back to article SpaceX 'raises' an extra 100 million bucks to get His Muskiness to Mars

SpaceX has amended an US Securities and Exchange Commission filing from August to reveal it raised cash by selling off about a hundred-million bucks more in equity and stock than previously disclosed. Elon Musk's Mars project last raised about $350m in July from selling off equity and stock. The new filing adds about $100m …

  1. wolfetone Silver badge

    Musk will be on Mars before Tesla pump out the promised numbers of the Model 3.

    1. DougS Silver badge

      Come now, it won't take them until 2040 to be able to make that many model 3s in a year.

  2. Donkey Molestor X

    Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

    Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

    Seriously, putting "scare quotes" around "completed"?

    The ghost of Lewis Page is going to greet you tonight and hit you in your dick and balls with a ball-peen hammer!

    1. pip25
      Thumb Down

      Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

      Also, "SpaceX rockets have an unfortunate tendency to crash and burn"? Seriously...? It's perfectly fine if someone at El Reg is skeptical about SpaceX, but please stick to the facts at least.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

        A quick google tells me 94% success*. If so, I'd rather say that they have a 'fortunate tendency to make it into orbit'.

        *Usual caveats apply to that stat btw, both Benjamin Disraeli and Homer Simpson.

        1. Brangdon

          Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

          I think it's a bit over 95% now - 2 losses in 49 flights - which is about average for the industry.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

            which is about average for the industry.

            And for the first few launches of a new design is very good for the industry

          2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

            Long way to go until it gets comparable to the village bus which is chasing the 2000 launch mark with >97% success rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(rocket_family).

            Compared to that record any other rocket family, launcher or safety record is in the "whipper-snapper" range.

            1. Scroticus Canis
              Unhappy

              Re: Soyuz ... safety record... have to laugh!

              Yesterdays total loss of a multi-satellite launch says its still not that good.

              According to the article I saw it was a human error when a retro-thruster was fired, de-orbiting the payload, from a preliminary orbit rather than the main thruster to send it into a higher orbit.

              The amusing bit is that the head of the Russian space program had declared the launch a success before it suddenly wasn't.

              Well the main stage did work so you may still have a point Mr V.

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

              "Long way to go until it gets comparable to the village bus which is chasing the 2000 launch mark with >97% success rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(rocket_family)."

              On the other hand, how many of those "village buses" did multiple round trips? :-)

            3. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

              "Long way to go until it gets comparable to the village bus "

              On the other hand, many other russian/soviet designs haven't been as successful. *ahem*N1*ahem*

              The reason the russians keep coming back to Soyuz is because whenever they try anything else, it breaks - and quite frankly the village bus might be good enough to get babushka and her family to market, but it's a bit wheezy even then and not big enough to move the local football team and their hangers-on there, let alone onwards to where they really want to go - the pitch in the next town to play the neighbouring village team.

            4. phuzz Silver badge

              Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

              Soyuz the rocket might have thousands of launches, but Soyuz the manned spacecraft has only just outpaced the Shuttle(139 flights vs 135), and consequently hasn't moved as many people (yet).

          3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            Unhappy

            "I think it's a bit over 95% now - 2 losses in 49 flights "

            Not really. Ariane 5 has managed 80 launches in a row (which is what counts) without going bang and that's fully expendable.

            Atlas V (also expendable) > 60 launches.

            F9 so far has managed 15 since its last bang.

            Reusable should make for better reliability.

            The trouble is that so far it has not.

            1. rh587 Bronze badge

              Re: "I think it's a bit over 95% now - 2 losses in 49 flights "

              The trouble is that so far it has not.

              What you talkin about? They haven't lost a single "flight-proven" launch yet. The in-flight failure and the pre-flight test fire were both on new cores.

          4. Robert Heffernan

            Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

            "I think it's a bit over 95% now - 2 losses in 49 flights - which is about average for the industry."

            Currently stands at 95.92%. The next successful launch will bring it to a nice neat 96.00%

            1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
              Unhappy

              "Currently stands at 95.92%. "

              <1 in 80 (for Ariane 5) is better than 98.75% success.

              < 1 in 60 (Atlas V) is 98.333% success.

              Obviously it should get better if the launch rate keeps up.

      2. rh587 Bronze badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

        Also, "SpaceX rockets have an unfortunate tendency to crash and burn"? Seriously...? It's perfectly fine if someone at El Reg is skeptical about SpaceX, but please stick to the facts at least.

        That comment doesn't appear in the article I'm reading, though there is this comment:

        "Some SpaceX rockets have an unfortunate penchant for explosion – including the infamous Falcon 9."

        Don't know when F9 became "infamous". It's reliability is ~95% which puts it on a par with Ariane 5.

        It appears someone at El Reg is editing live articles without addendum, which frankly is very disappointing. They did the same with a previous SpaceX hatchet job which was changed after a couple of hours (reference to "madman Elon Musk" changed to "madtech fan Elon Musk" or something along those lines) and a bunch of comments calling out the factual inaccuracies and general hyperbole were deleted/rejected.

        A bit of cynicism from the Musk KoolAid is fine, but someone at Vulture Central seems to have it in for Musk...

    2. xperroni
      Windows

      Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

      I miss Lewis, shame he and the Reg had to part ways.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

        'I miss Lewis...'

        Not here. But then I had a couple of 'run ins' with him. Not a chap that liked to be disagreed with, and an itchy finger over the 'rejected' button when you did. Lester on the other hand, god yes, frequently missed. That was the 'golden age' of El Reg.

    3. Craig McGill 1

      Re: Andrew Silver, this is article is low effort trolling.

      Agree. I'm all for media cynicism and hype bursting but most of this article was just an unbalanced dig.

  3. xperroni
    Paris Hilton

    Peanuts, really

    Remember when Microsoft bought Skype for $8 billion?

    If a couple hundred million dollars is all SpaceX needs to send humans to Mars, they're doing it on a pretty tight budget.

    Paris because I have no idea how they're going to deliver, either.

    1. Simon Harris Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Peanuts, really

      For $100 million Musk is actually only building a donkey sized Mars capsule.

      He wants to be the first person to get his ass to Mars.

  4. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Please keep going

    as long as you make sure that Trump, Putin, May and Kim Jong are all on the first flight.

    1. Elmer Phud Silver badge

      Re: Please keep going

      Presumably with the telephone sanitisers and estate agents

    2. quxinot

      Re: Please keep going

      >as long as you make sure that Trump, Putin, May and Kim Jong are all on the first flight.

      Screw it, aim for the sun.

  5. FIA

    SpaceX rockets have an unfortunate tendency to crash and burn

    No, they really don't.

    SpaceX has had some accidents (it is rocket science after all), however they're up to something like 16 launches this year, including 3 re-using previously flown first stage boosters.

    They may over promise on delivery dates, but as the company with the most launches in a single year to imply a high failure rate is disingenuous at the least.

    1. Vulch

      And if everything goes smoothly we'll see four more boosters re-flying in the very near future with CRS-13, Iridium and the side boosters of the Heavy.

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        One of the pre-conditions for heavy was completing of repairs to SLC-40. CRS-13 will launch from SLC-40 on the 4th. The most recent progress report on changes to LC-39A for Falcon Heavy pre-dates Zuma. Unless someone can find something more recent, heavy gets carted out and fuelled up this month, a static fire of all engines at once about the middle of next month and a demonstration launch at the end of the year.

        1. Vulch

          CRS-13 has been pushed back to the 8th now, Iridium is on course for the 22nd/23rd from Vandenberg so the fairings problem looks like it is being managed. Zuma is likely to take precedence as a paying customer over the Heavy though so we'll probably not see the Heavy launch this year. https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      but as the company with the most launches in a single year

      Err. THIS year. Not single year.

      Single year record is Soyuz with > 60 in 1981 or 82 if memory serves me right.

      Musk, despite his valiant efforts is nowhere near.

      Credit where credit due - he has finally achieved return of first stage to earth, he has achieved reuse and several other holy grails. He is still however, nowhere near Soyuz or Ariana Space in terms of the sheer number of launches they handle. He also holds the record for this particular year.

      His record for this year, however, is still at 3+ time less flights per year than the venerable village bus.

  6. TRT Silver badge

    Did he get a message from himself?

    Can we hammer tracking beacons up his nose?

  7. FIA

    But go easy – getting to the Moon was no walk in the park. As Musk would likely say, reaching Mars is way harder. ®

    Writing a negatively toned article then telling yourself to go easy seems.... odd....

    Just to put their achievement into perspective, whilst finding the numbers for flights this year, I came across the following quote: "[Greg Autry, an assistant professor of entrepreneurship at the University of Southern California] said insurers no longer are charging a premium on SpaceX's reuse launches, which the company has performed three of in 2017."

    Before March this year no-one had re-flown a first stage booster.

    Now the one company that has inspires enough confidence that the people who'll pay if it goes bang don't charge a premium.

    1. Not also known as SC

      Not criticising your comment, but is "(a) professor of entrepreneurship" a real thing? Universities actually teach how to be an 'entrepreneur'?

      1. ArrZarr Silver badge
        Happy

        Lets be fair, if anybody deserves to be called a professor of entrepreneurship, it's Musk.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          if anybody deserves to be called a professor of entrepreneurship, it's Musk.

          Aren't entrepreneurs supposed to make money?

          1. wayne 8

            Not in the New economy. Cash burn is where it's at.

          2. rh587 Bronze badge

            Aren't entrepreneurs supposed to make money?

            Are you saying his share from PayPal isn't enough for you?

      2. AndyS

        Re: Universities actually teach how to be an 'entrepreneur'?

        Yes. And it physically hurts when, as an engineering student, you have to sit through those lectures, trying not to let the buzzword bingo drill small holes through your skull to let your brain leak out. Surrounded by enthusiastic 1st year social "science" students, who are getting awarded twice the number of credits for exactly the same course.

        For some reason, though, the University of Glasgow though that was a good idea 15 years ago. Maybe buzzwords still sounded exciting back then?

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      As Musk would likely say, reaching Mars is way harder.

      It is downhill

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "As Musk would likely say, reaching Mars is way harder.

        It is downhill"

        Only insomuch as you have to climb this side of the hill first so as to be able to coast down the other side afterwards. And FWIW, over all it's up hill to Mars since the "hill" from Earth is about three times higher than the "descent" to Mars. It's the equivalent of climbing a 1000' cliff from sea level to then go on a gentle downhill slope to your destination at 660' above sea level.

      2. Mark 85 Silver badge

        As Musk would likely say, reaching Mars is way harder.

        It is downhill

        True but you have to get uphill first.

        Edit: Rats... John Brown beat me to it by a few minutes.

  8. Palpy
    Pint

    I guess, yeah, His Muskiness is kinda --

    -- "optimistic" and "enthusiastic" about some things.

    But I gotta love a guy that has his company release a Youtube of their own failures. A sense of humor makes life better.

    Then again, he makes the quickest production electric car available to the public. The Models S P85D broke Consumer Report's rating system, scoring 103 out of 100. And his rockets work, mostly, and put cool stuff into orbit.

    Maybe succeeding at some spectacular things makes a guy kind of optimistic and enthusiastic. Good on 'im.

    1. #define INFINITY -1 Bronze badge

      Re: I guess, yeah, His Muskiness is kinda --

      As above, not to knock the comment otherwise - but how do you break a rating system like that?

      1. Palpy

        Re: Consumer Reports scale --

        -- A quick Google does not reveal t he details of the scoring system. A deeper one probably would. Here's what CR wrote:

        "In rating it, however, we faced a quandary: The Tesla initially scored 103 in the Consumer Reports‘ Ratings system, which by definition doesn’t go past 100. The car set a new benchmark, so we had to make changes to our scoring to account for it. Those changes didn’t affect the scores of other cars."

        FWIW.

    2. inmypjs Silver badge

      Re: I guess, yeah, His Muskiness is kinda --

      "The Models S P85D broke Consumer Report's rating system"

      And the Model X made it into consumer reports' list of "10 least reliable cars".

      https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability/10-least-reliable-cars/

      1. Robert Heffernan

        Re: I guess, yeah, His Muskiness is kinda --

        "And the Model X made it into consumer reports' list of '10 least reliable cars'."

        Looking at that list, honestly I would prefer the Model X to any of the other cars trouble in that list.

        Paint and trim can be easily fixed and does not cause a physical safety issue that could possibly kill you.

        The climate system is an annoyance, but you could just roll down the window if you need some air. Admittedly it's a PITA if you live in the arctic tundra and the heater doesn't work but again, it's not going to explode sending shards of drive shaft or transmission into the cabin.

        Body Hardware is very broad. Things like Side Mirrors, hinges, etc, again all annoyances but still not enough to cause a life threatening situation.

        Disclaimer: I used to work for an Automotive transmission manufacturer and personally machined many types of components designated as Critical Safety Items, meaning components that if they failed could possibly result in loss-of-life.

        1. annodomini2

          Re: I guess, yeah, His Muskiness is kinda --

          If you took a Model X to the Arctic, getting it to go anywhere could be a struggle.

          Batteries do not like it too cold.

  9. GettinSadda

    Sheesh!

    "SpaceX rockets have an unfortunate tendency to crash and burn"?

    Really?

    Lets's see..

    Russian Proton-M has launched 102 with 9 failures and 1 partial failure - for a reliability rate of 90.2%

    European Ariane 5 has launched 95 with 2 failures and 2 partial failures - for a reliability of 97.8%

    Falcon 9 Full-Trust has launches 24 with 1 pre-launch failure (so 25 rockets) - for a reliability of 96%

    Falcon 9 all versions have launched 44 with 1 failure, 1 partial failure and 1 pre-launch failure, so 93.3%

    Looks like pretty standard sort of ball-park for the big players!

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Sheesh!

      "Looks like pretty standard sort of ball-park for the big players!"

      Maybe the author was alluding to the number which "crashed and burned" in the early landing attempts, some of which were "landed" at sea just see if they could make it stop at sea level, with nothing solid to actually land on, A fair number did "crash and burn" during those early stages and probably more will, but those crashes are after the successful launch and deployment of the payload.

  10. Jellied Eel Silver badge

    Gerroff mah rock!

    I still have the Mars 'finger' image as my desktop. The more images that come back from Mars, the less certain I am of it becoming a possible tourist destination.

    But although I'm not a fan of Musk's green stuff.. Someone needs to get us off this rock. Even if it's to ruthlessly exploit other planets/planetoids. People moan about resource depletion and running out of space.. Yet we've barely exploited one small part of our Solar System. Having 'won' the space race, the US seems to have given up on manned spaceflight in favour of navel gazing and bombing small defenceless countries. I'm sure NASA would love to do it, but they're not getting the money. So if Musk or Bezos want to have a go, let them.

    Anyway.. As any KSP owner knows, getting to Mars is easy*. Surviving & thriving there, or getting back is a tad trickier. Which is also a NASA issue, ie their stubborn insistence on getting crews back safely. So other Mars proposals have suggested lobbing useful components at Mars, and once there's a suitable pile of bits, send colonists to assemble it. So basic staples of SF or colony sim games, but needs the money & vision to turn that into reality.

  11. Milton Silver badge

    "unfortunate penchant for explosion"

    "Some SpaceX rockets have an unfortunate penchant for explosion – including the infamous Falcon 9."

    42 successful missions for the Falcon 9 family, and two failures: one during climb, one which blew up before launch.

    For space launches, only two failures out of 44 is pretty good.

    But whatever the grown-up facts of the matter, we have have the childish "penchant for explosion" and "infamous Falcon 9", don't we?

    So much to like about El Reg, except these (thankfully quite rare) moments of editorially juvenile silliness—oh, and about half the supposedly funny but, in truth, adolescent-humour headline writing.

    A tip for the Reg: I don't think your readership are all late-developing spotty nerds any more. They grew up about 20 years ago. You might give it a try?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019