Connect with us

News

Does Elon Musk hold the moral high ground in the commercial space race? Jeff Bezos might disagree.

Published

on

In the minds of technology-aware people around the globe, Elon Musk holds unique positions in the world of commercial spaceflight:

  • Launching and landing rockets.
  • Launching and landing reused rockets.
  • Launching and landing private rockets funded by the paying customers of a spaceflight company founded with totally private capital.

None of that is to be taken lightly, especially considering Musk’s stated goal of colonizing Mars (and beyond?). All of that combined with the fact that SpaceX’s closest competitors are either centered on rich tourists (Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin) or almost entirely government (contract) funded (Boeing, ULA), and Elon Musk looks to have a type of moral “high ground” over other industry players with a humanity-first approach.

That might not be an entirely fair assessment, though. It’s helpful to first have the full(er) history of commercial spaceflight on hand, and second to have the long-term goals of other players in mind in order to consider where SpaceX really fits in.

A SHORT HISTORY OF COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT

The commercial space industry started shortly after the first satellite was launched in 1957 when the privately-owned Telstar I satellite was put into orbit using a commercially-sponsored rocket in 1962. Congress provided the regulatory framework for such missions shortly after, and hundreds of private satellites were launched in the years following. SpaceX’s earliest predecessor, Space Services, Inc. of America (SSIA), was the first to put a privately owned and operated rocket into space, albeit not into orbit.

  • Fun Fact: SSIA is now a star-naming company which has previously contracted cargo space with SpaceX.

After the government provided a better regulatory environment for commercial spaceflight in 1984, SSIA also became the first private company to acquire and use a launch license. In case you’re curious, the rocket didn’t make it to space.

Who was the first private company to make it to orbit on a privately developed rocket, then? That honor would go to Orbital Sciences Corporation (now Orbital ATK, another SpaceX contractor) in 1990, although the rocket was air launched from an airplane. That achievement was followed up by Scaled Composites’ SpaceShipOne in 2004, another air launched vehicle, although it was a rocket-powered aircraft rather than just a rocket. It still holds the title as the first and only privately-funded manned craft to reach space. Virgin Galactic has taken over its successor, SpaceShipTwo, which is still under development with the primary goal of shuttling rich tourists on suborbital thrill rides.

  • Fun Fact: United Launch Alliance (ULA), SpaceX’s only bidding competitor for Air Force contracts, was actually formed only to serve government rocket launch needs after legislation was passed requiring NASA to use private spaceflight companies for non-Space Shuttle essential missions. Boeing and Lockheed Martin, traditional government space and defense contractors, came together to form the ULA venture to serve this need, and the rest is mostly guaranteed-NASA-contract-friendly history. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are also the primary contractors developing NASA’s new Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule. For these reasons, I don’t really consider ULA to be a true part of the “new space race”.

SpaceX entered the history records in 2008 when Falcon 1 reached orbit as the first privately developed liquid fueled rocket. Their record list entries have grown ever since:

  • 2010, the Dragon capsule was successfully launched into orbit and recovered, making it the first private capsule to do so.
  • 2012, the Dragon capsule made a successful trip to the International Space Station (ISS) as the first private spacecraft to do so.
  • 2015, Falcon 9 successfully landed after returning from orbit, the first orbital rocket to do so.
  • 2017, a reused Falcon 9 core was successfully launched and landed after returning from orbit, making it the first privately owned rocket to do so.

Right before SpaceX’s 2015 landing, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos finally revealed what his secretive space company, Blue Origin, had been up to. Beating SpaceX’s landing by a month, Bezos revealed footage of Blue Origins’ tourist-industry rocket, New Shepard, successfully launching into space and landing itself. The differences between the two companies’ landing achievements are notable; however, Blue Origin still walked away with first prize.

Even so, in commercial spaceflight history, SpaceX’s reputation as an innovator driving the privatization of the space industry is well deserved. But does Elon Musk get to claim a moral “high ground” given SpaceX’s autonomous origins and humanity-centric goals?

Advertisement

JEFF BEZOS IS A DREAMER, TOO

Blue Origin might call that designation into question. How so, especially when Blue Origin’s rocket is a tourist attraction (with no restroom or regurgitation facilities I might add)?

Well, first of all, according to Bezos it doesn’t have to just be a tourist vehicle. In a recent talk given at the 33rd annual Space Symposium, Bezos suggested that the New Shepard could be used as the first stage of another multi-stage rocket rather than just the single stage for his “Astronaut Experience” tourist adventure. That could (potentially) put New Shepard in line with Falcon 9’s customer base.

Most importantly, though, New Shepard is just the beginning of Blue Origin’s long-term goals for space travel. The engine (BE-4) for their expandable heavy launch vehicle, New Glenn, is under development and will be a prime competitor with SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy once in operation.

Back to the “high ground” question, the founder of Amazon had dreams of being a space entrepreneur way before that concept truly existed, and Bezos went into computer science knowing he needed plenty of money to reach that goal. Musk didn’t consider space technology exclusively, but rather went in as a way to be part of pushing humanity’s development forward.  Purity of intent? Points for both.

Bezos himself has acknowledged that there are similarities in the goals of both SpaceX and Blue Origin, citing the two companies’ pursuit of vertical landings and quick reusability as the primary ones. For a time, SpaceX was unique in the “new space” arena by not using space tourism as a funding mechanism, but now that they’ve announced their contract to take some very rich customers on a trip around the Moon, they’ve lost that designation. What’s more, Blue Origin has also announced their own Moon program, but it will be to assist with cargo needs for development of a permanent Moon base.

Advertisement

Plus one for Blue Origin.

Both SpaceX and Blue Origin were founded with private funds, and the funding for their developments to date come from a mix of both government and private sources. Technically, Blue Origin is almost entirely privately funded, but they received two rounds of funding from NASA as part of their Commercial Crew Development program that can’t be ignored. Also, their contract with ULA to develop the BE-4 engine (to be used on both Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket series and ULA’s upcoming Vulcan rocket) makes the designation murky. ULA only launches rockets for government cargo, so whether the money Blue Origin receives from them is truly “private” is a matter of money-trail opinion. On a further note, Bezos has pledged to invest an annual billion dollars of his own funds into Blue Origin.

Plus one for Blue Origin, but plus two for SpaceX for already running a viable, profitable space launch company with plenty of private customers.

What about Mars? Well, Elon Musk has made it no secret that Mars is the primary goal of SpaceX’s technology achievements, and he really, really wants to settle humans there to save the species from potential future disaster. Bezos, on the other hand, has likened the purpose of going to Mars as “because it’s cool”. However, Bezos also wants to do all the “heavy lifting” in building the infrastructure necessary for space commercialization to take off. He used the existing Internet and shipping systems to build Amazon, so now he wants to build the Internet and shipping system equivalents in space with Blue Origin’s technology.

Plus one for both, and I think that means the two are even.

Advertisement

MORAL HIGH GROUND?

The answer to the question of moral standing is then, of course, entirely based on one’s opinion of the future of human spaceflight and the roles we should pursue outside of our home planet. Also as an honorable mention for consideration is one’s economic persuasion in the form of a “chicken or the egg” scenario.

Government has taken us to space and enabled a booming satellite communications market, but we haven’t even returned to the Moon since 1972. Would a privatized space industry have us on Mars already? We can further consider that NASA gave us memory foam, Tang, and underwater pens; however, would better, cheaper versions been developed on their own in the commercial sector as the need for such products for Earth-based activities developed independent of government projects?

Once again returning to the question of a greater-purpose-driven space program, does space tourism lead to trickle-down space exploration, i.e., eventual space travel for the average citizen? Or will it take an “infrastructure first” approach to really make that sort of space travel be a reality?

If a space company claims that its long-term goal is to benefit the future of human kind, the use of space tourism certainly looks to be economically justified as a funding mechanism. But does that then mean that the future of humanity in space is being bred on the “bread” (sorry) of the super-rich?

While it wouldn’t be the first time an industry grew in such a way, there exists a population of folks that prefer a little more “purity” in their spaceflight. Yours truly happens to be such a crab, but I also acknowledge that such sentiments come from growing up only knowing space as taught by a science-centric NASA. Space has always been cool because it gives us a broader perspective of our place in the universe. I never fantasized about opening the first deep space McDonald’s (or Rudy Tyler’s Burger Shack if you understand a bad Space Camp movie reference).

Advertisement

Elon Musk was a game changer in the commercial space world by pursuing rockets as a means of bettering humanity. That gave him a “one-up” over Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin for the purist crowd. Now that SpaceX has added millionaire Moon tourism to its manifest, however, and Blue Origin is moving along into non-tourist space developments to build infrastructure, the field is evening out. It’s also prudent to mention that there are many other rocket companies out there developing private vehicles that we’ll be hearing from eventually.

COMING UP

So what’s up next for SpaceX? The Hawthorne-based rocket company will be back to its regularly scheduled history-making programming this summer with the launch of Falcon Heavy, and later this year Crew Dragon is set to launch, making SpaceX one step closer to launching American astronauts on American soil.

First up, however, Falcon 9 will launch on April 30th, carrying NROL-76 into a secretive orbit from SpaceX’s refurbished Apollo pad, Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Not many other details are available about payload, though. It’s for the National Reconnaissance Office, so publicly available information is slim. We should see the first stage make a ground landing as consolation – fingers crossed the video doesn’t cut out!

We can also add this launch to the history books again for SpaceX. This is the first payload SpaceX will have ever launched for the U.S. Department of Defense, having beaten ULA for the contract after threatening to sue the Air Force for the right to bid. Watch out, traditional government launch contractors. SpaceX is moving in to your turf. When Blue Origin is ready to start the bidding war, it will be interesting to see how they work out that ULA relationship.

Stay tuned!

Advertisement

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla hints it could see ‘a few more vehicles’ released soon

Denholm said on CNBC yesterday that “we do have a few other vehicles coming out.”

Published

on

Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm hinted the company could see “a few more vehicles” coming out and being released soon, although there is no indication of what could be on the way based on her comments.

However, Tesla has hinted toward several potential releases in the coming years, as other executives, including Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, have talked briefly about what could be on the way.

Denholm said on CNBC yesterday that “we do have a few other vehicles coming out.”

It was a vague and almost cryptic sentence, as, in all honesty, it was not completely clear whether she was talking about recent releases that are just making their way to market, like the Model 3 and Model Y “Standard,” or new vehicles altogether.

Nevertheless, it’s worth dissecting.

Tesla “Standard” Models

On October 7, Tesla launched the Standard Model 3 and Model Y, stripped-down versions of their now “Premium” siblings. The Standard trims lack premium features like leather seats, a rear touchscreen, and a glass roof, among other features.

Tesla begins deliveries of its affordable Model Y Standard

Advertisement

These cars are just starting to be delivered for the first time, so it is possible that Denholm was referring to these cars.

Potential Model 2 Hint?

There has always been a looming vehicle model that many Tesla fans and owners have been intrigued by: the Model 2.

This car was hinted at being the $25,000 model that Tesla was rumored to be developing, and many thought that was the vehicle that would be released earlier this month, not the Standard Model 3 and Model Y.

Instead, the Model 2 could be something that would enable Tesla to reach an entirely new consumer base, including those who are not able to swing the payment for the company’s more premium offerings.

It seems Tesla will have to launch some sort of extremely affordable model in the future, and with the Cybercab being slotted at that rough price point, it would not be out of the question for it to be in the realm of possibility for future releases.

Advertisement

It’s worth noting, however, that it is probably unlikely this will happen. Tesla is so deadset focused on autonomy, it seems Cybercab would take extreme precedence over the unconfirmed “Model 2.”

Cybertruck-inspired SUV

Tesla fans have been begging the company to develop a full-size SUV that would compete with the Ford Expedition or Chevrolet Tahoe, but the company has not given any indication that this would be something it would build.

Nevertheless, there was a very subtle hint in a recent promotional clip that showed a Cyber SUV mock-up placed strategically next to a clay model of a Model 3:

Tesla appears to be mulling a Cyber SUV design

The Model X is simply not what people want when it comes to an SUV, as it does not have the seating capacity and cargo space that many need with a full-sized SUV.

Advertisement

This issue, in particular, has been one that has been extremely relevant to the company’s future lineup as consumers have shown they would be interested in a Tesla vehicle that fit this description.

Additionally, von Holzhausen said in September that a Cyber SUV or a smaller electric pickup with a more traditional design is “definitely things we’ve considered…We’re working on so many innovative and fun things.”

Tesla gives big hint that it will build Cyber SUV, smaller Cybertruck

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla enters new stability phase, firm upgrades and adjusts outlook

Dmitriy Pozdnyakov of Freedom Capital upgraded his outlook on Tesla shares from “Sell” to “Hold” on Wednesday, and increased the price target from $338 to $406.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla is entering a new phase of stability in terms of vehicle deliveries, one firm wrote in a new note during the final week of October, backing its position with an upgrade and price target increase on the stock.

Dmitriy Pozdnyakov of Freedom Capital upgraded his outlook on Tesla shares from “Sell” to “Hold” on Wednesday, and increased the price target from $338 to $406.

While most firms are interested in highlighting Tesla’s future growth, which will be catalyzed mostly by the advent of self-driving vehicles, autonomy, and the company’s all-in mentality on AI and robotics, Pozdnyakov is solely focusing on vehicle deliveries.

The analyst wrote in a note to investors that he believes Tesla’s updated vehicle lineup, which includes its new affordable “Standard” trims of the Model 3 and Model Y, is going to stabilize the company’s delivery volumes and return the company to annual growth.

Tesla launches two new affordable models with ‘Standard’ Model 3, Y offerings

Advertisement

Tesla launched the new affordable Model 3 and Model Y “Standard” trims on October 7, which introduced two stripped-down, less premium versions of the all-electric sedan and crossover.

They are both priced at under $40,000, with the Model 3 at $37,990 and the Model Y at $39,990, and while these prices may not necessarily be what consumers were expecting, they are well under what Kelley Blue Book said was the average new car transaction price for September, which swelled above $50,000.

Despite the rollout of these two new models, it is interesting to hear that a Wall Street firm would think that Tesla is going to return to more stable delivery figures and potentially enter a new growth phase.

Many Wall Street firms have been more focused on AI, Robotics, and Tesla’s self-driving project, which are the more prevalent things that will drive investor growth over the next few years.

Wedbush’s Dan Ives, for example, tends to focus on the company’s prowess in AI and self-driving. However, he did touch on vehicle deliveries in the coming years in a recent note.

Advertisement

Ives said in a note on October 2:

“While EV demand is expected to fall with the EV tax credit expiration, this was a great bounce-back quarter for TSLA to lay the groundwork for deliveries moving forward, but there is still work to do to gain further ground from a delivery perspective.”

Tesla has some things to figure out before it can truly consider guaranteed stability from a delivery standpoint. Initially, the next two quarters will be a crucial way to determine demand without the $7,500 EV tax credit. It will also begin to figure out if its new affordable models are attractive enough at their current price point to win over consumers.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla preps for a harsh potential reality if Musk comp vote doesn’t go to plan

A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.

Published

on

tesla cybertruck elon musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk unveils futuristic Cybertruck in Los Angeles, Nov. 21, 2019 (Photo: Teslarati)

Tesla could be forced to look for a new CEO in the coming months, as a crucial November 6 Shareholder Meeting vote will determine whether Elon Musk will stick around.

A major vote is coming up at the 2025 Tesla Shareholder Meeting, as investors will determine whether Musk should be given a new compensation plan that would award him up to $1 trillion and more than one-fourth of the total voting power within the company.

Tesla board chair reiterates widely unmentioned point of Musk comp plan

A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.

“My fundamental concern with regard to how much voting control I have at Tesla is if I go ahead and build this enormous robot army, can I just be ousted at some point in the future? That’s my biggest concern,” Musk said at last week’s Earnings Call. “That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable wielding that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”

Advertisement

Tesla Board of Directors Head Robyn Denholm has been on somewhat of a PR tour over the past few days, answering questions about the compensation plan, which is among the biggest issues currently for the company.

Denholm told Bloomberg yesterday that Tesla investors need to be prepared for Musk to abandon ship if the package is not approved, which brings on a new question: Who would take over the CEO role?

That is a question Denholm also answered yesterday, bringing forth the conclusion that Tesla would not look for an outside hire if Musk were to leave the company. Instead, it would promote someone internally.

The way it was reported by Bloomberg and Reuters seems to make it seem as if Tesla is preparing for the worst, as it states the company “is looking at internal CEO candidates,” not preparing to do so.

Of the executives at Tesla who immediately come to mind as ideal candidates for a potential takeover should Musk leave, Tesla China President Tom Zhu and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy both come to mind. Zhu has monumental executive experience already, as he was appointed to the role of Senior VP of Automotive back in December 2022.

Advertisement

He then returned to China in 2024.

It seems Tesla wants to align its future, with or without Musk, on the same path that it is currently on, and internal candidates might have a better idea of what that looks like and truly means.

Continue Reading

Trending