Going to Mars: Talking Head Vs Rocket Builder
Neil deGrasse Tyson Doesn’t Think Elon Musk’s SpaceX Will Put People On Mars, Business Insider
“Renowned astrophysicist and StarTalk Radio host Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn’t think a private enterprise, such as SpaceX, could ever lead a space frontier. “It’s not possible. Space is dangerous. It’s expensive. There are unquantified risks,” Neil deGrasse Tyson tells us. “Combine all of those under one umbrella; you cannot establish a free market capitalization of that enterprise.”
Keith’s note: Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist who does TV shows and runs a planetarium. Elon Musk is a billionaire who builds rockets that fly into space. Neil deGrasse Tyson goes out of his way to talk about how you can’t do things. Musk just goes out and does those things. deGrasse Tyson is afraid to take the risks that go with exploration. Musk takes the risks.
My money is on Musk.
Not if Musk is running it ….
This is why space x is privately held. He doesn’t answer to share holders looking to the next quarter.
I love NDT, he’s a great science educator and evangelist. But I think he is wrong here, to some extent. But not completely. The issue is more subtle than that.
I would also note that most of space x business is from the government at this time, you know, that thing Keith thinks space X does not need to go to mars. They cannot even go to orbit without federal contracts, as that’s where the money is.
Additionally Musk has stated that any effort would be a private/ public endeavor and has repeatedly noted that space x would not be where they are without NASA work.
ymmv…etc…
Let’s talk again in January. If they can get even 2 out of the 5 launches scheduled for next year, you may be on to something. If they can’t manage more than one launch between now and January, I think it is game over for their vision. Expect costs to go up, and innovation to stifle. Unfortunately their flight rate to date, doesn’t give me a lot of confidence.
I admire SpaceX for what they have accomplished. The U.S. certainly needed a new vehicle and a new way of working in aerospace. However, they have yet to prove that their business model is sustainable.
Why do they continue to gain new paying customers?
You can sign all the contracts you want, but until you successfully deliver on those contracts, they’re just promissory notes. And until he can deliver on those contracts, at the prices agreed upon up front, and show business profitability, his business case is unproven. He may be cash flow positive now, but still in a financial well. Only time will tell whether is business model ever pulls him out of that well.
You are apparently one of those people who simply does not want SpaceX to succeed – and there will never be enough success to satisfy you.
I’ll agree with Rocky, time will tell.
Space-X looks like it’s on a good path, so far. Whether that path will succeed– yet to be proven. Time will tell.
Keith – One minor point, do not confuse not believing they will succeed with not wanting them to succeed. I really want SpaceX to succeed (I’ve been waiting for the $1000/kg launch costs for a long time). I’m not sure they will.
Yes, they continue to get new contracts, and given their price point, if you don’t have an urgency to launch, you’d have to be a fool not to launch with them. But the truth is they have yet to deliver on any of those commercial contracts. Zero. I know that SES-8, Thaicom-6, and at least 10 ORBCOMMS are sitting in bags “on the shelf” at their respective factories. For now those customers habe been OK with the wait. They understood the risk of a new vehicle when they signed up.
Will the same patience hold true for Asiasat, and Mexsat, and the USAF, etc? As Rocky said, time will tell. If they can meet some of those comitments over the 6-12 months, then they likely will be succesful (maybe not quite at the price point they have advertised). But that requires going from a launch rate of 1 every 10 months to 10 every year. That is a pretty tall order.
what did the fourth launch of the Falcon 1 have on it as a payload?
Mass simulator. Only fifth (and last) launch of F1 was both successful and had paying customer.
Wrong again Keith. I do hope SpaceX is successful. Competition is never a bad thing and ULA needs a viable competitor. What I don’t yet buy into is that they will be vastly lower cost than ULA or any other launch service provider. Initial contracts at hugely discounted rates is a tried and true method of gaining market share but is unsustainable.
Actually as soon as a contract is signed it turns into an accounts receivable and SpaceX immediatly starts getting payments on the rocket so that by the time it is built it is mostly paid for.
I would say that one important reason why they continue to get more business is the simple fact that, unlike some of the people who post on blogs, the people who buy services of this kind know from experience that you can’t tightly predict schedules for either cutting-edge technology or complex engineering development programs. Things simply do not progress in exact accordance with the dates on a schedule prepared before the fact. And what’s more, things always take longer, by the calendar, than originally estimated; it’s never faster than you expected.
People on both sides of an aerospace contract know this well and make allowances and plans accordingly. It’s not like building houses or paving roads where delays past the contract date(s) automatically invoke penalty clauses. It is more important to get the job done right than to get it done fast because there is so much at risk. One reason that NASA has such a bad track record on schedules (on paper) is that almost every program and project they are involved in includes developing new technologies and/or materials, and predicting the time required to complete their development is only best guess based on previous similar experience.
What a load of horse-squeeze. I have been involved with LV contracts. When you sign a contract with ULA, the launch window is defined and manifested. Their production schedule is highly predictable and accurate. The only cause for launch delay is either weather, failure of the payload to arrive at the launch site on time, or DoD kicks you down in the queue if your launch date is flexible (i.e. GEO launch versus NASA deep space launch where launch windows are uniquely defined by the mission design).
Rocky,
You’re absolutely right, of course, when you’re talking about launches where both the LV and the payload are proven performers with a track record. However, and please correct me if I’m wrong, the launches that SpaceX is behind on don’t fall into that category. Hardware is still in the development stage, which makes for a different set of expectations.
In my post I said, “you can’t tightly predict schedules for either cutting-edge technology or complex engineering development programs“, which I stick by. When you contract with ULA for a launch, it’s a proven, finished LV and what you’re buying is processing. Those who signed up for the late SpaceX launches knew they were getting in line for a LV still in development, but they chose to go that route for their own reasons, and price is not an unreasonable assumption. If launch date is not critical, or at least less critical than price, then keeping your place in line makes sense.
I have not, myself, seen either one, but I’d be willing to bet that the ULA contracts you’re referring to and the SpaceX contacts that I’m referring to read very differently.
Got to disagree with you on this one. First, I both post on this blog AND are intimately involved in the industry. I’m quite familiar with contracts. Most GEO satellite contracts actually DO have penalty clauses. Sometimes on the order of $10,000/day. Commercial launch contracts with Ariane are quite the same. You’ll note Ariane has even offered to “step in” if Falcon keeps getting delayed.
Some GEO operators are incredibly schedule sensitive. I’ve seen GEO contracts executed in as little as 20 months from signing to launch.
Yes, the customers who signed up with SpaceX to be on some of their first commercial flights understand that delays are likely to happen in the first few flights of a vehicle, and have taken this into account in their contract. The fundamental question is how long can these customers work before THEIR business plan no longer works. How much margin for delay did they bake in? We don’t know.
I used archive.org to check the SpaceX manifest in July 2011. Cassiope was supposed to launch in 2011. SES-8 was listed for 2013. So for now the 3-4 month delay for SES-8 has not been critical. If it stretches to 10-12 months, we’ll have to see what happens. I stand by my statement, if SpaceX can get two Falcon 9s off the ground before the end of the year, they may be OK. If they only manage to launch the Cassiope launch then I grow increasingly concerned that they will never achieve the flight rate they are looking for.
Spaceman,
I don’t think we’re disagreeing on anything. The SpaceX launches, at time of contract signing, involved hardware still in development, unlike Ariane and others (see my response to RockyMtnSpace), so the contract content surely reflects this. I would be very surprised if these customers didn’t have a drop dead date in their planning after which they would go with an alternative LV and launch services company.
As for getting two F9s aloft before the end of the year, it sounds to me like a reasonable metric, but I don’t know if it will happen, since 1) SpaceX has got to be running low on cash right now, which will make them less likely to take chances; and 2) in the past SpaceX appears to have worried more about getting it right than getting up sooner, and they also appear to test more functions / components on each flight than NASA or the other aerospace companies typically do. If they can get away with continuing to work this way I suspect they will.
Arnie was the Terminator, Elon is the Disruptor. The “impossible” is relatively routine for him. If Dr. Neal is talking old school cost plus contract ‘Apollo’ style business model then he’s right. Those guys would never risk their own skin to explore unless the Taxpayer was footing the bill. This is the main reason SpaceX is still a private company, Colonizing Mars is too risky a proposition for conservative boards of directors and nervous investors.
CEOs who want to live on Mars is an entirely different, new and unique situation.
There’s a history of ‘it can’t be done’ statements, plenty of them look silly in retrospective, this will be one of them.
My money is on Musk.
If SpaceX is serious about putting folks on Mars and returning them safely, they need to start working on (or at least discussing) the space medicine research needed to support such a mission. And that’s just to mitigate risks for the things we know about – massive radiation exposure, loss of skeletal mass, loss of muscle mass, loss of vision, etc.
No reason to suspect it isn’t doable, but you need to be way more than just a rocket company to make it work. Unless scientific/engineering ethics are tossed to the side, and folks decide to do the one-way donner party approach I guess.
So when is NASA going to be “serious about putting folks on Mars”? Today, we have Mars One and Inspiration Mars setting out their stall and getting public feed back – regardless of it being “doable”. Space advocates want Tyson as NASA administrator already, but at least Musk is putting a large chunk of his own money where his mouth is.
“and returning them safely”?
As Musk said, “I would like to die on Mars, just not on impact.”
I think that is a different way of thinking than what NASA could contemplate. Even looking at settlers and explorers 150 years ago, or 500 years ago — they were willing to take far greater risks, often on one way voyages.
Don’t forget, while Magellan’s expedition completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth, Magellan himself did not survive.
This obviously involves human nature, then and now, which is something I find too complex and variable to make absolute statements about. But one thing that occurs to me is that what our explorers have at home now to return to is far more desirable a life than what explorers of the past had, even adjusted relative to the times. Past explorers were, more often than not, looking for a new and better place, either to live or to do business (trade).
What I find amazing is that so many of the explorers of the past actually went back home again instead of living in the new, unspoiled lands that they often discovered. I’m guessing that the ratio of men to women was a major factor.
By contrast, what our explorers who will go to the Moon and Mars find when they get there, while exciting and interesting, can’t begin to compare to what they’ll have waiting for them back on Earth. So, I tend to place less emphasis on risk and more on incentive. But eventually there will be those who do stay and they will begin to build, which will slowly swing the incentive in the opposite direction, especially as Earth continues to become more crowded and polluted, and offers less wealth to the average person. But it will take considerable time because we’ve, on average, become quite used to our comforts and our wealth.
“SpaceX is young, it can make a lot of claims. Once it grows up with the bottom line under ya, and share holders arounding ya, it’ll end up like Lockheed , Boeing, Orbital….”
First, this statement misses the point that beyond claims, Space-X has flown multiple spacecraft in orbit. It would be one thing if they were making claims that they had not proven. But as the world has seen they are making claims that they are following through with.
Actually, I think Boeing is giving a great example for comparison. For ISS operations and sustaining engineering, as for Shuttle before, both overseen by NASA, Boeing is sucking money from NASA at as high a cost and rate as possible. Afterall, the Boeing shareholders and management are making money off of every dollar they charge the US taxpayer. And yet, at the same time, Boeing is able to develop its CST commercial crew capsule on the cheap for only tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, just as Dragon and Space-X is doing, By comparison, of course, the NASA overseen Lockheed Orion is costing the US taxpayer tens of billions.
For some reason, Boeing’s CST and Space-X’s Dragon are both on schedules that will see them fly with crew well before the NASA/Lockheed Orion, despite the lower costs of the first two and the high cost of the last. And despite the fact that both Dragon and CST got a later start than Orion. And despite the fact that Orion is being manufactured using Apollo design techniques and materials (fifty year old technology) and CST is being manufactured with modern techniques and materials. I am not sure about Dragon since Space-X has nto publicized some of their processes.
Some important differences: Boeing’s workforce was very experienced at the outset. Space-X’s workforce had essentially no experience at the outset. So experience is not the critical factor.
My experience with NASA is that NASA can work quickly and can produce quality given clear plans, requirements and capable management. You do have to go back quite a few years to find these examples. So I think I have a good idea why NASA cannot seem to get the job done and why they waste the resources they’ve been given.
Space-X and Boeing have both demonstrated that they are capable and can get the job done, and I have no doubt they could send people to Mars if they chose and they could do at it far less a cost and on far more expedited a schedule.
Tyson has been irking people for a couple years now that NASA needs its budget doubled. But if NASA cannot seem to get anything done with its existing billions of dollars (by comparison with the Boeing’s or Space-X’s) then why does Tyson think a sudden doubling of the NASA budget is going to produce anything better or faster?
What separates CCDev and the Orion program isn’t so much the company behind the construction and R&D of these programs, it’s the manner in which these programs are contracted out. Milestone contracting such as with COTS and CCDev has proven to be a much better way of going about purchasing services and products as it actually involves competition (which drives cost lower).
Absolutely right. Cost-plus has shown itself to be a terribly costly way to do business–costly for NASA.
NASA’s own “Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle NAFCOM Cost Estimates,” August 2011 (page 5) shows that under the normal, cost-plus way of doing business the estimated price to develop the Falcon 9 booster could have been as high as $3.977 Billion. SpaceX did it for $443 Million, according to the NASA report.
I don’t think there is much doubt that SLS, Orion, and JWST (all cost-plus, FAR programs mandated by Congress) could be procured much more cheaply under fixed-price contracts. I doubt that one even needs the SpaceX business model to generate significant savings.
Boeing’s said 6.5 billion, Lockheed Martin was 6 billion and SpaceX was 2.5 billion for heavy lift.
Congress looked at those prices .. shook there heads in disbelief and said .. NASA can do this a lot better and it will only cost 30 billion … *give or take about 20 billion* Booz Allen said … well it really doesn’t matter… The porkonauts want three engineers to turn every bolt in their district.
There is one place where only cost-plus contract is possible. Bleeding-edge tech, where it is impossible to predict, how it will finally cost, because it was never done and is extremely hard.
All three examples fits, especially JWST.
Of course, usefulness of those are completely different matter.
I concur.
And as for doubling NASA’s budget, not unless the added funds go to reorganization favoring technology over administration. There’s good technical talent at NASA, and it could do great things if it could slip the twin boat anchors of bureaucracy and Congress.
Musk has already said .. several times.. he is not going to take SpaceX public until he reaches Mars. Just for the reasons you cite. He wants to drive profits into a direction not condusive to shareholder returns.
Ad Hom is lame. If NdT is wrong, it’s because his reasoning or arguments are wrong. It’s not because he does TV shows.
How about NDT is wrong because he doesn’t remember the history of the exploration and colonization of the new world and not because he does TV shows.
Some of this historical colonization was done by government, some was done by private organizations and some was done by small groups of individuals looking for either a new start or to escape persecution.
I wonder if Edward Snowdon would consider taking a one way trip to Mars after his one year visit to Russia winds down?
Except that in this case Tyson is not making a fact based argument, he is just giving his opinions based on historical examples, Columbus etc. When someone makes an argument and supports it with facts then people normally will (and should) focus just on the facts of the argument. However when someone states mostly opinions then the qualifications of the person giving the opinion come into play.
Musk has a different opinion about what can be accomplished in BEO exploration through private enterprise. Several years ago almost no one listened to his opinions, however as he continues to rack up accomplishments that were previously considered by many to be impossible, his opinions are being taken more seriously. Musk’s opinions are coming from someone who is knee deep in the real world of manufacturing and innovation (and dealing with the government). Tyson’s opinions are coming from someone who is more academic. That doesn’t make Tyson wrong, and it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t listen to what he has to say, but it doesn’t really qualify him to make statements like (quote) “Will not ever”, “They can’t”, “It’s not possible”.
Good general point about Ad Hominems.
If Tyson wants to make an appeal based solely on his experience, then that experience needs to be relevant and greater than that of his opponent…..and that is where Tyson has over-extended himself.
Musk wins hands down.
Actually I don’t think he was basing it on his experience, he was basing it on his observations of the general problems of space travel and his knowledge of history. His viewpoints are valid, but when it comes to predicting what is possible in a particular field of discipline then experience becomes important also, which of course Musk has more of in this case. However Musk may not be as well-read in history as Tyson is, I don’t know. History usually repeats itself but not always. That’s why I think that Tyson was more into opinion than into fact.
Yes. I like history. The Wrights compared to Langley – that kind of history.
I think Zubrin makes a reasonable argument why NdT is wrong, namely in that we have already answered a lot of the unknowns, no seriously original technology is needed, and the remaining risks are reasonably manageable for those willing to take risks to achieve great things.
NdT seems to say private industry can only follow in NASA’s footsteps, such as providing menial tasks like delivering cargo. As Grasshopper shows, Musk is much more ambitious.
Zubrin is notorious for downplaying difficulties in things he likes, and exaggerating difficulties in things he doesn’t. I have trouble taking anything he says seriously, particularly when it comes to Mars.
Agreed. Wishful thinking, in this case, is not too far removed from suicide. Being willing to accept risks is one thing; turning a blind eye and pretending that the risks don’t exist is quite another.
When you’re half way to Mars and your skin shows running sores and your lungs are working at about 10% of normal it’ll be a little late to say, maybe I understated the danger.
Now you are one exaggerating. Sores? Lungs? Why not second head while we are at it?
After all, any designer of Mars-bound ship will be idiot not taking in account radiation environment in deep space, right?
Agreed, a designer doing that would be an idiot. The point is that there are currently no solutions to the problem, no matter how good the designer is. The symptoms of radiation exposure that would almost certainly occur if someone went today are not pretty, but they are painful and deadly. And yet, there are still a lot of people saying that it’s not a problem and we should send people to Mars now. This is outright denial, often by people who know better, which is the sign of a fanatic, not a scientist. Unfortunately, I am not exaggerating at all.
To the point then.
There are three types of problems in going to Mars: Technical, psychological, and financial.
The government can in theory put together the most amount of money, fastest. In practice however, they’re too busy in-fighting and taking care of special interests to actually make it happen.
From a technical point of view, Musk can put together experts as well as NASA. He can be more focuses, again, because he doesn’t have political agendas.
Psychologically, nobody better than a small group of visionaries for this task.
I wonder sometimes about another aspect of Elon and what people worry about when it comes to the way he does things. Say the man gets the job done and gets to Mars.. once he gets there, whom does he represent? The USA, the World, or just himself and his company?
Just because SpaceX is currently launching from US soil doesn’t mean he represents us or has to paint USA on the side of his booster or capsule. I think that has a lot of people worrying behind the lines — not being able to share in the credit and gain national pride brownie points for getting there, even though they are part of the overall problem of getting there.
If the US doesn’t start to rethink it’s way of doing things (or worse, comes up with new ways of trying to hold him back), we’ll soon see him developing a pad out in the middle of the Pacific were no one can regulate him (unless they send warships). Elon has bent over triple to play with us so far (although he has gotten tax dollars in doing so).. but there has to be a limit to that patience.
We were the innovators 50 years ago.. why are we now the ones holding the innovators back? It’s like “Risk is our business” doesn’t apply anymore.
btw, this is not USA bashing.. just an expression of frustration
I wore an American flag on my jacket when I went on expeditions to Devon Island. Why can’t Musk put one on his rocket to Mars?
Good for you! I’m not saying he “Can’t”, but rather that he has the choice of doing so or not. The fact that he has that choice worries those who want the US to have some (or some who want the US to have all) of the credit for such a magnificent feat.
Unfortunately, those who worry tend to (but not always) put up roadblocks thinking they will get their way or stop him from moving forward. The rub I see is that those moves will not stop someone like Mr. Musk for long, and could leave the US with nothing to do with being first to Mars.
Ugly politics and petty interests behind the scenes. They have much more influence than they should.
Listening to Musk speak, it seems he is more concerned with getting the human species out there than planting a national flag.
There would seem to be no mandate that Musk wave the US flag, and in fact, doing business here can be tiresome in many ways–I’m sure we all remember Congressional penny-pinching and the massive lobbying efforts against SpaceX, COTS, etc., mounted by the old-line aerospace industry.
I am just happy that, so far, despite the frustrations, the advantages of doing business here seem to outweigh those of moving elsewhere. Congress, in particular, needs to remember that ideas and leadership are portable and fungible, and that people like Musk are rare. We are just lucky he didn’t take his money and his team to Brazil or back to South Africa.
So, it is easy to carp about what Musk hasn’t done yet, or about why his goals are unrealistic, but unless I am mistaken, the nay-saying isn’t coming from other billionaires who have repeatedly launched mass into LEO. If such billionaires are present, they should identify themselves and gain some credibility.
“it seems he is more concerned with getting the human species out there than planting a national flag“
And for this I think we should be grateful. It reminds me of what happened following Apollo 11. When the astronauts were on their whirlwind tour after coming back to Earth, they found that everywhere they went — in every country — people would smile and say, “we did it!” And the “we” they meant was mankind, all people, humans, not Americans, or Americans and their allies, but the people of Earth. The sentiment certainly didn’t last for ever, but the significance of the event seemed to make people everywhere automatically think in terms of the human race instead of national boundaries. If human missions to the Moon and Mars can recapture and perpetuate that attitude then it will be worth every penny that was ever spent on space.
Show me the money! Elon is a billionaire because he created companies for which there was a market (including SpaceX, though its business case is yet to be proven). I’ve yet to see a financially sound reason to go to Mars.
– Resources? Nope. Easier, cheaper, and more abundant on the moon and asteroids.
– Land ownership? Nope. See item about resources.
– Science? Nope. Plenty of good science to be done on Mars, but who ever made a fortune from pure science?
– Colonies? Nope. Beyond the feel good “expanding humankind”, why would you build them? Throughout history colonies have been built primarily for one thing – financial gain. See item about resources.
– Manufacturing? Nope. Any true need for extra-terrestrial manufacturing likely requires 0g, not a surface base.
– Exploration? Nope. No financial return without one of the above.
In short, SpaceX may get to Mars because a government pays them to go there in the search for scientific advancement. They will never get there because they can make money out of it.
Musk is the one who is a billionaire – not you or I. Given that he is a billionaire I suspect he knows something about how to become a billionaire. If he wants to spend his money going to Mars who are we to stop him?
Hey, I agree. I certainly don’t want to stop him! In fact, as a long time space advocate I really want him to succeed. I just haven’s seen a valid *financial* argument for going to Mars. He very well may choose to do it for grander purposes – and that is great. This is one time where I would be happy to be proven wrong. But in the meanwhile, I won’t be investing in this arena 🙂
Most things are about the money, granted — but not necesarily everything and everybody. Musk is not the only data point to judge by. Take the case Paul Allen. What he’s invested in Scaled Composites and Stratolaunch Systems will probably far exceed any monetary return he’ll see from that investment within his remaining lifetime (strictly assumption on my part).
It may very well be that Elon/SpaceX get to Mars because they are not interested in monetary return. More power to them! And certainly a key reason for keeping the company private.
Tourism!
I can think of quite a few billionaires who would throw 100’s of millions of dollars at the chance to go to Mars. Of course, as things currently stand I don’t think the trip is enviable even to them (years in a capsule eating paste and freeze dried food with no gravity). All it takes is a few technologies to make it feasible (VASMIR combined with an MLSR anyone?)
Land ownership .. nope? lol that is laughable .. the moon is a 9 billion acre asset just wating to go on the books. The value of mine is determined by how much is still in the ground and cost of extraction. you can take thee most inaccessable place on the planet .. if there is oil, natural gas, platinum metals group, etc .. that land has value… a million acres of luna would have value … hell people are willing to buy millions of acres of paper from Dennis hope, who has been selling the moon for over 20 years…
to say land has no value … is …. just wrong. Ask bigelow if he wouldn’t mind owning shakleton crater and could he make a buck with it.
“An expert is someone who can tell you exactly how it can’t be done.” – Peter Diamandis (Rule #21)
Actually, knowing how something can’t be done is extremely useful. It allows you to focus on how it can be done.
To my knowledge a practical technique to land people on the surface of Mars and return them to Mars orbit has not yet been defined.
I think that depends on how you define practical.
The way your statement is worded suggests that the problem you’re pointing to is going from Mars orbit down to Mars surface and going from Mars surface back up to Mars orbit. If so, there are at least three ways to do it that we know how to do, assuming we’re talking about people and a reasonable amount of cargo, as opposed to lifting many tons of cargo off of Mars.
1) Zubrin’s ISRU Mars Direct mission.
2) Integrated descent/ascent vehicle like Apollo.
3) Fuel depots delivered from LEO to Mars orbit and Mars surface.
If a manned mission has been on the surface long enough to do serious construction, then each of the above can be supplemented by the use of a rail gun with an acceleration rate tolerable by humans (you trade longer acceleration time for lower acceleration rate).
There is also Robert Forward’s tether method; the math is all worked out and independently reviewed, but no actual trials have ever been done. The tether would be much more viable at Mars than on Earth.
So, we can’t say it’s impossible, but it has yet to be proven.
Dr. deGrasse-Tyson grew up in an age when government was achieving great things, so it doesn’t surprise me that he would be of the view that only government can achieve our goals in space.
That might have worked a few decades ago, but several decades of leadership from the generations currently ensconced in power has left this country an economic and industrial basket case. Money that we are spending now is coming from the pockets of two and three (if not more) generations yet to come. The current economic/financial/corporatist philosophy is one of value extraction, not value creation, and in that kind of environment it is hard to see where huge amounts of money poured into government programs, as Dr. deGrasse-Tyson proposes, is anything other than an exercise in value-extraction from the taxpayer. The younger generations are getting really tired of being saddled with the burden of that value-extraction.
I don’t hold it against Dr. deGrasse-Tyson that he doesn’t understand the profundity of how screwed up things are right now. Most folks don’t, and the explanations require more thought applied to understanding than most people are willing to offer up. The ignorance may even be willful on the part of many, because the knowledge is horrible. Still, he should recognize that he is working at cross-purposes to others who are trying to achieve similar space goals, and that is not good for the space community at large, as it reinforces the perception in the minds of the general public that the space community is a bunch of space cadets who can’t get their act together.
I have a great deal of respect for NdT, but here I am of the opinion that he is mistaken. A couple of quick NdT anecdotes:
From the public Moon, Mars & Beyond hearing in NYC many years ago, I remember the look of pride on the face of NdT’s father in the audience as he looked up at his son on the stage sitting on a Presidential Panel. A “Look at what my son has achieved” kind of expression. Still swells my heart.
When NdT spoke at the UT Arlington Maverick Speakers series a few years ago I was staffing the NSS space display table in the lobby. During slow periods I would sneak into the back of the auditorium to listen. At one point NdT noted how the younger generations (Xers and Millenials) hadn’t been cultivated into the science and engineering fields, but rather had all been encouraged to go be investment bankers and financiers. And in the back of the auditorium my hand shot up, I started jumping up and down, and mouthing to myself “Me! Me! He’s talking about me!” NdT recognizes the problems, but it may take younger voices to set us on the road to the solutions.
Younger voices that still aren’t being cultivated.
[Edit: Corrected for honorific]
It’s “Dr.” Tyson.
As long as Congress is the real deciding factor, and includes House Science Committee members who say that “science comes from the pit of hell,” you will see NASA committed to things like the Senatorial Launch System, Orion, and the JWST–all three of which are expected to cost far more than they are worth. Indeed, the first two may be used rarely, if at all, despite their high price tags.
Congress has different goals than an unconstrained NASA would have, and true human space flight is way down their list of priorities, far below campaign contributions and money for their districts.
I see a lot of quiet desire among the public for a credible human-space-flight program, and much disgust for Congressional maneuvering.
Congress is out of sync with the people, on space and on many other issues; it may be, as Jimmy Carter says, that we no longer have a functioning democracy.
Elon Musk can inspire and lead a consortium that sends the first colonists to Mars. He cannot do it alone. SpaceX may go public (IPO) which would constrain his ambitions to spend company funds on a mission to colonize or even just visit; such a large investment that could not be recouped. He does not have the necessary technology. A consortium is needed not just Musk’s SpaceX. One technology that is likely needed is Ion Propulsion. What has happened to Ad Astra and the VASIMIR? Who is in the lead with ion propulsion technology? Glenn (chosen for the proposed Asteroid Initiative, ARRM), JPL, Ad Astra, other? No one speaks of Ad Astra and its technology. (KC, give us an update, shed light on who’s who and what ion propulsion is favored and why). Is this because of politics, personalities or is it the technology itself? One could send to Mars all the materials and people via conventional chemical propulsion. The bigger question is whether ion propulsion and its power source (nuclear, solar being not enough for such large payloads) will be cost effective and ready soon enough to replace chemical propulsion. Surely, a colony will be established first without people – just robotic. A stable self-sustaining living environment will be established first. Unmanned payloads to Mars can take a slow road but the bottom line will be whether Nuclear-Ion Propulsion will be cost effective to replace Chemical. For the manned flight (the colonists), the same holds. Chemical propulsion such as the large rockets SpaceX is building might just remain more cost effective than nuclear-ion for decades. The benefits of reducing the travel time to Mars for colonists from 320 days to 60 or 90 days may not counter the cost (development & maturity) of nuclear-ion propulsion. With or without Ion Propulsion, Elon Musk and SpaceX cannot get to Mars on their own. The bottom line cost is partly the propulsion which is the realm of SpaceX but there will be a large cost in developing the habitat which SpaceX is no expert (tin cans to ISS excluded). Elon can keep talking but what he needs to do is lay out a concept and design, one that specifies the technologies that are needed. This is the additional substance needed to “I want to go to Mars and die there”. Once Musk and SpaceX defines the design of the mission to colonize Mars, entrepreneurs, enthusiasts around the World will have a real focus and the building blocks will come together.
Defining a design does not create the resources. With current technology the cost is unaffordable for governments, let alone tourists.
No it does not but it is difficult to impossible to receive sufficient backing without details. This is the design, these are the subsystems, this is how we will solve this problem – can you provide support?
Just another government funded bureaucrat. This is not to say that all government bureaucrat is bad – it is not. However, if we relied on their expert opinions we would be in a very bad place.
What we are witnessing is something called creative destruction. It is very efficient and very ruthless. Creative destruction does not discriminate. It is an equal opportunity offender.
The bureaucracy is delaying Creative Destruction. However, it cannot stop it.
Thank you for posting this Keith, I will be sure to bookmark this and tweet it to Neil when Elon drops in on Mars… or maybe when JWST finally launches 10 years behind schedule and at least $8 billion over budget.
That’s not fair to Tyson, who is a big supporter of spaceflight including manned spaceflight (he was behind the whole “double NASA’s funding” thing).
It’s entirely reasonable to question the willingness of private enterprise to put people on Mars. Where’s the market? Who are the buyers? Who is providing the funding? It’s not to fault Musk, who has done some impressive stuff, but worth remembering that Musk is actually doing stuff where there is a market of sorts: commercial space launch and launches on contract for NASA.
A big supporter of a big government solutlon that just doesn’t need it and is actually what is hindering space exploration.
Big government is the one paying for Musk’s dream, through the commercial crew contract. Manned space exploration in general without big government is a pipe dream at this point.
Wrong .. as usual. The United States federal government has ordered one of it’s agencies to purchase a product and service from the private sector that does not exist. Now, do you understand that or do I need to do a flow chart?
Now maybe it’s different on the planet you come from but here on earth, you ask a company to sell you something they currently do not manufacture.. YOU are going to be paying for it’s development.
Not only did the agency want a new product and service, but they also wanted it done to THEIR standards. Now for this agency, to GUARANTEE they get the product built THEIR way they paid for each one of them in the form of a milestone. Each milestone was paid for with the manufacturers own dime .. once that milestone was completed to the buyer’s specitication they got were REIMBURSED for the completion of that milestone.
It is the “big government’s dream” to have domestically supplied human access to LEO for crew and cargo. It is a product and service that does not exist.
Now maybe on your planet companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the hopes it is something the governement MIGHT buy.
Here on earth if our Government wants a privately owned company to build them something that does exist, the government pays for it.
I’m sure there’s a response to my point in there, but I’m not seeing it. The key is that the federal government is the one ultimately paying for all this, even if it’s reimbursement – without that, Musk loses his company’s main hope for profitability.
The Federal government is the one wanting the product…. who do you suggest should pay for it? Walmart?
Wrong again .. SpaceX has more commercial flights on their manifest than government ones. Even without NASA or DOD spacex has billions in backorders.
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
– Arthur C. Clarke
When was the last time humans ventured beyond LEO, 1972?
NASA and Musk can talk all they want about going to Mars, but until they do it’s just that — a lot of talk.
Uncertainty, that is really the problem isn’t it. Mr. Musk can spend his money on anything that he wants, and I say bravo to him for doing so. I don’t see any conceivable way that he can make a profit on it. Aviation has always been problematic at best for making profit. I’ve made a lot of money in the market, none of it in anything to do with aviation. The graveyard of aviation is littered with the bones of men with good intentions.
I think we also need to consider whether we want the entire future of space exploration for America to be resting on the shoulders of any one man or group of men. Because alas, men are mortal things. One of the major strengths that Space X has is that he can point it in one direction and shove off, without debate, without obstructionism, without the constant sniping of people that don’t like his ideas. He’s limited only by his money supply, his talent for picking talent, and of course luck. That however is also his weakness, his dream survives only as long as he does, and may or may not survive his mortality. All of you commercial space fans should ponder this. What would happen to all this dynamism you’re talking about if his coronary arteries aren’t so good, or he were to develop a tumor (a.k.a. Stephen Jobs). I developed cancer at 40 years of age, I sure you change the arc of my life and my priorities.
This is an endeavor we need to be in for the long haul. I understand the problems in dealing with politicians, how many posts have I made here complaining about difficulties on both sides of the political aisle. But we all need to work diligently through our networks to explain and promote broader understanding of the need for consistent, adequate, funding for space exploration and technology development. We need to be in this for the long haul.
The same is true for all the other “entrepreneurs” working out there in the hinterlands to become Buck Rogers, and not all of them have his deep, deep pockets. We won’t even talk for the time being on the numerous scientific and technical challenges which need to be overcome to safely transport human beings to and from Mars. Currently, private enterprise can’t get them to and from the space station, much less the Moon. And nobody, much less Mr. Musk, has yet figured out a way to make a significant profit on these enterprises. That is unless you have a cost-plus contract given by the only customer that can really keep you afloat, Uncle Sam.
Tourists, billionaire tourists as our major source of funding? I think you’ll find that that’s an extremely small cohort. It’s like trying to find super rich vacationers, to spend $100 million to go to a zoo, where 20% of the time the lions eat you! I think you’ll find there are very few takers, and they’re certainly not a sustainable source of income for profit. And what happens to your funding stream if you lose a few of the beautiful people, with grieving relatives, and hungry lawyers?
Dr. Tyson is correct about his history of exploration and discovery. Governments are instituted among men to do the very large things for which there is no immediate payoff. Even a thickheaded Republican like myself understands that. Sustainable government appropriations on the order of 1-2% of federal spending on space exploration and technology development of for the next 50 to 100 years will serve the people of our country well by “providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and preserving blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” I think I read that somewhere before. We all need to work together to convince our elected representatives of that. If they don’t believe in science, we need to work as hard as we can to put them back in the private sector they love. It’s too important.
Not to take away from any of your well-thought-out points, but I don’t think the issue is whether Musk will live long enough to get one of his spacecraft onto Mars, or how much profit he or anyone else can make by being pioneers in this effort.
His stated goal is to bring down the cost of space travel. He believes that the status quo method of developing space systems will continue to result in costs that are way too high and inefficiencies that are far too great, and that there are much better ways to do things, which he is proving out through demonstration. It is still early enough in the process for skeptics to doubt whether he will pull it off (I am not referring to you). But if he does, even just in the LEO arena, it will be a real game changer affecting not only commercial but also government run space ventures beyond Earth orbit. As Wayne Hale recently said to a Senate committee, quoting Robert Heinlein, “When you are in Earth orbit you are halfway to anywhere in the universe.”
If Musk lives long enough, and is successful enough, he may also be able to develop lost cost technologies for BEO missions, which could conceivably be the tipping point for mounting a successful mission to Mars, either by Musk or by someone else or by the U.S. or by an international partnership. The fact is that what Musk is doing right now is leading in this arena more than the government is, and unless the government gets its act together it is conceivable that Musk, or some other privately funded enterprise could get to Mars before a government led mission, because they figured out how to lower the costs to do so. This is what Neil deGrasse Tyson says is impossible and will never happen.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of your points, Just that America’s future in space exploration should not be riding on the shoulders of one man or group of men. I hope he can figure out a way to make a modest profit out of transporting supplies and personnel to LEO. I’m only saying that he has yet to do it, and because it’s not a publicly traded company we don’t have access to the books.
As for going to Mars, the scope of the project is so big, the potential technical and environmental difficulties to be overcome so poorly characterized, that we will most likely have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in technology assessment for reliability before the first piece of flight hardware is built. A 10 day trip to the Moon took the combined efforts of 500,000 people… Space X is going to need a lot of ID badges.
“I’ve made a lot of money in the market, none of it in anything to do with aviation.”
Was it Donald Douglas that said something like to make a million dollars in aviation you need to spend $100 million?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson seems to be the sane voice in this case. He is not talking no nonsense. In the current conditions is really hard to go to Mars in a successful mission.
Keith, As others have noted, you are attacking the person (Tyson) and not his arguments. An immature approach. Tell us your thoughts on his arguments.
Tyson does not have any background running large space exploration corporations. Musk does. Tyson does not have millions – billions at his disposal. Musk does. Tyson said what he said and it is simply wrong. As for “immature”, isn’t calling someone “immature” acting immature?
If Neil is talking about possibilities in the near and not so near future he is 100% correct (only wish upon a star arm chair rocket scientist space cadets think it is possible in the near future). However if he is talking about a century or so from now then he is likely to be wrong, because Governments would have hopefully accomplished the mission to Mars and significantly reduced the risk for entrepreneur/showman like Musk, Bigelow to come along and devise more bare bones approaches that integrate and refine the systems and technologies the Governments would have developed over many decades.
Let’s see… do I manufacture and own my rockets? check
Do I manufacture and own my own capsules? Check
do I have access to billions of dollars? Check
ah ..I think you are wrong there Dr. Tyson.
Elon Musk and SpaceX have done some amazing things over the last decade. Development of a medium lift LV including its engines and development a large spacecraft with the thermal protection system enabling the capability of the spacecraft to safely re-enter and return payload from LEO come to mind. The fact that this was done with an unprecedented ratio of private to public dollars (there has been some public AF and NASA $ in there) gives SpaceX a lot of credibility. They are certainly an entity of which America can be very proud
However, in terms of people to Mars, a little number crunching might be in order. The most recent thing to land on Mars is MSL which comes in at 900 kg. To get there, that took among over things a ~$250M Atlas 541 launch vehicle. Let’s, in SpaceX’s favor, assume that the rest of the cost of getting MSL safely on Mars (cost of the cruise stage, the heat shield, and the sky crane, etc.) was comparable at $250M and let’s also in SpaceX’s favor round MSL up to 1000kg. That puts the cost of putting hardware on Mars at an estimate of $500K/kg. Let’s also assume that it is a one-way trip but that you would like to live for a while once you get to Mars. That implies living off the land – so you would need a shelter, a terrarium to grow food, a power plant to power everything, and enough machines to extract/manufacture the fuel and oxygen needed from the CO2, soil, and H20 at Mars. You would also need enough consumables to tide you over until things got up and running. Let’s put that mass for a crew of say four at 50000 kg. That puts the total mission cost at $25B. This is also probably going to require a further $10B-$20B to develop the live of the land technology as the TRL on those technologies is not very high right now.
I know Elon is a billionaire but I don’t think he is in the Warren Buffet/Bill Gates league and my estimate is about at the level of net worth of these gentleman. Now maybe SpaceX innovation and economies of scale can bring the $500K/kg rate way down and maybe my 50000 kg swag is way to big (especially if they opt to replace the live of the land mass with the mass to enable a return to Earth after a short stay on Mars surface). However, NASA estimates of the cost of a manned Mars program typically come in at the $500B range; so, my $50B ROM, at an order of magnitude lower, must be making some aggressive assumptions.
So at $50B, I wouldn’t say it would be impossible for SpaceX/Musk, as Dr. deGrasse-Tyson has stated. He could take advantage of outside investors/donations, public support, and possibly significant future wealth generation from his businesses (Telsas seem to be selling well). But given the seemingly enormous financial resources needed, I would call it a very long shot.
Forrest Lumpkin
I agree. The problem is not simply cost, but the source of the funds. musk has been quite successful competing for commercial launches and may be able to reduce the cost of human flight to LEO to a level that will permit a viable tourist market. But Mars is much more expensive and viable commercial market would require major cost reductions.
I’d be interested to see how much Musk would charge to build a sample return mission to Mars. I’m sure it would start out cheaper than other companies. Perhaps he should put that out like he’s done with the transportation system and have him actually build it. An unmanned mission would be simpler than a manned mission and we wouldn’t have to wait decades to see if he can do what he actually says regarding Mars.
The “Red Dragon” idea was unmanned. A standard Mars entry platform for science missions. Fixed specifications, fixed cost, launched on an FH, just supply the science equipment.
Deleted my comment
If any criticism of SpaceX or Elon Musk gets such sharp
response, maybe this website should be renamed to MuskWatch.
The issue I have with SpaceX is that people are led to believe that they will get humans beyond LEO.
They won’t.
Neither old space nor new space are going to get us anywhere
with their current business model.
Old space can’t because of the many reasons listed in this or
other threads on this website. Too expensive, to lethargic too much dead weight.
SpaceX won’t get us there either. SpaceX is burning bright right
now because they are new and exciting and put on a great PR campaign. However pull the curtain aside and you see that not everything is fine and dandy. 60hr work weeks should be an exception not an expectation. If your business model relies
on getting 150% work for 100% pay to keep the bottom line positive there will be a rude awakening at the end. People who sleep at their desks and in the parking lot will make mistakes. This is an unforgiving business. And yes these are facts that I learned from colleagues that have worked at SpaceX and also from employer reviews that can be looked up online.
And if we look closely at the past few launches things have been
everything but smooth. The failure of one of the engines during launch last year was apparently due to material flaws introduced during processing.http://http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs….
So why do I care? Because someone who makes commitments based on a flawed business model will make it harder to compete for other emerging companies that don’t squeeze their workforce dry.
A hybrid of the two business models would be ideal, don’t ask me
how to create that though, I am an engineer not an entrepreneur. And in my opinion you can be either or not both.
I am sure I will get chastised for criticizing SpaceX and not
using my real name. I work in the business and don’t need any attention. Since this is a blog and I am expressing my opinion my name should not really matter.
From an engineering view, his current line of products have been based on existing designs (Falcon 1, 9, ISS re-supply). He has had success with his new grasshopper tests, but that is only beginning. We’ll have to see how further testing of that and the abort testing of his crewed capsule.
The big test is when they launch repeatedly and regularly, how his quality control is. As you mentioned, working long hours is OK for short efforts, but in the long run can spell disaster as things get overlooked.
I am a strong proponent of commercial space but I was not bothered by Tyson’s comments. Quite key to remember is that Musk himself said he expects it would take a public-private partnership to get to Mars. And NASA’s commercial space program has been very successful at getting both launchers and spacecraft at a fraction of the usual fully government financed cost by paying only part of the cost with the companies paying the rest.
Also, it is important to remember that in Tyson’s example of Columbus, that actually the crown only financed half the cost, the rest coming from private sources. The imprimatur of the crown being willing to put up such a large amount quite likely helped Columbus raise the rest of the amount he needed from private sources.
This example also raises another possibility. I don’t know if this happened in the Columbus case, but it’s possible the crown insured the private investors against loss for the money they put up. This would be a useful idea to follow here as well.
I think it is an extremely important fact that the cost to government, i.e., to NASA, was cut by 90%(!) by following the cost-sharing approach of commercial space. Undoubtedly this was because the companies involved had to figure out how to do things in an economical way when a large portion of their own money was being risked.
But to encourage the companies to help pay for very risky missions to the Moon, Mars, or the asteroids the government could insure their financing against loss. This would still be beneficial to the government because from the example of NASA’s commercial space program the total cost would still be 1/10th that of what they would have paid if it were a fully government financed mission.
Bob Clark
“As with any company, once it knows it have the government’s balls, greed will set in, price will rise. Lesson from over privatizing the military prob should not be ignored.“
Agreed, but neither, I think, should this be assumed to be absolute.
We’ve already seen Musk “break the rules” and deviate from standard expectations more than once. A few others. like Paul Allen, have done the same.
I suspect that if someone’s dreams are more important to them than their income (because they don’t have personal money worries), then they may not follow the typical path. As long as Musk can retain his sole proprietorship of SpaceX, I think he will, and I think SpaceX will be the tool with which he builds on his dreams. The only thing that I can foresee swaying him from that path is if, for any reason, he can’t remain faithful to the people who have been faithful to him (and SpaceX). In short, he would only relinquish control if it was necessary to the welfare of the company’s employees. That may sound altruistic, but I think he’s inclined that way; he respects his people.
If for any reason Musk had to give up control of SpaceX, I suspect he’d simply sell it off and start another company to carry on with. And I also suspect that a lot of the SpaceX people, unless contractually restrained, would follow him to the new company. It may be cliché, but I never underestimate the power of dreams.
Which is why SpaceX and Bigelow could easily take the trip/colonization of Mars in steps. I.e. Moon -> Phobos -> Mars. Build up the material sciences, engineering, and flight experience before taking the plunge. Besides other projects of the first two steps that would be available.
Musk is going to Mars as the rich Musk not as the business man Musk. In the human space flight BEO there is no money to win with. Sending people to Mars will cost 50b$ and you have to get 60b$ out that anybody infests the 50b$. Exploration is not yielding money in a time frame necessary for a company either. Launching rockets with satellites and sending people to the ISS might yield a profit because there are customers. Where is the person spending 2.5b$ for an Venus explorer? Only the large space organisations have this money,
If you find 5 rich people who want to be named in a row with Gargarin and Armstrong and will spent 50b$ you have a manned Mars mission with 5 astronauts. This is not a private business doing the job but rich people.
Musk has SpaceX as a business but to think of the Mars mission as part of the business seems hard to imagine, but it might be merchandising or the test if NASA is paying the bill.
Let’s have a race, like we did with the Human genome project. My money is on NASA, but I may be biased. Private enterprise is great for building things that are well specified and-or can be patented. It has never shown much interest in R&D or a broader/longer view of the bottom line, except in rare cases like Bell Laboratories. But a race may produce the fastest progress, in any case.
Folks:
Neil deGrasse Tyson isn’t the only ‘mouthpiece’ to dis Elon Musk:
http://soundcloud.com/john-…
What is it with these guys? Jealous of Musk’s fame with so little effort maybe?
Admittedly, Elon Musk does have an ‘I don’t care what others think’ attitude, but I can see the writing on the wall too. Some good PR flacks could help smooth these sorts of bumps out but I’d rather Musk do what he does his way ’cause it obviously works!
tinker
Clearly, Buzz misunderstood Elon’s plans since Elon wants the settlements on Mars Buzz was talking about, not the one-off missions Buzz thought he wanted.
Bob Clark
Neil deGrasse Tyson tells you how not to do things because they are impossible and break physical laws, then he tells you what is possible and how to do it; Elon just throws money (not his own) at the problem and if you can’t come up with satisfactory solution YOU’RE FIRED.
Excuse me but how can you say that Musk has not been using his own money?
Musk’s initial investment of 100 million was gone by 2006, since then SpaceX has operated just like any other business. OPM (Other People’s Money)
Total investment:
Musk-$100 million (spent by 2006)
Other investors (Founders Fund, Draper-Fisher-Jurvetson, … – $100 million
Rest of funding has been provided by progress payments on long term launch and development contracts. NASA has so far contributed $1/2 billion.
How do you know that Musk has not put in more of his own money in? Do you have access to his books? Do you know where the DDT&E funds come from? Is Musk spending NASA money on Mars missions? You need to be armed with much more in the way of facts before you make such accusations – and do so hiding behind a fake name. “Frosty”.
Those are official numbers that Elon Musk reported to the IRS and to the shareholders. They are a part of public records.
And I do not respond to ad-hominem attacks, come up with something better.
What tax year did Musk report these numbers? Has he reported numbers since then? Where are these “public records”? (link please).
Oh yes you refer to SpaceX “shareholders” Newsflash: SpaceX is not a publicly traded company – so who are these “shareholders”? If you are going to make claims like this you had better have references to back them up – and getting a few basic facts straight i.e. who owns SpaceX – would be a good place to start.
As for “ad hominem attacks” it is rather hard for me to do that when you hide behind a fake name. Or is your real name “Frosty”? Why not use your real name if you are going to make accusations such as this? Hmm ….
By law every corporation must disclose the financial state to the IRS and the owners i.e. shareholders and produce a report. that is especially true if you do business with the government. I’m not going to do the research for you, do it yourself and prove me wrong.
Because a company is not publicly traded does not mean that it it does not have shareholders; Musk owns 70% of SpaceX, who owns the rest? Shareholders and investors do.
Look up what ” ad hominem attack” means.
I know what ad hominem means. It is hard to accuse someone of a personal attack when you are hiding behind a fake personna and making claims about someone that you cannot verify with facts. As for disclosure, shareholders, etc. you really need to do a little more studying on this topic and what a non publicly traded company Vs a publicly traded company is required to release. You are now trolling and its time for you to stop.