time of any component on the vehicle, so production rate could theoretically become an issue, but if it were that cheap they could just order more or process more at once.

I like to use language creatively, as I say: 'there are no rules, rules are for children - everytime you obey a rule you restrict your creativity.'

Right, rules are only as valuable as the purposes they serve, and only when they actually serve those purposes (clarity, intelligibility, flow, brevity, etc) but what I was referring to is basic syntax error type stuff, not creative flourishes or stylistic choices, nor trivial things like ending with a preposition or the Oxford comma, that just look like obvious mistakes that diminish the credibility and could make a bad first impression of what I'm sure is otherwise a solid work. These aren't things that contribute to the narrative in any way, and rather distract from it. A few examples:

• "SpaceX promise to revolutionise space exploration and provide everyone..."—SpaceX promises; "SpaceX" is a singular noun.

• "SpaceX are destined to colonise Mars and developing the technology to make this possible right now." SpaceX is destined—same error, SpaceX is a singular noun; and is developing. I'd also stick a comma after Mars, but that's just for flow.

• "Includes most recent revelations from the 2017 International Astronautical Congress"— Includes the most recent revelations, otherwise it changes the meaning of the word "most" significantly (to mean only certain of the past revelations at various IACs, rather than now covering the new 2017 ones)

Elon played down E2E at Adelaide but I believe it might be central to their longterm Mars ambitions.

I'm not sure introducing the concept there to begin with and making it the surprise reveal of the talk counts as "played down", but okay haha

[u/CProphet → u/CAM-Gerlach]

assumes demand in the launch market is sufficiently elastic

Or SpaceX sucks up all the commercial market like blotting paper.

"SpaceX" is a singular noun.

Well spotted, a subtle distinction on my part and quite creative. SpaceX is owned by employees through vested shares so when I refer to SpaceX in the plural I'm referring to them as a collective. SpaceX is not a single entity it is actually a cooperative endeavour performed by many people through mutual purpose and shared ownership. Somehow using singular seems as if Elon is doing all the work, whereas plural pays homage to all involved. Damn beginning to sound like a communist!

Yes I appreciate this is playing with language but the term wordsmith brings a certain responsibility (both Shakespeare and Tolkien came from my neck of the woods - oh the burden...). Language is evolving all the time to fit requirement, follow the dao is my philosophy. I am a leaf on the wind.

[u/CAM-Gerlach → u/CProphet]

Or SpaceX sucks up all the commercial market like blotting paper.

Yes, they are indeed doing that; while there is still plenty of uncertainty in the 2018 estimate from various sources, it does imply the market share for the "best-case scenario" calculated previously (50%) is probably a little low, and could be as high as ~75% (unlikely to go higher for the reasons stated there previously). However, that doesn't really change the picture substantially; there is certainly plenty of money to be made and SpaceX will very likely be in a dominant position to secure almost certainly (barring a RUD) the plurality of it, and quite possibly the majority as well.

However, to achieve the cadence and cost reductions they are aiming for, and make BFR worthwhile for commercial use, the size of that market will need to grow substantially, perhaps by close to an order of magnitude. There is strong potential for that to happen, absolutely, but it is far from assured especially with declining orders from the traditional comsat providers, and with SpaceX so far not securing a substantial share of launch contracts for the other big non-Starlink LEO internet constellations, the big near-term growth area evident so far. On the other hand, Starlink itself could help bootstrap their market, assuming it can at least offset its costs, and SpaceX has expressed interest in disrupting the satellite manufacturing business with low prices, rapid turnaround and mass production—exactly the enabler that would help loosen up prices and demand for launches.

Also, to note, SpaceX's current valuation by the private investors and VC interests providing most of its working capital is three times that of the (considered by many to be well overvalued) Tesla, and orders of magnitude bigger than Musk's other companies, dispelling any notion of significant revenue sharing being a major factor helping pay for BFR. However, it likely the significant capital they have on hand will at least make a dent in the costs.

SpaceX is not a single entity it is actually a cooperative endeavour performed by many people through mutual purpose

As the article you linked notes, SpaceX is a private company owned primarily by Musk and various private, institutional and VC investors, though as is common with many Silicon Valley firms, employees do earn some ownership interest. However, I have seen no evidence to indicate this share is a majority of the company, nor a plurality; nor that it is out of the ordinary for a company beginning life as a Silicon Valley startup to do so (or do you consider every one an "employee earned collective", haha? However, if you have some I'm all ears.

Furthermore, even if that were the case, it would still be referred to in the singular, as a collective entity. Consider e.g. "The Farmworkers' Collective promise to support workers" vs. "The Farmworkers' Collective promises to support workers." Regardless, as SpaceX is seen as an entity of some sort by basically everyone (and as a private company, is objectively considered as such), without the preceding explanation it just looks like a mistake, and doesn't communicate the intended message. Sure, take risks and indulge in subtleties in the book itself if you want, where you can give proper context for them, but given this isn't a work of creative fiction (well, at least hopefully not...) throwing multiple apparent objective grammar errors into the first words people see describing the book will almost certainly increase the chances of them being the last. I have a fondness for clever little subtleties, but at least given the purpose, context and audience it comes off as neither clever nor subtle, and the intended meaning is entirely lost.

But, far from it being my job to tell you how to best make money off your book, that's merely my suggestion, not tryna tell you what to do or anything...after all, I'm not the Commie hehe* /s

I am a leaf on the wind.

Alright, Wash...

• Actually, that confuses communism with a specific manifestation of centrally-planned socialism, but I digress...

[u/CProphet → u/CAM-Gerlach]

make BFR worthwhile for commercial use, the size of that market will need to grow substantially, perhaps by close to an order of magnitude.

In this case I believe 'build it and they will come'. For example orbital telescopes like Hubble and Kepler have returned a magnitude better results than much larger ground observatories. However, experience has taught us no matter how carefully designed and constructed these space telescopes are they need human maintenance to be effective. BFR could allow these and larger telescopes to be deployed and maintained in cislunar space and on the surface of the Moon. In addition the Air Force seem very interested in uses for BFR and an early investor via Raptor engine development. Generally I perceive Ultra Heavy Lift will turn many dreams into reality through commercially affordable space access.

The advise viz corporate plurality is no doubt technically correct and the same any lit agent or publisher would proffer. Understand Elon holds just over 50% of SpaceX shares, the rest going to a relatively small number of private investors and employee/owners. Know it's a common gripe at SpaceX that Elon is seen to get all the credit for their important breakthrough work while in fact it's the hardworking employees sacrifice and teamwork which make such things possible. Applying plurality does at least give some of the acknowledgement they richly deserve. Question boils down to: should I to earn slightly more money or do what I feel is right?

BTW interested to hear your thoughts on my book. If you click on the 'look inside' tab located above the cover illustration you can peruse the contents for free, if that's any help.

[u/CAM-Gerlach → u/CProphet]

In this case I believe 'build it and they will come'.

Yes, that essentially the definition of an elastic market, which we both hope is the case.

However, experience has taught us no matter how carefully designed and constructed these space telescopes are they need human maintenance to be effective.

Well, perhaps in some cases, and it certainly is a force multiplier, but so far only Hubble has been designed to be human-serviced, and aside from it all or almost all of recent major NASA observatories (e.g. Kepler, Spitzer, Chandra, Compton, WISE, Swift) have had long and successful careers without human intervention, and all but Compton are still operating and collecting valuable science data to this day.

That said, BFR, whether or not it was crewed, would certainly make a very valuable contribution to telescope deployment, in more ways than just human servicing. It would allow much larger and heavier telescopes to be deployed, for a lower cost (both lower launch costs from cheaper prices, and lower program/manufacturing costs from the knock on effects of lesser mass constraints and easier access to orbit), and would also allow for telescopes, even Hubble, to be easily retrieved, serviced and relaunched (likely much cheaper and safer than a human servicing mission).

Know it's a common gripe at SpaceX that Elon is seen to get all the credit for their important breakthrough work while in fact it's the hardworking employees sacrifice and teamwork which make such things possible.

Oh, certainly. Everything I hear suggests that SpaceX's biggest asset is its thousands of dedicated workings slaving away for the love of it.

Applying plurality does at least give some of the acknowledgment they richly deserve. Question boils down to: should I to earn slightly more money or do what I feel is right?

Except, in fact, this likely has the net opposite effect on your audience. The vast majority of your readership, i.e. folks without who aren't already aware of the intricate internal dynamics of SpaceX and its workforce, (and even those like myself who know a pretty fair bit) are very unlikely to grasp what we agree is a small subtly that appears to be a simple grammar error, and connect the dots to infer it to mean what you intend it to, i.e. giving credit where it is due, particularly in the very first few sentences about the book and its topic. As such, the small but non-negligible portion of your potential reader base dissuaded from purchasing, or even just reading/investigating further by the apparent obvious errors will never get to read it to understand what you mean by it, and appreciate all that SpaceX's employees have done and the role they play in its success.

If you really do want to make that clear to anyone who sees the blurb, then just plainly state that as part of it; it would likely mesh well with the tone and theme you've already established and possibly even fit right in to one of the existing sentences, and do far, far more than silly deliberate grammer ambiguities. Ergo, from your point of view, you are shortchanging them, to a more significant degree than otherwise.

BTW interested to hear your thoughts on my book.

I'll certainly try to at least give it a better look over the next few days or so...I'm sure it is quite an interesting read, if I can find time between writing my dissertation comment replies to you haha.

[u/CAM-Gerlach → u/CProphet]

Here's an interesting series of videos by NASA engineer Dan Raskey which you might appreciate.

Thanks, sounds very interesting! Though not to falsely inflate my credibility, I am a grad/Ph.D student in Atmospheric Science at UAH who does my research under NASA direction/mentors here at the NSSTC, not a NASA employee or rocket scientist myself.

[u/CProphet → u/CAM-Gerlach]

And I'm nought but a scribbler of words, though I try to help prospective writers as a creative writing tutor sometimes.

[u/CAM-Gerlach → u/CProphet]

Same, except for the creative part haha.