Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#111

Post by ceejayoz »

dragonwriter wrote: post #105
ceejayoz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recognize that even if you don't own the radar equipment, it is impacting your ability to deliver value, so spend the necessary funds to get them to replace the radar equipment with something that doesn't have that problem. And then convince the Air Force to certify and let you use your new radar for their payloads.

> And then convince the Air Force to certify and let you use your new radar for their payloads. Well, yeah, which takes more money. I wasn't intending, upthread, to suggest that the route was easy ...

> Well, yeah, which takes more money.

There may not be any amount of money that'll make the Air Force certify a civilian radar for the purpose.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#112

Post by raldi »

aros wrote: post #39
quonn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's fashionable to point out that Google does what it does to sell more ads. But isn't this getting very boring? We don't hear things like "x is making a TV program to sell more ads" or "x is making a new car to take in more revenue".

I believe it's necessary to repeat this point because of the constant churn of new users who are otherwise ignorant of Google's business model. I still hear people say, "I'm so glad Google is nice enough to give us free apps!"

I don't believe you actually ever heard anyone say that.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#113

Post by DiabloD3 »

spiritplumber wrote: post #104
Retra wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unnecessarily depressing way to see things. What you should believe is that your dreams are not meant for you. They are meant for someone much like you who probably doesn't exist yet. Someone who will actually understand what you've done and how you've helped them achieve what you would like to. You will die, and someone else will follow in your footsteps. Make sure that person has what they need to live t…

That's taking the long view, and it makes sense. I guess I'll have to find someone who can use my work, and then go die. Does anyone want a small robotics company?

No, but can I work there? At least for a little bit? Always wanted to do something hands on.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#114

Post by avmich »

branchan wrote: post #107
avmich wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of that $2B cost comes from requirement that everything should just work, and therefore thoroughly tested, because customers don't want to have it broken in space where no one can fix things and have to send another one... which costs $2B... see cyclical reasoning? If launches would be cheaper, customers could afford to make less expensive payloads - after all, if it breaks, they can just send another one. A pr…

That's not entirely correct. The bottom line is that military satellites are just expensive - period. They will always be expensive because of their capabilities.

Not all military satellites require some outstanding capabilities - and military does launch cubesats and other small-scale devices today. Reminding that if 50 years ago military requests pushed boundaries of technology, today commercial applications are so demanding - and command such a large market - that it is military devices which piggyback on RND results of commercial ones.

Yes, you may always want a unique, expensive, cutting edge satellite. But you won't always need that - military doesn't directly set the goal to spend as much as possible. X-37 demonstrates a lot of capabilities while being much cheaper than previous reusable space vehicle. So with launch costs going down other, cheaper opportunities open - to everybody, including military. That's beside the idea that cheaper rocket doesn't mean worse rocket, reminding Japanese cars of few decades back.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#115

Post by waterlesscloud »

Someone1234 wrote: post #91
toomuchtodo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rockets have the structural integrity of a pop can.

And yet pop cans travel halfway around the world daily... I don't see the issue. As I said, it could be expensive, but there's no risk or danger in it. People transport extremely fragile things by sea all the time. You may have to be mindful of weather, but it is do-able with the will and money.

How many pop cans are damaged or destroyed in shipping?

Any rate at all is higher than is tolerable for rockets costing many orders of magnitude more.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#116

Post by seanflyon »

keslag wrote: post #109
seanflyon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without NASA there is no customer for manned spaceflight.

Hardly.

The context here is NASA moving slowly and the possibility of SpaceX launching without their involvement. Can you think of a single customer for that? Try to get Russian permission to got to the Russian side of the station without NASA involvement or just hang out in the Dragon until you get tired of using diapers?

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#118

Post by obituary_latte »

threeseed wrote: post #56
pbreit wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aggressive scheduling is a tactic. Because no matter what the schedule, human nature dictates that things are likely to slip.

Spin it all you want but a failure to meet schedules isn't really acceptable. You either failed to deliver or failed to manage your project estimation process.

Bummed to see this getting as downvoted as it. Although it may be construed as "managerspeak", it is contributing to the conversation as is evidenced by the several well thought out replies. Perhaps a reminder is warranted: downvote!=disagree. At least that's my understanding (and hope).

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#119

Post by dragonwriter »

cryptoz wrote: post #102
tsotha wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we can all read that as "not in my lifetime", though I may just be a pessimist.

MCT should be flying its first trips in about 15 years (Elon says 10-12, so we add some). So I'd guess IPO in around 15-20 years. The real colonization effort will probably be getting going in 20-25 years. SpaceX will want to send about 80,000 people each year (or each launch window), and that scale is probably 30-40 years away. Most of us will see SpaceX go to Mars. And optimistically, I think many of us will go too…

> MCT should be flying its first trips in about 15 years (Elon says 10-12, so we add some).

Judging from Dragon, Elon says 10-12, so it'll be 10-12 years off in 10 years.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#120

Post by Mikeb85 »

aros wrote: post #40
skadamat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, it's a bit silly to assume that all Google cares about is ad revenue. Plus, improving internet accessibility and making more revenue aren't mutually exclusive. Why do self driving cars? Def no ad revenue there.

It isn't silly to assume considering that an overwhelming majority of Google's revenue comes directly from advertisements. As for self driving cars, I can think of a ton of marketing use cases including tracking how often people drive, where they go, how long they stay there, the frequency in which someone goes to a location, what type of features in the car the user takes advantage of... And that's just from the top…

It's silly to assume that Google has no aspirations beyond their current business. Ad revenue pays for their dreams...
Post reply on HN