马斯克承诺研发完全可复用火箭 2011

0:01Well, thank you for having me. It's really an honor to speak here for the National Press

0:07Club. So I have an exciting announcement with respect to space. And I think one which should

0:17be provide some inspiration and some belief that the innovation is alive and well in America

0:26and going in really interesting directions.

0:29But before I, I'm gonna get to that,

0:32but I'm gonna preface that with the logic

0:38that explains why such a thing is important,

0:42because it may not be immediately obvious.

0:45So first of all, going back to why am I in space

0:50and electric cars and solar power and internet stuff,

0:54It goes back to when I was in college,

0:57and I was trying to think of what were the most important

1:00things that would affect the future of humanity?

1:04What could have a significant positive effect

1:06in the future of humanity?

1:07And the three things that I came up with were the internet,

1:11sustainable energy, both production and consumption,

1:13and then space exploration, but specifically making

1:18life multi-planetary.

1:21And I didn't expect, when I was in college,

1:24to actually be involved in all three of those areas.

1:26But as a result of some success in the internet arena,

1:30that gave me the capital to get involved

1:32in very high capital endeavors, like cars and rockets,

1:38which we really are, very high capital.

1:41So the reason for, I'm mostly going to talk about space.

1:52So I want to explain why do I think space is really important

1:57and what about space?

1:59And because I believe in building things up

2:04from a rational framework of logic.

2:11And so you saw it was how do you decide

2:13that anything is important?

2:15And I think the lens of history is a helpful guide here

2:18in that things that may seem important in the moment,

2:24but actually aren't that important in the grand scheme.

2:28Over time, if you look at things over a broad span of time,

2:32the things that are less important kind of fall away.

2:35And if you look at things from the broadest possible span

2:38of time as it relates to life itself,

2:40and the evolution of life has been,

2:43primitive life, I think, started around 3.5 to 3.8 billion

2:47years ago. And what are the important steps in the evolution of life? And obviously there

2:53was the advent of single-celled life. There was differentiation to plants and animals. There

2:58was life going from the oceans to land. There was mammals, consciousness. And I would argue

3:07also on that scale should fit life becoming multi-planetary. And in fact, I think consciousness,

3:15It's the next step actually because you really kind of need consciousness to design vehicles

3:22that can transport life over hundreds of millions of miles of irradiated space to an environment

3:30that they did not evolve to exist in.

3:33It would be very convenient of course if there was another planet just like Earth nearby.

3:39But that's unlikely and as it turns out not the case.

3:45So I think you couldn't really, there's no way for life to just buy a dint of natural selection,

3:54just sort of get over to Mars and survive.

3:59So you need consciousness, you go to design.

4:01So I think it is the next natural step.

4:03So I think if one could make a reasonable argument that something is important enough to fit

4:10on the scale of evolution, then it's important.

4:17And maybe worth a little bit of our resources.

4:22And one can also think of it from the standpoint of life

4:25insurance.

4:30There's some chance, either as a result of something humanity

4:34does, or as a result of something natural like a giant

4:39asteroid hitting us or something.

4:41That civilization, life as we know it, could be destroyed.

4:45There's clear evidence for life being destroyed

4:49multiple times in the fossil record.

4:51So we don't need to guess that this is something

4:53that can occur.

4:54It has occurred.

4:56And the Permian extinction being a particularly

5:00interesting one because I think that destroyed somewhere

5:04between 90 and 95% of all species on Earth,

5:08which doesn't tell the full story because most of the remaining species were fungi.

5:11So unless you're in my room, you're out of luck.

5:18So if we think it's worth buying life insurance on an individual level, or perhaps it's worth

5:26spending more than spending something on life insurance for life as we know it.

5:33And arguably that expenditure should be greater than zero.

5:37So then we can just get to the question of what is an appropriate expenditure for life insurance?

5:44And I think probably if it's something like a quarter of a percent of the GDP, that would be okay.

5:55I think most people would say, okay, that's not too bad.

5:59But you know, you don't want it to be some sort of number that is much less than we spend

6:06on healthcare, but maybe more than we spend on lipstick, you know, something like that.

6:11And I like lipstick, so I'm like, I've got anything against it.

6:16So yeah, I can't wait for that comment to go out there.

6:27So that's kind of the thing that I think it's important that we give a little bit of our

6:33our mind space towards.

6:35And I think it's also one of the most inspiring

6:38and interesting things that we could try to do.

6:40It's one of the greatest adventures

6:42that humanity could ever embark upon.

6:46And life has to be more than about solving problems.

6:52If all that life is about is solving problems,

6:55why are they getting up in the morning?

6:57There have to be things that inspire you

6:59that make you proud to be a member of humanity.

7:03And, you know, the Apollo program is certainly an example of that.

7:08It's only a handful of people went to the moon.

7:13And yet, actually, we all went to the moon.

7:17We went with them vicariously.

7:19We shared in that adventure.

7:22I don't think anyone would say that that was a bad idea.

7:25That was great.

7:27So, you know, we need more of those things.

7:32At least we need some of those things.

7:35And even if someone's in a completely different industry

7:39and in a completely different walk of life,

7:43it's still something that's going

7:44to make you feel good about the world.

7:46And that's another reason why I think we should try

7:49to do these great things.

7:52So now, then let's get to the question of, well,

7:57how do you make life multi-planetary?

7:59What are the fundamental obstacles to that?

8:03Because it's all well and good if everyone agrees

8:05that that's worth doing, but if we can't do it,

8:09well, it doesn't matter.

8:11So the pivotal breakthrough that's necessary,

8:17that some company has come up with to make life

8:20multi-planetary is a fully and rapidly reusable

8:24orbit-class rocket.

8:27This is a very difficult thing to do

8:28because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible.

8:33If gravity were a little lower, it would be easy.

8:35If it was a little higher, it would be impossible.

8:38So even for an expendable launch vehicle,

8:44where you don't attempt any recovery,

8:46a lot of smart people have done their best

8:48to optimize the weight of the vehicle

8:51and the efficiency of the engines and the guidance

8:53system, everything, you get maybe 2% to 3% of your liftoff

8:57weight to orbit. That's not a lot of room for error. So if your rocket ends up being just

9:03a little bit heavier, you get nothing to orbit. And this is why only a few countries have

9:08ever reached orbit. Now I say, okay, well let's make it reusable, which means you've got to

9:14strengthen the stages. You've got to add a lot of weight, a lot of thermal protection. You've

9:20got to do a lot of things that add weight to that vehicle and still have a useful payload

9:28to orbit. This is nice of that meager 2 to 3 percent, and maybe if you're really good,

9:34get it to 4. You've got to add all that's necessary to bring the rocket stages back to

9:40the launch pad and be able to refly them and still have useful payload to orbit. So a very

9:45difficult thing. This has been attempted many times in the past and generally what's happened

9:50is when people have concluded that success was not one of the possible outcomes, then

9:53that the project's been abandoned. Well, in some government projects kept going, even

10:00when success was not one of the possible outcomes, unfortunately. But then eventually they get

10:07cancelled. So it's just a very tough engineering problem. And it wasn't something that I thought,

10:17I wasn't sure it could be solved for a while.

10:21But then I think just so relatively recently,

10:25probably in the last 12 months or so,

10:27I've come to conclusion that it can be solved.

10:30And I think SpaceX is going to try to do it.

10:35Now we could fail.

10:38I'm not saying we're a certain of success here,

10:41but we're going to try to do it.

10:43And we have a design that,

10:45on paper during the calculations, doing the simulations, it does work.

10:51And now we need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree,

10:55because generally when they don't, reality wins.

10:58So that's to be determined.

11:05And the simulation that you may have seen in the lobby coming in,

11:12which will be posted to our website right around now,

11:17is it will show you a simulation of what we plan to do.

11:23Now that simulation is mostly accurate,

11:25but there are a few areas which are inaccurate.

11:28In some cases, just due to timing constraints,

11:31we weren't able to work with the simulation people

11:35to get it completely accurate.

11:37In some cases, we're keeping a few technical things

11:40under our hat.

11:41But it gives you a pretty good idea of what we intend to do,

11:46which is to land basically for the first stage,

11:51after stage separation, turn the stage around,

11:54re-light the engines, boost back to the launch pad,

11:56and land purposefully on landing legs.

12:00And then with the upper stage, after dropping off

12:02the satellite or Dragon spacecraft,

12:05then do a deorbit burn, re-enter.

12:08You need quite a powerful heat shield.

12:12Steer, aerodynamically, back to the launch pad.

12:15You don't actually need wings, by the way.

12:17This is a coin misperception to steer aerodynamically.

12:19You just need some lift over drag number and lift vector.

12:25And at Steervex launch pad, then land

12:28propulsively with the upper stage, also with landing gear.

12:33And so we'll see if this works.

12:35but it's going to be certainly an exciting journey.

12:39And if it does work, it'll be pretty huge.

12:43Because if you look at, say, the cost of our Falcon 9

12:47rocket, which is quite a big rocket,

12:48it's about a million pounds of thrust,

12:52and it is the lowest cost rocket in the world.

12:55But even so, it's about $50 to $60 million.

13:01But the cost of the fuel and oxygen and so forth

13:04is only about $200,000.

13:08So obviously, if we can reuse the rocket, say,

13:121,000 times, then that would make the capital cost of the rocket

13:17per launch only about $50,000.

13:22There'd be maintenance and other things that would factor

13:24in their fixed costs and some overhead allocation or whatnot.

13:26But it would allow for about 100-fold reduction

13:30in launch costs.

13:32And this is a pretty obvious thing,

13:34think about it as applied to any other mode of transport.

13:37You can imagine that if planes were not reusable, very few people would fly.

13:43You know, 747 is about $300 million.

13:49You'd need two of them for a round trip.

13:52And yet I don't think anyone here has paid half a billion dollars to fly.

13:57And the reason is because those planes can be used tens of thousands of times.

14:02And so all you're really paying for is fuel and pilot costs and, you know, just sort of

14:09incidences.

14:10And the capital cost is relatively small.

14:15So that's why it's such a giant difference.

14:17I thought of another way.

14:18I mentioned that, you know, we could probably afford a quarter of a percent of our GDP

14:25for making life multi-planetary.

14:29That's the cost if you have a fully reusable rocket.

14:31the cost if you don't have a fully reasonable rocket on the same barometer would be 100%

14:37of the GDP. And that would mean no money for food, health care or anything else. And

14:41obviously that's impossible. So that's why I think a fully and rapidly reusable system

14:47is fundamentally required for lack of become multi-planetary for us to establish life on

14:55Mars is the only realistic option for another planet.

15:00Venus being too hot, Mercury being way too hot,

15:05Jupiter being a gas giant.

15:08And the moons of Jupiter are a possibility,

15:11but it's much further out and it's

15:13hotter in a lot of different ways.

15:15And the moon is sort of too small and resource poor

15:20to make life multi-planetary, emphasized,

15:22not just to have a little base.

15:24A little base is not that interesting, but the self-sustaining human civilization is that

15:29that's on multiple planets, that where life could continue even in the event of a climate

15:33you know that is the real thing.

15:37Yeah, so I think this is pretty exciting and I think everyone in America and arguably

15:48and breast the world should be pretty fired up

15:50about what we're doing and hopefully wish us well.

15:56And we'll do our best to succeed in this regard.

15:59And yeah, it's definitely going to be an adventure.

16:09And I'll say one final thing,

16:11which is that sometimes people say,

16:15So what is the business model for Mars?

16:20And sometimes they think, well, can you mind Mars

16:22and bring things back?

16:23And that is not a realistic business model for Mars,

16:26because it's always going to be far cheaper to mind things

16:29on Earth than Mars.

16:32But I do think that there's a business model

16:34where if you can reduce the cost of a flight to Mars,

16:37or moving to Mars, to around the cost

16:41of middle-class home in California, which

16:46just seemed to be rising over time,

16:49maybe not recently, but certainly pretty expensive.

16:52So maybe to around half a million dollars.

16:54Then I think you'd have enough people who would buy a ticket

16:59and move to Mars to be part of creating a new planet

17:02and be part of the founding team of a new civilization.

17:09You don't have to be willing to have quite an appetite

17:17for risk and an adventure.

17:20But there's 7 billion people on Earth now.

17:24There'll be probably 8 billion by the midpoint of the century.

17:28So even if 1 in a million people decided to do that,

17:32that's still 8,000 people.

17:34And I think probably more than 1 in a million people

17:37will decide to do that.

17:37So that's what I think is sort of the Mars business model if you will.

17:41And then ultimately, Mars can probably export intellectual property like software and inventions

17:46and things like that.

17:47If you can sort of beam it back with photons, that's sort of a better way to go.

17:52All right, so I'm happy to answer any questions.

17:56Thank you very much.

18:06Well thank you very much, obviously given the diverse nature of your own interests and

18:11pursuits.

18:12you to stay here as soon as you grab a drink of water, which is required on Earth. If you

18:17went to the moon, that might be more difficult. So we're going to start with the space piece,

18:23and if you'll just stand up here right by my side, and we'll just sort of wing it one by

18:28one. Talk about how you see the practical application of this technology that you just

18:33described, sort of in the near and intermediate term, if it's successful.

18:40Well, in the near term, the technology will be applied to launching satellites and to

18:47resplaying the space station, taking COVID and crew up there.

18:52That's the near term thing and that's what SpaceX's current business is predicated on.

18:57We are doing okay in that regard.

18:58We've got about $3 billion of revenue in a contract.

19:01That's better than okay.

19:03Yeah, that's just $3 billion.

19:04Yeah.

19:05I mean, it's spread out over the next five years.

19:08So it's not all at once, unfortunately.

19:10And we do have to do lots of things to get that money.

19:14But that's not bad.

19:16And so we have been profitable for the last four years,

19:22not hugely profitable, but moderately profitable.

19:24And we expect to be the same this year.

19:29And I think that's somewhat necessary,

19:31because obviously if the amount of money going out

19:34exceeds the amount of money coming in,

19:35then sooner or later we'll die.

19:37So we have to make sure that we have more money coming in than going out.

19:42But that seems to be going with me well.

19:44And you described to me earlier that right now you're the leading, essentially, vendor

19:48for launching satellites into space right now?

19:51Well, if measured by launch contracts awarded, that is correct.

19:58And so the United States has been uncompetitive in the international launch market for a long

20:03time and Russia has actually been the leader in that regard, followed by Europe and then

20:11to a lesser degree India and China, although China is growing rapidly.

20:18And except in the last few years where the United States has done the best and that's

20:23entirely to SpaceX.

20:25So obviously your person very interested in performing in innovation and that's something

20:30that seems the United States does well.

20:33In the space business specifically, how can we maintain that competitive edge and are we

20:39maintaining it in the sector generally within our nation right now?

20:45Well, as far as launch is concerned, I think it's fair to say that the United States has

20:54by far the most competitive launch capability with SpaceX, as a result of SpaceX.

21:00And the only realistic potential competitor is China.

21:04I tell you, it's not the easiest thing competing with national governments, which are heavily

21:11subsidized.

21:12And they certainly have set their sights on us and have told us that.

21:18But that's okay.

21:19I think we'll win.

21:23But we have actually, with respect to China, we have a conscious strategy of filing the

21:27absolute minimum number of patents.

21:28We filed very few patents.

21:30And the rockets, we were very careful about cyber security,

21:32and we're very careful about physical security,

21:37because there's obviously a history of absconding

21:41with intellectual property in China.

21:43And the enforceability of patents

21:45against Chinese government is zero.

21:49So that's a contrast that to Tesla,

21:53where Tesla files a lot of patents,

21:55because competitors are commercial companies,

21:57and there was an impossibility.

22:00So not to worry about launch, we'll take care of that.

22:04Let me come back around a little bit

22:05to maintaining the national standard.

22:08As you know, there's been an active debate in Congress.

22:11We're in Washington about what is the appropriate role

22:15for government.

22:16Of course, there was a different approach

22:18to that in times where cash was more flush.

22:22And it seems to some degree or a great degree,

22:24you're a beneficiary of that in the sense

22:26that we're outsourcing some of this within our own country now.

22:32Is the inability, the apparent inability of the federal government

22:35to spend on this going to be an inherent problem for our country?

22:42Well, would you spend a fair bit on space,

22:44much more than any other country from a government standpoint.

22:48So I think it's what will continue to be the biggest vendor on space

22:53in the United States.

22:54But by the same time, I think the budgets in absolute terms will decrease just because

23:04of overall compression on the federal budget.

23:06And we have a huge budget crisis.

23:10And largely have our head in the sand and ignoring the reality that we're spending far

23:15more than we're bringing in.

23:18And that chicken will come out to roost.

23:24I think we can expect massive compression of all budgets, including space from a government

23:28standpoint, just because we simply don't have any other choice.

23:32Well, I want to get more to the SpaceX piece, but since you just now talked about sort of

23:35the way that you should do business as a government, there's obviously a political issue right

23:40now that's out there about how, what is the appropriate role of government in encouraging

23:45job creation?

23:46You have 1,500 employees at SpaceX.

23:49You're having those jobs in the United States.

23:51I guess you have a launch facility in the Marshall Islands.

23:55Yeah, well, actually our primary launch facility

23:58is Cape Canaveral.

23:59And then we're building a launch site at Vanderbilt

24:02Games Force Base in California.

24:05We're not currently using the Marshall Islands launch site.

24:07We did use it initially.

24:08But the logistics are just too difficult getting out there.

24:11Because it's like water world out there.

24:14It's a trillion miles from anywhere.

24:17So it's convenient in some ways, but then

24:19inconvenient from logistics standpoint.

24:21So our primary role society is Cape Canaveral and then

24:25Bannerburg and then we're also planning on establishing a

24:28commercial launch site which would,

24:31because I think that makes sense because Bannerburg and

24:35the Cape are actually F-force bases and it makes sense to

24:38sort of concentrate F-force and perhaps NASA business on

24:41those two facilities and then concentrate commercial launch

24:44activity at a commercial launch site just as it occurs with

24:47aviation.

24:48So what's your sense, as in the political debate here in Washington, do you have trouble

24:54creating jobs within your company because of the way the federal government is operating

24:58currently or what you envision as the way the policy is managed generally?

25:04Well there are, I should first of all say that, you know, SpaceX would not be where it is

25:12without the help of NASA.

25:14historically the great things that NASA has done and currently with the business that NASA

25:19gives us and the expert advice and everything.

25:23So I should make sure to very strongly credit NASA in this arena in terms of how helpful they've

25:30been.

25:32We do have a bit of a challenge with the Air Force and this is something where I'm sort

25:40of surprise that there's not more journalistic interest because the Air Force is currently

25:44proposing to extend the sole source monopoly of Boeing and Lockheed until 2018.

25:56And the reasoning given for that is preservation of the industrial base.

26:02Although for some reason, I don't know if we're not included in the industrial base.

26:07And this is doubly odd because the main rocket used by Boeing and Lockheed is the Apple Five,

26:12which has a Russian main engine and a center airframe, the interstage and a forward airframe,

26:18the ferry, which made in Switzerland.

26:21So which industrial base are we talking about preserving?

26:24The one in Russia?

26:26That doesn't make much sense.

26:27So you sense that's a political problem?

26:32You know, we have 1% of the loving power of Boeing and Lockheed.

26:38That's a political problem.

26:40If this decision is made as a function of loving power, we are screwed.

26:47I think you just earned a holistic attention.

26:50Well, let's get a little bit more to the space business here, because we do have a lot of

26:54questions and I want to be fair to our audience to get in as many of those questions as time

26:59permits.

27:00Obviously, these are some far-flung questions, literally as well as figuratively.

27:04Someone asks, what will today's announcement, how will today's announcement, divert resources

27:09from sending humans to the International Space Station,

27:12then I would probably add if at all.

27:14No, I wouldn't consider this to be in any way a diversion.

27:17This is a parallel effort.

27:20And so it's not really impacting our sending of cargo

27:24to the space station, nor is it affecting our human space

27:29light development activities that we're doing in partnership

27:31with NASA, which is going really well.

27:35So think of this as sort of a parallel thing.

27:40It doesn't really affect the ascent phase of the vehicle,

27:44but we're really trying to have the descent phase not

27:48be hit sat in a sphere and explodes.

27:52That's actually what happens to all rockets, otherwise.

27:55That's a good goal to keep.

27:57Given the grounding of Russia's rocket fleet,

28:00are you in discussions with NASA to accelerate launch dates

28:02for the International Space Station missions?

28:04And what happens when it happens with your scheduled November launch with the possibility

28:08that the ISS may need to be evacuated?

28:12Yeah, and with the Soyuz fairly that I could recently, it actually likely resulted in a

28:21delay in our launch to the space station because it sort of pushes out the other missions.

28:27And NASA rightly wants to have the appropriate level of astronaut, the right astronauts, and

28:36a number of astronauts with the right training, everything onboard the space station when we

28:39arrive.

28:40So it looks like things will be more like January for the launch of the space station.

28:49And that is contingent upon the Russians meeting the schedule that they're currently stated.

28:56So how do you evaluate the fact that we're using Russia as an important partner in our

29:02space program right now?

29:03How do you feel about that?

29:06What are the risks and what are the benefits?

29:08Well, I think despite the recent failure of the Soyuz, it is actually a good vehicle.

29:13It is a good track record.

29:16I think there may be some concerns going through the future long term with Russia in

29:20that a lot of their expert rocket engineers have retired because it's much more compelling

29:28financially to go into the oil and gas industry in Russia than it is to go into the rocket

29:32industry.

29:36So that expertise is tailing off and I think that may lead to decreased reliability for

29:43four Russian rockets in the future.

29:46Hopefully it doesn't.

29:47Does that give the advantage to China then?

29:50Well, I think long term, like you said,

29:52I think China is the serious competitor long term.

29:59If you look at Russian rocketry,

30:01since the fall of the Soviet Union,

30:02there's really been no significant developments.

30:05The technology has barely progressed.

30:10No new rockets have launched since the fall of the Soviet Union.

30:12So, so obviously what that means is

30:17As soon as that technology levels exceed it,

30:19then they're branded redundant,

30:20and they have no ability to compete.

30:22And I think that's likely what will occur

30:24with the Russian launch industry.

30:26So how much longer do they have,

30:27unless they start doing some serious work

30:29as being a viable space program there?

30:33Five to ten years.

30:34And how soon does that mean that at that point,

30:37China moves in?

30:38I mean, essentially in that space that they're occupying?

30:41I'm quite confident we can take on China.

30:44Yes.

30:44Well, let's get to another question.

30:46I'm a big fan of a conflict, but I'd rather be honest than tryin'.

30:51Well, you're on the record and I think you have a lot of people cheering for you.

30:55So, obviously we'll see what happens. We'll invite you back.

30:58Ha ha ha. Check back.

30:59Exactly. Could be famous last words.

31:02Given the failed progress launch and the risk of trusting the very survival of the International Space Station entirely to soil use for years to come,

31:10there's something of a state of emergency until U.S. crews begin.

31:14Can you fast track development and human rating to result in crude launches beginning in about two years?

31:19And if not, can you speed up the process by any amount? Could you launch in an emergency?

31:25Yeah, well, I think here it's important to clarify

31:30What can the system do that we've done?

31:33The Falcon and Dragon system that we're launching today, what what can it do? If the

31:38The degree of safety required was equivalent to that of the shuttle.

31:43We could actually launch astronauts on the next flight, on the one going up in, which

31:47were likely to go up in January.

31:51The system is fully capable of carrying biological cargo, which is people.

31:58So however, what it doesn't have is a launch escape system.

32:04And this shuttle also does not have a launch escape system.

32:07And both NASA and we agree that a launch escape system is a wise move.

32:12So we are, it will take us about two years, maybe at the outside three to develop and qualify

32:23the launch escape system.

32:26And the way we're doing a launch escape system is, I think, a significant innovation beyond

32:32what's done in the past where the escape thrusters are both into the side wall of the

32:36spacecraft. So you can actually use those same thrusters for

32:41propulsive landing, which is cool. And we're actually talking

32:44with NASA about potentially doing missions to Mars and other

32:50places using Dragon as kind of a general test, a general science

32:56delivery platform to various places in the solar system. So

33:03so that's an important distinction. We could launch

33:05We could launch satellites next flight if requirements seem as shuttle, but for everyone

33:12that's added, the launch escape system, two or three years.

33:17Questioner asks, NASA has a legacy of openness and transparency unlike private companies would.

33:22While you're flying private payloads, a private model will continue to work for you.

33:26However, once the American taxpayer starts footing the bill, I guess the supposition is

33:31here more aggressively.

33:33assurances can you give that SpaceX will be as open and transparent as NASA and other

33:38aerospace systems or need you be?

33:43Well you know relatively speaking a pretty open transparent company.

33:48Now there are some restrictions here which are ITAR restrictions and they're not restrictions

33:52that you know we have any choice of because advanced rocket technologies considered protected

33:58technology so you can do harm with those.

34:02Right, right.

34:03We can't sort of just publish the general public detailed, detailed analysis of failure

34:10investigations that contain secrets on how to make rockets.

34:15That's actually a violation of the law.

34:17But all that information is available to NASA and to the FAA.

34:23So our, you know, for missions that we do for NASA, NASA has quite a detailed oversight

34:28role.

34:29the FAA as well has an oversight role.

34:32So, you know, if you're comfortable flying commercial aircraft,

34:36I mean, you should be pretty comfortable

34:38with what we're doing in commercial rocketry.

34:41And yet with NASA, there's obviously any number

34:44of tragic events that occurred where human life was lost.

34:49And in the sense that, obviously, they're using private companies

34:53as partners, but essentially it was under the NASA and government brand.

34:58essentially flying the American flag.

35:01Can a company like yours sustain a loss like that

35:04as a private enterprise?

35:05Would people be willing to give you as much,

35:07dare I say, space in the event of a tragedy

35:10that they would be their own government?

35:13Yeah, I think that'll be okay.

35:15I mean, if you look at all other modes of transport,

35:19aircraft, boats, cars,

35:24see, familiar with cars,

35:25There's loss of life in every mode of transport.

35:31And if one set a standard that you couldn't have loss of life

35:37and there would be no transport,

35:38you wouldn't even be allowed to walk.

35:41So you have to allow for some amount of risk.

35:47It needs to be reasonable and measured,

35:49but you have to allow for that.

35:52But I don't think that a commercial company,

35:54I think Kumash Company, arguably,

35:56would be better able to deal with that

35:59than a govern entity, because with the government,

36:02then you have the congressional hearings,

36:05and it tends to become sometimes political football.

36:10So Congress has a willingness to investigate private companies

36:12as well.

36:13Oh, sure.

36:13Yeah, yeah.

36:14But I think that certainly occurs

36:17where it seems like there's been sort of in a violation

36:21of the rules or something like that.

36:22but something's within the rules.

36:24I mean, they're obviously they're fatal car accidents

36:25every day, but you don't get a congressional hearing on it.

36:29I'm trying to think.

36:29No, I think you're right.

36:31Let me follow up then.

36:32Someone asked, if you took NASA out of the equation,

36:36in the sense of being responsible or important

36:39for your future business, is there

36:41enough private satellite and other government payload

36:43business to keep you going if, for some reason,

36:45NASA wasn't in the picture?

36:46Or is that a concern at all?

36:50Yeah, well, certainly NASA is our largest customer

36:54and most important customer,

36:55but if you look at our launch manifest,

36:58we have over 30 Falcon 9 missions on the contract.

37:0213 of those are with NASA.

37:06So effectively we've got maybe about 40% of our business

37:10with the government, but then if you consider,

37:13let's say you made pencils, well,

37:16about 40% of your business would be with the government.

37:18So it's not unreasonable number.

37:24Fair enough.

37:25Fair enough.

37:26Here, we're getting to the workforce issue.

37:29Someone writes in the audience today, my son, not me,

37:33is a mission controller at Houston's Johnson Space Center,

37:36which obviously is relevant to the future of your business

37:39as well.

37:40Many of his friends with the shuttle program

37:42have been let go and are interviewing via video

37:45for jobs with your company.

37:48any suggestions on what you're looking for?

37:50Sure.

37:55Well, if you look at the amount of money

37:58that is allocated to commercial space

38:00relative to the overall NASA budget,

38:02you'll see it's a pretty small number.

38:09Sort of last fiscal year, it was about $300 million,

38:12but that was split over four companies.

38:14So we got about 75, I think, or something like that.

38:17So that's, I guess, about half a percent of the NASA budget.

38:24So it's important to bear in mind that we'd love to hire a lot more people

38:28that are currently hired, but we can't also run out of money and die.

38:32So we can only hire a few people.

38:35In terms of what characteristics we look for,

38:38we generally are quite engineering centric.

38:42So we're big fans of what have people done

38:46from a hardcore engineering standpoint.

38:53Yeah, what tough engineering problems have they solved,

38:55how they solve them?

38:58And we're sort of less interested

39:01if it's sort of been a more of a paper oriented role

39:05that they've had, because we try to minimize that

39:08at SpaceX.

39:08So are you more demanding an employer than NASA would have been?

39:14Well, that's a tough question to answer.

39:18Give it a shot.

39:20I think we're probably more demanding.

39:24I mean, I guess NASA's a large organization.

39:26So I think the level of demand that people face

39:31in different parts of NASA varies considerably.

39:35And I'm sure that there are parts of NASA

39:36where we're just demanding, maybe more demanding than SpaceX.

39:40But SpaceX is an extremely demanding organization

39:44and we expect people to work super hard

39:46and be very good at their job.

39:50Given the Tesla and Solar City,

39:52are your response in a sense,

39:54among other things, to climate change,

39:55how do you answer politicians who say

39:58that they're not sure it's actually happening?

40:01Okay, well, I think, you know,

40:06I think the climate debate is an interesting one.

40:12So if you ask any scientist, are you sure that human activity

40:21is causing global warming?

40:23Any scientist should say no, because you cannot be sure.

40:29So on the other hand, if you said,

40:31do you think we should put an arbitrary number of trillions

40:36of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere

40:39and just keep doing it until something bad happens,

40:41they'll probably say no too.

40:44We essentially are running an experiment

40:46and that experiment is to test the carbon capacity

40:49of the oceans in atmosphere.

40:51Now that experiment may turn out to be fine.

40:55It may also turn out to be really bad.

40:59And I just don't understand why we'd run that experiment.

41:03Particularly when you consider that at some point we have to get to something that is sustainable.

41:10We have to have sustainable production of energy and consumption of energy because

41:15tautologically if it's unsustainable you will run out of it.

41:18And you can simply say, well, let's say hypothetically CO2 was good for the environment.

41:27And let's say hypothetically, the United States possessed all the oil in the world.

41:34Well you'd still have to get off oil because it's a finite resource.

41:37And as you start to run out of it, the scarcity would drive the cost up and cause economic

41:40collapse.

41:42So why not do it sooner?

41:44And I'm not saying that it needs to be a radical or immediate change, although people need

41:52to now inject a great deal of misery into their lives,

41:55to avoid CO2.

41:58But we should lean in that direction.

42:02We should lean in the direction of supporting technologies

42:06that are sustainable and lean slightly against technologies

42:10that are unsustainable.

42:13That just seems pretty sensible, even if the environment

42:17isn't a factor.

42:20And in fact, my interest in electric vehicles predates

42:23the current climate issue.

42:25I mean, I was interested in electric vehicles

42:2720 years ago where nobody was really

42:28talking about global warming, because I just

42:31thought it was the obvious means of transport.

42:37But I do think the climate thing does add urgency to things.

42:41And I do think we will see quite a significant increase

42:45in the cost of oil.

42:48Just from a demographic standpoint,

42:49You've got China and India and a few other countries that represent almost half the world's

42:54population and have very few cars in the road, but are rapidly adding costs to the road.

42:58So you can expect a doubling of demand and I think it's going to be difficult to achieve

43:05a doubling of supply.

43:07Have you changed anything in the wake of the federal cylinder investigation and do you

43:12have any concerns about an inquiry into government loans and contracts?

43:15Tesla's DOE loan application stand up under such scrutiny.

43:20Yeah, I mean, so in the case of Slender, you know, Slender's obviously become somewhat

43:32of a political football here, speaking of footballs earlier.

43:38The DOE programs, they're necessarily our portfolio of programs where some number of

43:45of the things that have funded there are going to fail.

43:48That should be assumed.

43:51It should not assume that 100% success.

43:55And in the case of Slendra, people

43:57forget that private investors lost twice as much

44:00as the government did.

44:02And there was some really first rate venture capitalists

44:06in Slendra.

44:07It's known as though these were suckers.

44:10So if you've got first rate venture capitalists who've lost

44:14twice as much money as a federal government, you have to say, okay, you know, I mean, it

44:19was a bet. The bet didn't work, but that doesn't mean it's, you know, it's something some really

44:26terrible happened. I mean, the most you could say is that Slender executives were too optimistic.

44:33You know, they presented a better face to the situation than should have been presented

44:39in the final few months.

44:41But then if they didn't do that, it would have become a self-fulfilling prophecy of, you

44:47know, as soon as the CEO says, I'm not sure whether we'll survive, you're dead.

44:53So, you know, I think people are making too much of the cylinder thing.

44:59And I mean, and do I think the parallels with Tesla?

45:02I mean, we got a loan from the DOE from a different program, I should point out.

45:07But in our case, we have significant capital reserves, and we have more money at Tesla

45:15than we need to complete the program in question.

45:18And we don't face the same issue that Slindra faced, which is extreme competition from China

45:25on a commodity product that drove the cost per watt of solar panels from $4 a watt down

45:31to $1.

45:33That's the fundamental reason why Slender went down, is Slender would have been, okay,

45:39at $2 a watt, but not one.

45:42And that's it.

45:44And here's the other thing, which is not getting a fresh, which is how much money do

45:49you think the Chinese government's putting into solar?

45:53Estimates are about $40 billion, okay?

45:56So we've got our team with operating on a pittance.

46:00You got China operating on 40 billion and our team lost.

46:05That should be no surprise.

46:07Do you worry that that's tarnished?

46:09The view of the American public of the solar industry

46:12in the United States?

46:15There's probably a little bit of tarnish,

46:16but it's unwarranted tarnish.

46:25It's a solar city.

46:26Now, the scenario that occurred with the cost

46:31for what if Solar was something that I thought I expected would occur.

46:35So somebody had asked me, do you think Solar is the best

46:36but I would have said, no, you're going to get your ass kicked.

46:40But so Solar City works on balance system,

46:43where they do everything except the panel.

46:48And they own the end customer relationship.

46:49They kind of like Dell or Apple.

46:52Dell or Apple don't make the CPU or the memory or the hard drives,

46:55but they design the overall system,

46:56and they provide it to customers through the sales marketing

46:59service and that's what SolarCity did. SolarCity is doing super well and they're growing at 50-100%

47:09a year with positive cash flow which is pretty incredible. I just showed with warm meetings

47:19he had good news, it's really great. We're all credit to those guys. For them the more

47:26And for them, the more rapacious the competition on solar panels, the better.

47:31It helps you.

47:32Yeah.

47:33Well, if you wouldn't mind, we'll do some finishing business here.

47:37So if I can just step up there for a second, then we'll get a couple more questions in

47:40if you'll just stand by.

47:42So as many of you know, we're almost out of time.

47:45And before asking the last question of the day, a couple of housekeeping matters to take

47:49care of.

47:50And first among those is just reminding you about some immediately upcoming luncheons.

47:54Burns, the document, Terrian, filmmaker will be here on Monday to talk about his new film

48:00Prohibition on October 5th. Ron Paul, candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. That's

48:07the 5th of October and that event is sold out. We just announced October 24th, TMZ's Harvey

48:13Levin will talk about the changing landscape and entertainment news. So before I get to

48:17the last question, if you'll just come right over here, we present our speakers on a routine

48:22basis with our token of our appreciation and thank you very much our National Festival

48:28of Coffee Mug. Thank you. Thank you, Elon. So we'll see if we have time for more than

48:38one question here at the end, but these are on the lighter side, as many of you know in

48:42the audience. Let me ask you first of all, what's the one great idea that you've seen

48:47from somebody else and as the slogan goes, I could have had a V8. Why didn't I think

48:51of that? There's probably been more than one, but which of those loom largest in your mind?

48:56and please stand up to the microphone.

48:58A great idea that you saw someone else had,

49:01and you wished you had had it yourself,

49:03or expressed that idea.

49:04Well, there's lots of great ideas

49:08that people come up with all the time.

49:11I don't necessarily wish I'd had them myself,

49:12but certainly what Larry and Sergey came up with,

49:19with Google was really smart,

49:21with the backward links to pages.

49:26Obviously, what Facebook has done, Twitter,

49:28I mean, there are great examples in the internet.

49:32And yeah, those are American companies.

49:37Yeah, I've had, obviously, iPhone.

49:42I think Apple, Google, Facebook, I mean,

49:44these are the examples where it's like, you're sort of like,

49:48who's there a competition?

49:49You're not even sure.

49:50OK.

49:51How is it that America is able to innovate so well given all the challenges when we have

50:00great companies like that performing so well?

50:05In many ways the nation continues to be a great innovator.

50:09How do you explain that?

50:11How does that continue to happen?

50:12Why is that?

50:14Well, it's kind of like the statement about democracy.

50:19It's a bad system, but it's the least bad.

50:23Well, the United States is the least bad at encouraging

50:25innovation.

50:26And then Silicon Valley, actually, I'd say is particularly

50:31good at encouraging innovation.

50:34But Silicon Valley is just orders of magnitude better

50:39than any other place in the world for creating new

50:42companies and fostering innovations.

50:44It's quite remarkable.

50:47So I don't think we need initially to worry about

50:49some other country out there out innovating us.

50:52I don't think we've been purized,

50:53like almost all innovation in the world comes from America.

50:56It's like, yeah, it's true.

50:58I mean, a ridiculous percentage.

51:03But that doesn't mean it couldn't be better.

51:05And I think we need to be concerned about,

51:07excess regulation,

51:12a tax structure that potentially doesn't promote

51:16innovation.

51:17Because you think to remember is like when companies

51:19are little, they're like tadpoles.

51:21I mean, they just die very easily.

51:25And so you need to have an environment which

51:27tries to protect little companies and help them get bigger.

51:31And Silicon Valley does that very well in America.

51:35In general, does that very well relative to other countries?

51:39But most other countries tend to foster and protect,

51:42or other where they tend to protect the big companies.

51:44Big companies don't need protection.

51:46Very well, please.

51:47How about a round of applause for our guest speaker today?

51:49Thank you to all of you for coming today.

52:00We'd like to thank the National Press Club staff, including our Library and Broadcast Center,

52:04for organizing today's event.

52:06And you can find more information about the National Press Club on our website.

52:09You can get a copy of the program.

52:11Please check that out at www.press.org.

52:14Thank you, and we're adjourned.

52:22It was great meeting you.

52:23It was great meeting you.

52:24Absolutely.

52:25Thanks so much.

52:26.

52:31.

52:34.

52:37.

52:40.

52:43.

52:46.

52:49.

52:52.