What is behind the public support of Tesla Motors and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk for Donald Trump, whether they have common goals and how friendship with the new US President will affect Musk’s ambitious plans and financial well-being, the site analyzes.
Elon Musk is one of the most controversial leaders in the technology industry. The bold plans of the businessman, whom the media has repeatedly called “the new Steve Jobs,” are to revolutionize the auto industry, energy and aerospace industries at the same time. Perhaps it was precisely his ambitions that did not allow Musk to stay away from big politics.
Love and Hate from Musk
The entrepreneur’s relationship with the new US President Donald Trump is puzzling. This week, Musk, one of the leading proponents of clean energy in the United States, publicly endorsed the potential appointment of ex-ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as US Secretary of State.
“Rex Tillerson has every chance of becoming an excellent Secretary of State,” the businessman wrote on Twitter. - Rex is an exceptionally competent manager, understands geopolitics and knows how to lead his team to victory. Now his team is the USA.”
The question immediately arises: will the victory of the former oil tycoon be beneficial for Musk himself and his team? In a short interview with Gizmodo, the businessman made the following argument: “He (Tillerson - website note) has said publicly for years that a carbon tax makes sense. There is hardly a person better suited to turn these plans into reality than Tillerson himself. This matters much more than pipelines or discovering oil reserves,” Musk says.
Previously, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX also became one of the business advisers to the Trump team, which did not go unnoticed by the market. “Elon Musk has an important channel of communication with Donald Trump through his role as a strategic advisor. We believe this level of relationship with the new administration could bring more strategic value than under the previous administration,” said Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jones.
However, even a few days before the election, Musk's attitude towards a potential Trump administration looked different. “I'm inclined to think he's the wrong person. I don't think his character represents the United States well,” he told CNBC in November 2016. At the same time, he noted, the election results are unlikely to affect Tesla’s business.
It is possible that he was right about Tesla. However, Musk’s empire is not one, but three companies, at least one of which is still largely dependent on government contracts. Let's see if Musk's financial asset structure can shed some light on his sudden 180-degree turn in attitude toward the new US president.
Economic triangle
The three main pillars of Elon Musk's financial empire are Tesla Motors, Space Exploration Technologies (or SpaceX for short) and solar panel manufacturer Solar City. Let's start with the simplest thing - the only public company today, Tesla Motors. Nasdaq trading data at the end of the day on January 25 showed that the company's market capitalization had reached almost $41 billion. The Economist magazine, published on October 22, 2016, called the amount approximately $30 billion, which corresponds to stock exchange data at the end of the previous day.
Based on the magazine's data, Musk's share in Tesla assets is about 22.5%. That is, today it is 9.2 billion dollars. This is a serious enough asset that you don’t want to risk it. But there is a risk for the company under the new administration. Just compare Tesla's mission ("Accelerate the world's transition to renewable energy") with the position of Trump, who considers climate change a hoax and, according to rumors, earlier this week decided to "freeze" all current grants and contracts with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ).
Despite all its fame, Tesla is not yet a profitable company. According to the latest financial report, for 9 months of 2016, the company's revenue amounted to $4.7 billion (an increase of 68% compared to the previous year), and a net loss of $553.6 million due to rising costs.
Further - more difficult. Solar City was founded by Musk's cousins and has become a subsidiary of Tesla Motors since 2016. In August 2016, Solar City received a purchase offer for $2.6 billion—over the course of a year, the company's capitalization fell by almost half amid intense competition. In October, The Economist estimated its capitalization at approximately $1.9 billion, and Musk's personal stake in Solar City at approximately 22%.
The company is also unprofitable: a recent financial report shows that while revenue grew 79% to $508.9 million, Solar City ended three quarters of 2016 with a net loss of $758.7 million. The risks from the new policy are also similar to Tesla, especially given Musk's announcement that he plans to consolidate the companies' operations.
And finally, SpaceX. For two weeks now, market discussions have not subsided around the publication of The Wall Street Journal, whose analysts stated that they had gained access to the company’s financial indicators. According to the publication, the commercial aerospace company made small operating profits in 2013 and 2014, and in 2015 faced a loss of $260 million due to the unsuccessful launch of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Because of this, the company had to reduce the number of launches in that year. year almost doubled, which led to a decrease in annual revenue by 6%.
It is worth noting here that it is difficult to verify how accurate these data are. SpaceX is the only one of the three companies that has never gone public (Musk has repeatedly stated that he is not interested in an IPO until SpaceX can take a man to Mars). Any estimates of the company's financial results will be approximate or based on inside information that is difficult to verify, since SpaceX is not required to regularly disclose financial statements. That is why such heated discussions arose around the WSJ data.
So what do we know about SpaceX's finances? Returning to The Economist's estimates, SpaceX's asset value at the end of 2016 was approximately $12 billion. Elon Musk owns 54% of the company. Instead of 20 planned launches in 2016, the company managed to make only eight, which certainly had an impact on financial results.
Despite this, SpaceX CFO Bret Johnson previously told the WSJ that the company has more than $1 billion in cash and marketable assets and no debt, with contracts for future launches totaling $10 billion. According to the publication, the company forecasts revenue of more than $30 billion by 2025. By 2019, SpaceX intends to achieve one rocket launch per week.
How does the company intend to achieve such ambitious goals? One plan came to light in November when SpaceX filed an application with the Federal Telecommunications Commission to launch nearly 4,500 satellites. This project has the potential to become a profitable venture to provide high-speed Internet access around the world.
At the same time, it is obvious that part of SpaceX’s revenue will depend on government contracts. For example, one of SpaceX’s contracts with NASA is valued at $700 million. In addition, last April, SpaceX received a $82.7 million contract to send a US Air Force satellite into space in 2018, and in November, a $112 million contract from the same NASA to launch a research satellite in 2021 year.
Points of contact
What we have left, if we rely on these data: three companies (in fact, almost two already) that do not make a profit, with growth rates that largely depend either on the political decisions of the new leadership of the country or on government orders.
How right is Elon Musk in this situation, who is trying to find mutual language with the Trump administration, it is difficult to assess. Although, if we discard principled positions, slogans and sentiments, from a business point of view this approach is at least understandable.
In addition, Musk and Trump have other points of contact, the main one of which is national production. The new US president has repeatedly said that Apple and other technology companies should establish production within the country. Musk's companies are already making this call a reality: SpaceX is building rockets in California, and Tesla and Solar City are manufacturing in California and Nevada.
“The President-elect is as focused on manufacturing in the United States as we are. We're building the largest factory in the world here, creating jobs in the United States,” Musk said in a Q&A with analysts earlier in January.
Finally, one should not discount the fact that both Trump and Musk are successful businessmen with somewhat similar personalities, as another well-known Trump supporter in Silicon Valley, investor Peter Thiel, did not fail to note. I would like to believe that it is business rationality and innovative vision that will form the basis of cooperation between Musk and Trump, otherwise the revolutions promised by the head of Tesla and SpaceX will be delayed for at least another four years.
He discusses whether it is really worth following Elon Musk in matters of company management.
Rusbase publishes an abbreviated translation of the article.
Why Elon Musk shouldn't be a business role model
Alexey ZenkovI am extremely concerned about the way he communicates with investors. One way to describe it is that there is a stark contrast between his ability to offer an impressive vision of the future and his constant tendency to overpromise which he fails to deliver in the short term.
These are the thoughts that come to mind when you think about the $2.6 billion solar energy services company owned by Musk's cousins. This deal highlights four reasons why I don't think Elon Musk is a good business role model.
1. Musk is a megalomaniac
I agree that an entrepreneur must have a lot of confidence, but this self-confidence must be balanced with sufficient knowledge of one's own capabilities and humility. So that a person knows when to ask for help or moderate his own ambitions.
Due to the merger with SolarCity, Musk is putting his fortune earned thanks to Tesla at risk - his $8.3 billion fortune has decreased by $779 million. According to Bloomberg, 50% of Musk's fortune is invested in Tesla, 46% in SpaceX (one of the Falcon rockets 9 on the launch platform on September 1), and only 4% in SolarCity.
The company has also already announced that it plans to invest $526 million in the construction of the Gigafactory and estimates the costs of implementing the so-called Part Deux plan at another $10 billion (a plan to create a vertically integrated company that produces electric vehicles, batteries for storing energy and propelling these vehicles, as well as solar panels for generating this energy - approx. Rusbase).
It happens that there comes a time when an entrepreneur needs to look inside himself and understand that the realization of personal ambitions will not bring economic benefits, and he needs to moderate his ardor. Musk didn't do this. True, it is too early to say whether he is right or fatally mistaken.
3. Tesla doesn't respect minority shareholders enough.
One of the things that makes the US a great place for startups is that it has higher levels of protection for minority shareholders than anywhere else in the world. This does not mean that deception does not happen in America. It just happens much more often anywhere else in the world.
In my opinion, great entrepreneurs must respect investors, and not show off to them by teetering on the edge of the law.
Tesla's board of directors does not prioritize the interests of all investors. As a result, in May the board approved a secondary offering of Tesla shares worth $1.4 billion.
But in addition to keeping silent about the fact that a Tesla buyer died in an accident caused by Autopilot, the company’s board of directors accepted the reports without mentioning the merger, which was discussed on February 29 of this year.
Of course, some of Tesla's independent directors have assessed the SolarCity acquisition. But the quality of this estimate seems questionable to me, given the SEC data.
Economic analysis of post-merger companies is overly optimistic. According to these forecasts, SolarCity will spend $189 million in 2017 and then turn a huge profit - from $271 million in 2018 to $799 million in 2020.
Wait, but in 2015 SolarCity spent $2.6 billion in available funds, and in 2016 this figure grew to $2.8 billion.
With Tesla planning to raise even more debt, how can one justify excluding debt repayment costs from an analysis of SolarCity's future economic performance?
Perhaps the board of directors is bound by its legal obligations - I can’t say due to my poor knowledge of the law - but the quality of the published analysis of the SolarCity merger is so poor that a logical question arises: does Musk care primarily about realizing his own vision or making money for shareholders?
4. Neglect of cost control
Many private companies these days are cautious about planning expenses in order to preserve earned capital. I consider this a sign of the wisdom of their leadership.
At the same time, on September 2, Bloomberg reported a letter from Musk to all Tesla employees, in which he asks them to try and make the company profitable this quarter in order to “wipe the nose” of whiners on Wall Street who question the company’s ability to make money.
This will take more than just a letter, but Musk's limited thinking speaks to the gigantic gap between his colorful vision and ability to achieve results.
If you're looking for a role model, a much smarter option is someone who manages to combine vision and performance. He founded it in 1994, made it public, and recently set a new record for price per share ($804 per share as of September 22, 2016 - Rusbase).
To understand Musk's thinking, let's first remember how he speaks. For example, what would an ordinary child say: “I’m afraid of the dark. When it's dark, monsters might attack me and I won't be able to defend myself." And what did he say in interview Musk: “As a child, I was very afraid of the dark. But then I realized that darkness is simply the absence of photons in the visible part of the spectrum. Then I thought that it was somehow stupid to be afraid of the absence of photons. From then on I was no longer afraid of the dark.”
This peculiar “Musk language” describes reality exactly as it is. And this is how Musk thinks about all areas of life. For example, he said that he became more comfortable with death when he had children.
Children are like you. They are half you at the hardware level. And the similarity at the program level depends on how much time you spend with them.
Elon Musk
When you and I look at children, we see small, cute, but still stupid people. When Musk looks at his , he sees his five favorite computers. Looking at you, he will see a computer. Looking in the mirror, he will also see a computer - his own.
If you take it literally, that's how it is. The simplest definition of a computer is an object that stores and processes data. Our brain does this too. If you think of it as a computer, you notice the difference between your hardware and software.
Computer hardware consists of chips, wires, and other physical components. For a person, these are the cerebral hemispheres with which he is born. They define him, his innate talents and weaknesses.
Computer software is the programs, procedures and rules for processing information. And for a person, this is his worldview, thinking patterns and ways of making decisions.
Life is a flow of incoming information that enters the brain through the senses. It is our “software” that filters this input data, processes and structures it, and then uses it to generate output data - a solution.
“Hardware” can be thought of as a lump of clay that we are given at birth. Of course, not all clay is created equal. But it is the “software” that will influence what kind of tool this clay will turn into.
He is constantly improving his software
The structure of “software” for Musk, like for other people, begins with the “Desire” cell.
It contains situations that you want to transfer from state A to state B. For example:
- “I don’t have enough money” → “I have more money”;
- “I don’t like my job” → “I like my job”;
- “I can’t play the cello” → “I can play the cello”;
- “There are many poor people in Chad” → “There are slightly fewer poor people in Chad”;
- “I run 5 km in 25 minutes” → “I run 5 km in 20 minutes.”
Then comes the “Reality” cell. It contains what can actually happen.
At the intersection of these two cells there are possible . From them you choose what to transfer from state A to state B.
To change something, you make an effort. Spend time, resources, mental and physical energy, use your talents and connections. By choosing a goal, you determine the most effective method her achievements. This is your strategy.
So far everything is simple. And it’s not much different from how you and I think.
But Musk's "software" is so effective not because of its structure, but because he uses it as a scientist.
How to learn to think like Elon Musk
1. Create every component of your “software” from scratch
Musk calls this “starting from the fundamentals.”
“People usually think in terms of tradition or previous experience,” he explains. “They say: “They’ve always done it this way, so we’ll do it this way,” or “Nobody does it this way, there’s no point in trying.” But this is nonsense. Build your reasoning from scratch - from basic principles, as they say in physics. Take the very basics and build on them, then you will see whether your conclusion works or not. And in the end it may or may not differ from what was done before you.”
Musk uses this all the time in his life. With this approach, decision making takes place in four stages:
- Fill out the “Wishes” cell. To do this, you need to understand yourself well and be honest with yourself.
- Fill in the “Reality” cell. You need to have a clear picture of the situation in the world and your abilities.
- Choose a goal. It must be feasible. Choose it after carefully weighing all the options.
- Form a strategy. Rely on your knowledge, and not on what others usually do.
2. Make adjustments as new information becomes available.
Think about math proof problems. For example:
- Given: A = B.
- Given: B = C + D.
- Therefore: A = C + D.
Everything is accurate in mathematics. The data in it is specific, and the conclusions are indisputable. The starting points in it are called axioms, they are 100% correct. When we draw conclusions from axioms - we obtain consequences - there is no doubt that they are 100% correct.
In other sciences there are no axioms and corollaries, and there are good reason. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation was considered immutable for a long time. But then Einstein proved that Newton looked at everything too narrowly, like those who previously considered the Earth to be flat.
Taking a broader view, it turns out that Newton's law does not apply under certain conditions. But the general theory of relativity works. It would seem that it should be considered an absolute. Only now quantum mechanics appeared, which proved that the general theory of relativity is inapplicable at the molecular level.
There are no axioms and corollaries in the natural sciences, because there is nothing absolute in the world. Everything that seems so to us can be refuted.
Scientists build theories on objective data and accept them as truth. With the emergence of new data, the theory can be corrected or refuted. In ordinary life it is impossible to construct a real scientific theory. Life cannot be accurately measured. The best we can do is make a guess based on the available data. In science this is called a hypothesis. That is:
- Given (based on what I know): A = B.
- Given (based on what I know): B = C + D.
- Therefore (based on what I know): A = C + D.
The only way to test your hypothesis is through action. You put in the effort and see what happens.
In the process, you receive feedback from the outside world. You are born. Now your strategy needs adjustments.
But the matter does not stop there. The cell with desires reflects only your aspirations at a certain moment. Desires change, you yourself are constantly changing. Therefore, you need to regularly think about what you want and make adjustments.
The “Reality” cell is also not static. Your abilities develop over time, and the world changes. What was possible ten years ago is significantly different from what is possible now. Don't forget to keep this cell up to date.
Remember that the cells represent your current hypotheses, and the circles represent sources of new information. It is the circles that determine how the hypothesis will change. If you do not update the data in them, the information in the cells will become outdated.
So, below we see the process of forming goals, and above - the process of achieving them. But goals also change over time, because they arise at the intersection of your desires and real possibilities. So don’t forget to check whether a particular goal is still important to you.
To do this, from time to time, take a break from your current affairs and think about your life. Perhaps what you are currently working on is no longer on your list of goals. This means it’s time to change something: break off the relationship, move, change your point of view.
This mindset is a flexible system based on strong basic principles. It is designed to be flexible and able to change depending on your needs.
According to a survey by First Round Capital, Elon Musk is the most inspiring example for entrepreneurs today. This man, among other things, founded a company that launches launch vehicles more often than... Russia. Perhaps his advice to aspiring businessmen is worthy of attention. As a bonus, we publish several exercises for future Elon Musks.
Seek criticism
Criticism is like working out in the gym: it’s hard at first, but then the results are noticeable. This is the best help for a beginning businessman.
- When I talked to someone about the Tesla Model S, I didn’t really want to know about the merits of the car. I wanted to know about her shortcomings.
Challenge reality
Einstein said that it is impossible to solve a problem using the same thinking that caused it. And Musk completely agrees with this. For example, previously everyone was sure: energy sources simply cannot be cheap. Musk challenged this stereotype and created Tesla Energy - renewable energy sources for homes and offices.
Even if you are not creating a revolutionary product, Musk advises asking questions every time you hear the phrase “this is the way it is and will always be.” Don’t give in to stereotypes: try to figure out for yourself how everything works and make “why?” your favorite question.
Elon Musk's Teslacar near Los Angeles in the Elon Musk Tunnel Source: Instagram
Exercise
- Write down your biggest problem, whether personal or professional.
- Break it down into its basic components.
- Think about how you can improve each of them (perhaps something needs to be changed or rearranged).
Business analysts work on the same principle when they conduct an audit of a company. If it’s difficult for you to do this yourself, then click on the banner and order a professional audit.
Focus on what's important
Elon Musk isn't the only billionaire preaching the importance of prioritizing:
Musk follows the same principles.
Elon Musk, inventor, engineer, entrepreneur and billionaire:
- At Tesla, we haven't spent a dime on advertising. We have invested everything in research and development, engineering, design and manufacturing to create the best car possible. When we evaluate possible expenses, we ask the question: “Will this make the product better?” If not, we won't spend money on it.
True, you shouldn’t take Musk’s words literally and curtail your advertising activity. He's just talking about Tesla's priorities. Investments in promotion may be more relevant for your business.
Exercise
- Make a list of 20 goals for the next year.
- Reduce it to 5 points. By focusing on what's important, you'll be able to progress faster on these projects. Narrowing it down is difficult, but possible.
In this regard, there is even more stern advice for a novice entrepreneur opening his own business - choose one priority task and devote all your efforts only to it.
Allow for the possibility of failure
Elon Musk is sure: inaction is often caused by fear of failure. And this is a dangerous mistake for a novice businessman! We don't apply for our dream job because we're afraid we won't get it. We don't start our own business because we're afraid of wasting money.
Musk accepted the possibility of failure and thought out the following tactics for SpaceX: spend no more than $100 million - that’s enough to launch the rocket three times. As a result, the first two launches were unsuccessful, but the successful third brought his company a $1.6 billion contract from NASA.
Falcon rocket first stage landing
It became not only an important technological event on a global scale, but also, so to speak, a landmark for civilization as a whole.
The footage of the broadcast, in which the new rocket rushed into the sky and brought Musk’s personal car first onto the near-Earth trajectory and then onto the trajectory departing from the Earth, was watched by millions of eyes.
And not only because it was beautiful and a convertible with a doll at the wheel had never flown around our planet before.
There are several rational reasons for admiration, at least among those who experienced it, since a number of events happened for the first time on this day.
For the first time, a super-heavy rocket developed by a private company with its own money flew. A separate success - I flew on the first try. For the first time during the launch of such a rocket, a scheme for the simultaneous soft landing of its first stages was worked out. Musk has only recently introduced humanity to the unusual type of space rockets, whose engines not only launch them into the sky, but also softly land them on the ground.
He demonstrated that it was possible to preserve the first stages of rockets for multiple launches and make launches cheaper.
However, the precise, synchronized landing of two stages at once was perhaps the most exciting moment of the entire mission. If only because people simply had not seen this before. Humanity has mastered synchronized launches of ballistic missiles, and the DPRK has especially succeeded in this, but synchronized landings of missiles have not yet been achieved since the time of Korolev.
Launch of ballistic missiles in North Korea
youtube.comFinally, for the first time, using a private rocket, that is, with private money, “something” was launched not just into low-Earth orbit, but onto a departure trajectory from the Earth. And this particular something will now actually fly in the inner part of the solar system, apparently for millions of years.
However, no matter how loud the first delight in the world was at the launch, which was not successful in all respects (the central stage could not be saved), so ambiguous and polar was the reaction to it in Russia.
“When they land at least one rocket, then we’ll talk. Once Falcon Heavy is launched, then we’ll talk,”
— it is no longer known who first posted this “meme” on the Runet, but, agree, how accurate is it and how consonant is its meaning with the mentality of many Russians?
It is not customary for us (and not only for us) to rejoice at the successes of an enterprising neighbor, and even more so at the successes of an American upstart billionaire who has taken aim at almost our last sacred thing -
space, which half a century ago, through the efforts of the whole country, we gave to humanity.
However, the rational arguments of the “skeptics” deserve enumeration.
And Baba Yaga is against
The main argument is that Musk has not done anything new, the rocket is not a record-breaking one, the Soviet Energia, the lunar N-1 and the same American Saturn-V had such a greater payload capacity.
They had, but now they are gone, just as the load for which they were built is gone. At the same time, both superpowers strained so much effort to implement such projects,
that one of them could not stand it and fell apart.
It is difficult for a private company that develops such projects to make claims for misappropriation of funds, especially since the purpose of creating such a rocket is not political, but purely rational - flights beyond the Earth and cheap mass launches of satellites.
Fooled the people
Another argument is
What kind of lordship is it to launch an expensive toy into deep space, from which there is zero benefit to humanity?
Typically, it’s not only people far from space who are outraged by this: they say, why didn’t Musk send something useful into space instead of his Tesla?
“Just imagine what journalists and “experts” from social networks would do to us if Roscosmos launched a rocket with a blank on board, one stage of which did not work quite accurately, and the load went to an unknown place without any feedback. That is, a huge waste of money and (almost) zero scientific and practical information,” the general director of the NPO Tekhnomash, which is part of Roscosmos, is perplexed on the pages of Forbes.
It’s quite strange to hear this from an expert in the field who cannot but know
that the launch of “blanks” during testing of new, previously unflyed missiles is a justified tradition rather than an exception.
It was the blanks, mass-dimensional mock-ups, or, as they are called in the West, DemoSat, that were launched during testing of the super-heavy rocket Delta IV Heavy, during the first launch of the rocket. Roscosmos in 2014 also successfully tested light and heavy Angara rockets. One to geostationary orbit, the second to a test site in Kamchatka.
And in recent years, Roscosmos has received its share of criticism not for neglected blanks.
We are unlikely to know for sure what the alternative load options were - there was talk that SpaceX offered to launch its devices and, but they refused - the risks were too great. In light of this, Musk, as the organizer of the event, had the right to send not a pig iron to the asteroids, but to make a show out of it that will go down in human history - why not? “It's stupid and funny, but stupid and funny things often become important,” Musk explained.
Not myself
“Musk did little himself, but already used ready-made technologies.” An important role in its formation was played by its current leading engineer Tom Muller, who was behind the development of Merlin engines and had extensive experience in creating oxygen-kerosene engines with a throttling system, that is, the ability to widely change thrust modes.
When developing the engine, a number of already patented inventions were actually used. And here the comparison, if we talk about the fate of private astronautics, will not be in favor of Russia. In the USA it is normal practice
when technologies developed under government orders become available for further use by commercial companies.
As an example, we can recall the company Bigelow Aerospace, which used Nasov’s technologies for inflatable stations and itself continued to develop this idea.
In Russia, if an organization develops some technology under government order, this intellectual property goes to the state and it will be almost impossible for non-governmental organizations to use it. On the contrary, as people familiar with the space industry say, even neighboring enterprises developing similar technologies do not share their developments with each other and are afraid of industrial espionage from each other.
At the same time, the technologies transferred to NASA to create Merlin engines do not date back to the era of flights to the Moon, they are completely new, from the late nineties - early two thousand.
They were paid
Finally, the last argument: SpaceX is not a completely private company, they are paid by the state. Over 10 years, SpaceX received $3.5 billion from NASA to develop the Falcon 9 rocket (Not Falcon Heavy!), the Dragon cargo ship and the manned Dragon 2. At the same time, today the company has contracts for more than 60 missions - worth $7 billion.
By investing in SpaceX,
The US government pursued the main goal of being able to launch satellites into space more cheaply.
This is what it uses today, trusting this private owner even with defense and secret orders.
In the United States, saving money is a priority, which is partly why Washington continues to buy RD-180 rocket engines from Russia, which haunt the senator. And when the question of spending budget money arises, policy issues fade into the background.
An indicative case occurred in the mid-2000s, in pre-sanction times. When NASA was deciding who would order the production of an instrument for studying hydrogen in lunar soil for the LRO orbiter, they offered to assemble it at Los Alamos National Laboratory, albeit at a huge cost.
And when Russian scientists from the Institute of Space Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences offered to make this LEND device at their own expense with the condition of participation in the mission, the question of who to give the order to disappeared by itself.
If we compare the money allocated by the US government to Musk’s company with the funds allocated to Russian state-owned space enterprises, the comparison will not be in favor of the latter, and this may be the reason for Roscosmos’s distinctly cold attitude towards the successes of the American businessman.
These same enterprises and scientific institutes continue to receive lawsuits from the same Roscosmos, as Gazeta.Ru has repeatedly written about.
When asked about Musk’s successes, and they are asked all the time, the leadership of Roscosmos generally tries not to mention him by name.
And after the launch of Falcon Heavy, the state corporation called it an advertising “trick” for the sake of the Tesla car, with the production of which “things are bad.”
Against the backdrop of Musk’s successes and Russia’s space failures, the advice to launch its cosmonauts using a trampoline, given almost four years ago against the backdrop of worsening relations with the United States, acquired particular resonance. The day before, SpaceX launched its own “trampoline” - a special network with the help of which it plans to return rocket fairings for reuse. The near future will show whose trampoline will be better.
