Comments on: Apollo astronauts, SpaceX, and a special photo

By: niksus

niksus — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:30:30 +0000

Ben Joshua wrote @ July 13th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
“btw, the notion that SpaceX is just doing what has been done before is just too funny for words. I get a kick out of each hilarious repetition!”
But it’s true, and they must do what has been done before. They are in the business of making money, not for innovation, your amusement or glory. Don’t mix the intentions of their owner/CTO aka Musk to put humans on Mars, etc with company goal of making M$ from every possible way, and doing it as effective as possible. Investors and stakeholders don’t care about what SpaceX do first/second… but how much money (ROI) they get out of this. So they don’t need to innovate technically but in production/business manner that really matters. And you’ll never see airbreating engine/spaceloop/spaceelevator from SpaceX until someone else completely test it/make $ from it, at the most they’ll buy/acquire some techno from NASA/contractors or some patents to implement, and that will always be already tested/developed option.

common sense wrote @ July 16th, 2012 at 4:07 pm

“Their ultimate test is to be commercially successful, nothing else. If they are not the sanction will be far worse than that of CxP.”
And that’s real difficulty for every newspace company being it SpaceX,XCOR, Interorbital, Virgin Galactic, etc. Mostly all of them are in development/pre-commercial phase of operation, have very small market share/low flight record or none and even with launch shedule – a problem to supply it fully.
We can wholeheartedly admit their technical accomplishments and ability to procede/raise capital but at the moment they are not breakeven and investors didn’t get single $ out of it. That’s why Buffet doesn’t like those type of techno-geak investments – once they have profit they need to invest it to continue development/innovation process or they’ll be out of business. Those companies are worse than Wallmart, Coca-Cola or even Microsoft. So commercial success means not just profit but large enough margin of ROI for investors to stay. And that doesn’t matter that SpaceX is private company, the rules are the same.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:38:55 +0000

@BeanCounterfromDownunder wrote @ July 16th, 2012 at 10:19 pm

“SpaceX and Musk in particular needs no validation from anyone…”

=yawn= Except he does– which he made obvious in his CBS News ’60 Minutes’ puff piece w/Pelley, broadcast in March, 2012.

By: common sense

common sense — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:08:42 +0000

@ Dave Hall wrote @ July 17th, 2012 at 2:01 pm

I don’t think you understand Dave. Moon and Mars are NOT primary missions for SpaceX. And I suspect and believe they are not even for the China. You are projecting your desires on what they do. I think. Well I am pretty sure.

By: Dave Hall

Dave Hall — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:01:42 +0000

common sense wrote @ July 17th, 2012 at 11:00 am

SpaceX = private company
China = government

Different purposes, different goals, different funding, different everything.

To fulfill their purposes, one system plods towards getting humans back to the Moon, the other system potentially makes a bold leap to get to Mars and back somehow … both happening during the same period of history. I wish success on both.

By: common sense

common sense — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:00:32 +0000

@ Dave Hall wrote @ July 17th, 2012 at 6:58 am

Apples and oranges.

SpaceX = private company
China = government

Different purposes, different goals, different funding, different everything.

By: Dave Hall

Dave Hall — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:58:18 +0000

“Their ultimate test is to be commercially successful, nothing else. If they are not the sanction will be far worse than that of CxP. ”

You’re right. From afar and position of political neutrality, I was thinking about the difference capitalism Silicon Valley style and the way China funds it’s space programme.

By: BeanCounterfromDownunder

BeanCounterfromDownunder — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:19:09 +0000

SpaceX and Musk in particular needs no validation from anyone. And as for ‘stepping up their game’, that’s pretty rich compared to NASA’s own programs. Musk is creating value for the U.S. mainly on his own dime and where NASA has invested, they’re getting a fantastic return. Lots just don’t seem to get that, Dave Hall and DCSCA among them.
Tick tock, tick tock, time’s a wasting for SLS, MPCV, JWST.

By: common sense

common sense — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:07:34 +0000

“I think the ultimate test for capital markets will be to fund a first Mars return mission.”

Ultimate test? Why would they have to succeed some arbitrary test? To do what? Whom for?

Their ultimate test is to be commercially successful, nothing else. If they are not the sanction will be far worse than that of CxP.

Oh well…

By: Dave Hall

Dave Hall — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:58:48 +0000

Anyone interested in putting Steve Jurvetson in perspective may be interested in two tidbits:

1. His collection of Apollo artifacts:
http://news.cnet.com/2300-19882_3-10011182-1.html

2. He received the first Tesla Model S off the production line, Musk received the second.

I think the ultimate test for capital markets will be to fund a first Mars return mission. People like Jurveston will play an important role in making it happen. Silicon Valley is in a league of it’s own.

By: Dave Hall

Dave Hall — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:31:28 +0000

@DCSCA wrote:

Musk seeks the validation, not Cernan. Apollo guys have toured more assembly facilities in their time than they can count. Theyâ€™ve all been to Downey. Hawthorne ainâ€™t much different. If Musk wants validationâ€” fly somebody. Tick-tock, tick-tockâ€¦.

I agree with that. The picture from Jurvetson is incomplete and perhaps consciously so … it is missing Neil Armstrong’s signature. Musk may just be motivated to step up his game and that of his teams in search of the final signature. Which would indicate a special kind of currency only available in Silicon Valley … arguably a child of Apollo.