Space on the Brain: A Chat with SpaceX's Elon Musk

The rocket was small, its cargo just dead weight. Yet Sunday night, the successful launch of a privately developed rocket known as Falcon could be a game-changer for the beleaguered U.S. space program.

Elon Musk, Space Exploration Technology (SpaceX) founder and Internet mogul, spoke with Discovery News' Irene Klotz last week about his ambitions, motivations and politics.

Irene Klotz: There's a lot of concern about space shuttle workers who are going to have to move off the government paycheck when the shuttles are retired. Any suggestions for them?

Elon Musk: SpaceX is going to add a bunch of jobs at the Cape. We're growing rapidly. I think within two, three years we're going to have at least a couple of hundred of people there and then in five years ... I think our employee count could approach 1,000 people. SpaceX itself is already 550 people.

IK: What's been the most challenging part of growing this business?

EM: Finding great people. But I find that to be universally true -- at least all the businesses that I'm involved in -- because I have a very high bar for hiring people. In the beginning of the company, in particular, it was hard to convince people to leave their current employers, particularly if they're top performers. They're looked after very well, usually, by their parent company. As time goes on, it gets easier to attract people because the future of the company is more secure.

IK: Is it a concern that Americans won't have access to space after the shuttle?

EM: I think it's a really big deal that Americans may not have access to space following retirement of the space shuttle. It'd be easier to deal with if we didn't have a space station, but we've made this gigantic investment. ... Just when it's done, we won't be able to use it unless we thumb a ride from the Russians and that's just incredibly embarrassing, I think.

While the nominal schedule is for Ares-Orion completion in the 2015 time frame ... if there's a launch anomaly -- that's not unusual in new launch vehicles, speaking from experience -- or even if there is just some glitch in the development process, we could easily be talking about 2017, 2018 before Ares-Orion is ready to take people to station. That's not its design purpose, so you end up having this super-expensive ride for astronauts to visit space station.

Ares-Orion is intended to go back to the moon and it's sub-optimal for the space station, so clearly there is a need to have an alternative American source. We think it would be a really good use of taxpayer money to enable COTS-D (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services -- a NASA program). The COTS program has four parts. COTS A through C refer to the transfer of pressurized cargo, unpressurized cargo and return of cargo to Earth (from the space station). SpaceX won the competition to demonstrate A-C.

What a lot of people don't appreciate is that there's really very little difference in the vehicle we're making to serve as cargo transport to and from station and adding crew capability. We've designed Falcon 9 and Dragon from the beginning for a man-rated system. In the cargo (specifications) for taking stuff to the space station, we have to carry biological cargo, like mice and plants, so we have to maintain temperature, we have to maintain oxygen concentration, it has to be leak-tight. Our vehicle even has windows. Obviously you don't need windows for cargo.

IK: So if the new president came up to you and said 'OK, Elon, I heard you might have a solution to our problem,' how quickly could you have it ready?

EM: It's basically about 2.5- to three years from when COTS-D is turned on. We're expecting to do the first demonstration flights of COTS-A through C next year and to get to the station in 2010.

The nice thing also is we're testing out so much hardware well in advance of actually putting people aboard, so as far as crew safety is concerned you've got all this flight history to go on, with all these cargo mission flights, and of course a lot of the early teething pains of getting the basic stuff right, is done with Falcon 1. That was really the intent of Falcon 1, by the way ... It serves as technological test bed for launch vehicles to follow so we make our mistakes on a small scale rather than a large scale.

IK: In light of the issues with Russia, our cold shoulder with China and the shuttle's expense and safety issues, it sounds like COTS-D might be a viable alternative. Is there any reason why you think it wouldn't fly? Is there some opposition to it from some sector, or from some group?

EM: Yeah, we've seen some opposition from people like United Space Alliance, in particular. The basis of opposition is that they are trying to create a crisis that would force additional spending on shuttle and -- to the degree that some other path is seen as working, such as COTS-D -- they feel that undermines their ability to create a crisis and demand however many billions are necessary to prolong the shuttle.

I don't think it's in the best interests of the country, but it is in their best interests. And there's some concern ... that if additional funds are not appropriated for COTS-D, then those funds will have to come out of some existing budget that NASA has. And then, of course, anyone whose budget is potentially at risk is oppositional to COTS-D.

IK: Have you gotten jaded by politics? Is it still a big issue for you and for SpaceX to wrangle through the politics and economics of all of this?

EM: Politics is a much bigger factor in space than is desirable. It's just something that has to be dealt with. I much prefer dealing with the technical issues.

We haven't pushed hard on COTS-D yet, even though I think it's like blindingly obvious as the thing to do, because we're hoping to get to orbit and then on the back of getting to orbit, push hard on COTS-D. Otherwise our detractors have too much ammunition. They'd say, 'How can you bet the American manned space program on a company that hasn't gotten to orbit?' That's the obvious attack that's used against us repeatedly.

We hope to get to orbit and then they can't use that attack. Obviously, the next one they're going to do is 'How can you go with a company that only got one out of four?' (Laughs) Right? The carrot to that is 'Well the first three missions were about eliminating just fundamental design issues and once the fundamental design issues are eliminated, only then can you -- on the basis of launches beyond that -- judge the reliability of the vehicle.

IK: Do you think it matters who is in the White House in January? Do you find that there's much difference for you personally or professionally between the candidates?