Rocket Billionaires Read online

  Contents

  * * *

  Title Page

  Contents

  Copyright

  Dedication

  Introduction

  Adventure Capitalism

  The Rocket-Industrial Complex

  The Rocket Monopoly

  The Internet Guy

  Friday Afternoon Space Club

  The Tyranny of the Rocket

  Never a Straight Answer

  A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes

  Photos

  Test as We Fly

  Change Versus More of the Same

  Capture the Flag

  Space Race 2.0

  Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

  Pushing the Envelope

  Rocket Billionaires

  Beyond Earth Orbit

  A Spacefaring Civilization

  Acknowledgments

  Notes

  Index

  About the Author

  Connect with HMH

  Copyright © 2018 by Tim Fernholz

  All rights reserved

  For information about permission to reproduce selections from this book, write to [email protected] or to Permissions, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 3 Park Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10016.

  hmhco.com

  Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available.

  ISBN 978-1-328-66223-1 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-328-66306-1 (ebook)

  Cover design by Brian Moore

  Cover image © Sergey Nivens / Shutterstock

  v1.0218

  For Renée

  Introduction

  The rocket crowd has been going to the same swamp in Florida for years.

  A triangular headland along the Atlantic coast, battered by hurricanes, Cape Canaveral might have become just another dubious land development scheme, a way to get out-of-state GIs to buy vacation homes in a swamp now that World War II was over. But serious men with slide rules got to it first—they examined maps of the United States for real estate where they could hurl large machines full of explosives out over the ocean, in case they came back down again at distressing speed, and near enough to the equator that the earth’s spin would help the hurling. They liked the Cape just fine.

  That was more than a half century ago. The Florida wetlands were filled in with concrete foundations for the American effort to leave earth and to travel the empty space around the planet and its nearby moon: first Mercury, then Gemini, and finally Apollo. As space became less the realm of the gods and more amenable to man, bureaucracy replaced divinity: Skylab, and then the space shuttle. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had, in 1958, begun life as an ad hoc assembly that included former Nazis, corn-fed American engineers, and brave test pilots racing the Soviets. It became a baroque institution focused primarily on building and maintaining the most expensive contraption constructed in human history: the International Space Station (ISS), a research outpost in orbit.

  The US victory in the first international space race inspired awe: the sheer quantities of money and brainpower and science, all bending physics to the purpose of putting fragile mankind in a place where he did not belong. After the Apollo program, the ambitious space program gave way to a kind of complacency. There was a nagging sense that what the United States had done in going to the moon wasn’t about what those pioneers had achieved, but what it had meant to those watching. NASA amounted to a sophisticated Cold War propaganda operation. Once it had demonstrated the ability to go to the moon, there was no obvious reason to go back. Presidents paid lip service to space exploration, but most who persisted in casting their eye toward the stars were seen as nostalgists.

  Enter Elon Musk, the founder and CEO of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. He also enjoys the title “chief designer,” and is clearly not a nostalgist, especially by the standards of rocket nerds. The intense South Africa–born entrepreneur started SpaceX, as it is called, so he could retire on Mars. On this day, his company was giving him a forty-fourth birthday present: it would launch a rocket into orbit and, for the first time in history, return it safely to earth.

  Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral is heavy with history—too much of it in the form of accumulated rules, habits, and conventional wisdom, in Musk’s opinion. Musk’s engineers had refurbished the old Air Force launchpad to operate efficiently, scavenging gear to move quickly and cheaply. They were now building a new private spaceport in Texas. But the realities of the space business demanded that SpaceX fly its rockets from the Cape, far from where they were built and tested, on a launchpad leased from the government. The plain truth was that the government didn’t even have its own rockets anymore. That was SpaceX’s business now.

  On June 28, 2015, with launch in half an hour, a Falcon 9 rocket built by SpaceX stood on that pad. It was 230 feet tall and thirteen feet in diameter. The area was clear of people so that Musk’s creation could be fed thousands of pounds of liquid oxygen and high-test kerosene. The superchilled fluid flowing through the machine caused the sticky Florida air to condense; great bursts of steam made the rocket appear to breathe smoke, befitting the name of the spacecraft on top—the Dragon. Like a can of soda, most of a rocket’s launch mass is fluid, but comparing an aluminum rocket to a can of Coca-Cola does the rocket a disservice: its walls are far, far thinner, relatively speaking, than those on a beverage container. And, in order to fit even more propellant into the rocket, it would be chilled to as low as minus 340 degrees Fahrenheit.

  In the control room at SpaceX headquarters, young controllers monitored pressure gauges, telemetry feeds, and cameras affixed all over the vehicle, even inside propellant tanks. Engineers participated in the company’s live online stream of the launch, explaining the basics of the flight to the hundreds of thousands of fans and curiosity seekers tuning in to watch. Back in Florida, NASA officials, Air Force officers, and SpaceX’s operations team all watched the countdown from behind computer consoles.

  Were the government officials envious of the company’s capabilities? Musk’s were the first privately owned spacecraft to fly a NASA mission to the International Space Station. To be sure, SpaceX had needed the space agency’s funding and advice. But Musk insisted the rocket be designed according to his own principles, and each part of the tall white vehicle belonged to his company’s shareholders. This was not a mere technicality; it was a revolutionary approach to spaceflight. And it was necessary for Musk’s broader ambitions of making humans into a “multiplanetary civilization.” Musk hadn’t spent $100 million of his own money and the past thirteen years of his life simply to accomplish today’s mission: carrying four thousand pounds—a mass you could move with a Dodge Ram truck—a few hundred miles—the distance between New York City and Boston. A trivial job, until you realize that you’re moving those two tons straight up.

  While the rocket prepared for launch, three astronauts were on board the ISS, 250 miles above the earth. They live in a series of aluminum tubes bolted together, circling our planet at great speed. Keeping them alive required regular visits from spacecraft carrying food, water, and oxygen, as well as the scientific apparatus and experiments that provided the justification for their improbable presence in space. Since constructing the station, in concert with international partners—chiefly Russia and the European Union—NASA had been forced to retire its only means of reaching it. In 2011, the space shuttle had been shut down for being too costly and dangerous to fly. Now the US space program, founded quite literally to demonstrate superiority over Russia, could not reach its most expensive scientific installation without Russian aid.

  NASA had attempted to replace the space shuttle with several alternatives. Despite spending billio
ns of dollars—mostly funneled to the shareholders of giant aerospace corporations—it had no new answers. After Barack Obama became president, his administration took an ax to the latest overbudget, delayed scheme to build a new rocket and space capsule. Let the space agency worry about the rest of the solar system. To keep the ISS operational, Obama’s team would build on a George W. Bush–era program that envisioned privatizing transit between earth and the space station.

  This was the opportunity that Musk and his nascent space company had desperately needed. Tinkerers at the time, they had blown up more rockets than they had flown. Many considered Musk just another wealthy fool from Silicon Valley with a space bug. A decade before, Microsoft founder Bill Gates had invested millions in plans for an ambitious network of satellites, called a constellation, that people would use to connect to the internet. It ended in bankruptcy. The major space contractors, like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, armies of engineers with decades of practice, scoffed at the idea that youthful companies backed by software engineers might be up to the challenge of space travel.

  Still, Musk saw a way in, starting at the bottom. He’d build rockets to do the grunt work of space, starting with flying other people’s satellites. Then he signed a contract with NASA to ferry gear to the ISS. Water tanks, freeze-dried food, and science experiments. The jobs might have lacked glamour compared with building the largest satellite constellation ever, or lunar exploration.

  See the glamour now! The gleaming white, gently steaming machine on the launchpad looked like Steve Jobs’s idea of a rocket. Since it first flew in 2010, it had changed a global industry: listed at $62 million, it cost half as much as the orbital rockets marketed by SpaceX’s competitors. After just eighteen successful flights, six of them for NASA, SpaceX’s relentless president and chief operating officer, Gwynne Shotwell, had built a launch manifest worth $10 billion for the vehicle, winning contracts from major satellite operators from around the world. All this despite the fact that its main competitors were national champions, those heavily subsidized technology contractors embedded in the military-industrial complexes of the United States, Europe, and Russia. No longer scoffing, the aerospace establishment began to look at SpaceX in a new light.

  Rockets that can launch many tons into orbit are usually enormously expensive—on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars—and typically entirely disposable. Each time one flies, complicated machinery built of the strongest and lightest materials available is simply thrown away: once it has lifted its payload into orbit, the rocket burns up in the atmosphere, plunges into the ocean, or drifts aimlessly away in space. The layman can see an obvious way to save money here: use the damn thing again. But no company or country had built an efficient reusable rocket. The space shuttle came closest, but relied on a disposable fuel tank and required months of expensive refurbishment after each flight. The two disasters that marred the program—the loss of Challenger, in 1986, and Columbia, in 2003—were each linked to how the vessel withstood repeated exposure to the extreme stress of space travel. Aerospace engineers considering reusability for the next generation of American rockets thought the expense wouldn’t pay off in the end: nobody flew enough rockets regularly, and the extra complications involved were just more ways that rockets, temperamental machines on the best days, could turn from vehicles into bombs. Pay for reliability, not efficiency.

  Musk thought differently. SpaceX’s philosophy was to let the science of physics decide what was possible and what was not. There was no technical obstacle to flying the rocket booster, stuffed with expensive mechanics and electronics, back to earth. The US space program had experimented with reusable rockets in the 1990s, flying one almost two miles into the air and bringing it back to the ground safely. NASA canceled the program after a failed test left it with no money to continue; with the space shuttle still handling most government space transportation, there was little demand for another reusable rocket. Outside the government, the nascent commercial satellite industry put so much money into its enormous satellites that it chose to trust proven rockets built by government-preferred contractors, even if they were costly. Russia boasted the Soyuz and Proton rockets; Europe, its Ariane 5; and the United States had the Atlas and Delta families.

  Times had changed, in Musk’s opinion. It was the twenty-first century, after all. There was more demand for launches than people knew—and demand could be boosted with the right product. There could be a virtuous cycle: if the cost of space access fell enough to make new businesses possible in orbit, there would be more money to invest in lowering the cost to access space. It was an attitude he had developed as an entrepreneur in the early days of the internet boom. Not many had thought that a new way of paying for goods and services on the internet was necessary in 1999. But Musk and the other members of the so-called PayPal Mafia—many of whom, like the investors Peter Thiel and Luke Nosek, would also back SpaceX—were not deterred. Once they had built their simple tool for exchanging money safely over the emerging consumer web, other entrepreneurs found ways to use it. The ability to exchange money online became the basis for a whole new economy. When the auction site eBay paid $1.5 billion for PayPal in 2002, Musk’s share of the proceeds provided him with the fortune to find new markets—including in space. The Falcon 9 rocket was SpaceX’s first killer app.

  Like most other orbital rockets, the Falcon 9 is actually two vehicles combined into one. The largest is called the first stage, or booster, and it is packed with nine engines, plus tanks containing all the propellant needed to feed them. Stacked on top is another vehicle, called the second stage, with just one engine. The spacecraft that is carried into orbit—it could be a satellite, a dozen satellites, or a Dragon capsule—is mounted on top of the second stage.

  At launch, the first stage does the hard work of hauling its own weight, the second stage, and its cargo, battling gravity and the atmosphere. This heavy lifting begins to dissipate as the rocket enters space at a boundary known as the Kármán line, universally and somewhat arbitrarily recognized as one hundred kilometers (sixty-two miles) above sea level. At that point—moving at four times the speed of sound—the engines shut off and the two stages separate, but that word disguises the drama of the event: pneumatic pushers force the rocket apart, and the engine in the second stage ignites as the booster plunges back to earth. At this point, the second stage takes over, carrying the payload up to wherever its destination may be, anywhere from 250 miles to 23,000 miles above the earth. For most rockets, after stage separation, that big first stage’s job is done. At the Cape, it tumbles into the ocean. When China’s space program launches its rockets, first stages occasionally drop into villages, and Chinese citizens will pose for photos next to the enormous aluminum cylinders found lying across roads.

  SpaceX’s rockets had other plans. After separation, as the first stage descended, something different would happen: the engines would turn back on. Four waffle-perforated metal fins mounted on the side would unfold. And the fourteen-story-tall aluminum pencil wouldn’t be falling anymore; it would be flying, engines pointed at the earth to slow it. A few hundred feet above the earth, four huge landing legs would unfold, just like in a science fiction film from the 1950s. The Falcon 9 first stage, weighing about twenty tons, would then set down, gently, on a landing pad, the rockets shutting off as the legs hover just inches above the earth.

  At least that was the idea. By the time of its seventh mission to the ISS, Space X had brought down the rocket into empty stretches of ocean to prove that when it returned to sea level, it would be in the right place and under control. Next, the booster progressed to seagoing landing pads. These were enormous barges the company retrofitted to be autonomous: it was too dangerous to have people on board when the rocket arrived. This proved to be an intelligent decision. The first two landing attempts resulted in spectacular explosions. Each failure taught the SpaceX team a little more about how the landing systems worked, and improved the computer algorithms guiding the r
ocket. During the previous mission, two months before, the rocket had landed—actually landed, standing upright—on the floating drone ship. But it was unbalanced, and observers watched the live video feed in dismay as it tipped over with agonizing slowness. The remaining propellant ignited spectacularly. SpaceX’s numerous fans loved the show and cheered the company’s chutzpah; NASA executives cringed.

  This time around, Musk thought, they’d get it right. Publicly, he predicted an even chance of success. Not that anyone outside the company was convinced. NASA officials had cringed not just because of the last failure, but because of how SpaceX was testing its reusable rockets: rather than flying purely experimental missions to develop the reusability technology, they simply tested them while performing launches for their clients. And why not? Technically, nothing related to the reusability system went into effect until after the client’s cargo was safely away, flying on the second stage. But each change to the rocket, made in the spirit of iteration, caused agita among traditional rocket professionals. Any tiny adjustment to the shape of the rocket could affect its aerodynamic profile; small changes to the complicated hydraulic systems in the engines could have repercussions anywhere. Rocketry rarely goes wrong because of some major error; it goes wrong because of some tiny, unanticipated flaw.

  Nonetheless, “test as we fly” became another slogan at SpaceX, another way to differentiate itself from the old companies whose lunch it intended to eat. As an innovation strategy, it was brilliant: the company was earning revenue directly from its research-and-development projects. It’s a common tactic for digital companies, which continuously A/B test—the practice of serving different messages to the users on their sites and assessing their efficacy. But could techniques of iteration work as well in a business based not on ephemeral bits, but on machines controlling violent chemical reactions?