E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Chris Hadfield / CSA / NASA via Twitter
SpaceX's Dragon cargo capsule is held by the International Space Station's Canadian-built robotic arm in advance of its berthing on Sunday. "A Dragon, snared and tamed," Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield wrote on Twitter.
The commercial SpaceX rocket venture has launched Dragon cargo capsules to the International Space Station three times in the past year, and every time there's been a problem. Should NASA be upset?
Not really.
The fact that glitches have cropped up — and have been solved, with no impact on the multimillion-dollar cargo resupply missions — isn't a black mark against the California-based company. Rather, it's a sign that the designs for SpaceX's Dragon capsule and Falcon 9 are resilient in the face of the inevitable glitches associated with spaceflight. It's also a sign of things to come.
"We may see more mission aborts, where the cost of a mission may be a fraction of the cost of a 'perfect' spacecraft," says James Oberg, NBC News' space analyst. "For the same cost, you could launch three or four, or even eight or 10 'not-perfect' vehicles, with a success rate of 90 to 95 percent. and as a result, for the same starting cost launch many times more missions."
Rand Simberg, a former rocket engineer who now writes about spaceflight for a variety of publications, made a similar point in a PJMedia piece touting SpaceX's latest "successful failure": a problem with the Dragon's thruster system that was resolved when SpaceX's engineers issued commands to cycle the system's valves and clear out the lines with a blast of pressurized gas.
"It was a valuable failure in that it identified a potential problem with either the design or operations but didn't cost them the mission," Simberg wrote. After the system reset, the Dragon's thrusters performed without a hitch. The capsule was brought in for its berthing at the space station on Sunday, just a day later than originally scheduled.
"They did everything exactly right about the vehicle," Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, told reporters after the thruster system was fixed.
The snags that cropped up during the previous two Dragon launches were similarly resolved without major consequences for SpaceX or NASA:
- Last May, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket lit up its engines for launch, but immediately shut them down when the flight computer detected an excessive pressure reading in one of the engines. Engineers found and fixed a problem with the engine's turbopump valve, and a few days later, the Falcon 9 launched the Dragon on a historic demonstration mission to the space station. In August, a NASA panel said it was satisfied with SpaceX's handling of the glitch and its aftermath.
- Last October, one of the nine engines on the Falcon 9's first stage shut down during the ascent, due to a flaw in the sheathing that surrounded the engine. The other engines automatically adjusted their thrust to make up for the shutdown, and the Dragon successfully reached orbit. However, the Falcon wasn't able to put an Orbcomm telecommunications satellite that was carried as a secondary payload in its proper orbit. As a result, the satellite was lost. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said the company tracked down the problem and beefed up its procedure for non-destructive evaluation of the Merlin rocket engines. Since the satellite loss, Orbcomm and SpaceX have renegotiated their launch contract.
SpaceX's communication director, Christina Ra, told NBC News that there the investigation of last week's thruster problem has already begun. "But I am hesitant to give you any commitment on whether or not we can give more detail, and what the timing would be," she wrote in an email, "because it does take time, the information is shared with and approved by multiple parties, and at the end of the day, regulated by ITAR."
That last acronym refers to the International Trade in Arms Regulations, which strictly limit the transfer of aerospace technology to foreign countries. SpaceX fears that the unauthorized disclosure of information about a rocket anomaly would get the company in ITAR trouble with the federal government, and maybe even get someone put in jail. "I don't look good in horizontal stripes," Shotwell joked.
Dealing with anomalies may well be a more frequent option for future spaceflight, even when humans are involved. Oberg noted that the subject came up when millionaire Dennis Tito was discussing his plan to send private-sector astronauts on a 501-day trip past Mars in 2018. "He described how his two-human crew to Mars would be occupied servicing, repairing and coaxing their life support systems, which would be designed to be fixable, not to be 'perfect,'" Oberg said in an email.
This is why SpaceX and NASA's other commercial partners are devoting so much attention to the development of launch abort systems for crew-capable spaceships. Those systems might actually have to be used someday.
"With a commercialized crew taxi that doesn't 'overspend' on unattainable perfect reliability, but accepts the occasional mission failure, you'll fly many more successful missions. You don't have to pay for it in crew safety, just in mission completion rates. And the high flight rates can shake out hardware to enhance reliability far more than flying a vehicle once or twice a year, as with space shuttles." Oberg said.
"If there isn't a commercial crew mission abort at some point in the first 10 missions, I'd suspect they spent too much on reliability. I'm not talking about somebody getting hurt — we need to build robust and reliable escape systems — but just having to come home without accomplishing the purpose of the launch."
Does that sound scary? It shouldn't. The key to success in space may well be to make sure failure is an option that can be dealt with — as SpaceX demonstrated last week.
March 1: The SpaceX Dragon cargo capsule's arrival at the International Space Station was delayed due to a problem with its thrusters. NBC's Tom Costello reports.
More about commercial space ventures:
- Spaceship ventures plan flights as early as 2015
- Gallery: Ten players in the commercial space race
- Cosmic Log archive on commercial space ventures
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
It's worth noting that the Falcon 9 engine failure in October wouldn't necessarily have prevented the prototype OG2 OrbComm satellite from reaching its intended orbit, had NASA not been the primary payload customer. NASA required that the ability to get the secondary payload deployed correctly orbit be 99% certain, to minimize the risk of collision with the station. The extra fuel burned after the engine went out left SpaceX with a 95% certainty, so no attempt to deploy the satellite properly was even made.
Despite the satellite being jettisoned in a very low orbit, OrbComm was able to perform many of their tests with the prototype before it burned up. It must've been satisfactory data for them, since they didn't schedule another prototype launch, and are moving forward with the production model.
The only time they need to have a 100% perfect mission is when they start transporting humans. Otherwise they could even lose cabin pressure and be ok. It is impressive they were able to overcome the glitches they have had remotely.
Jonathan, humans only require a high probability of a safe return, even if the mission can't be completed.
Thus launch escape systems, and the like...
If you think about it, we don't expect perfection in our everyday normal lives. People - lots of people - die in car accidents and home accidents every year.
NASA strove for perfection with the Shuttle program, and even though we spent lots and lots of money and put our best people to the task, we lost 40% of the Shuttle orbiter fleet. Don't blame the people involved with the program, since they undoubtedly gave their very best. But it's just an example of the fact that nothing is perfect, so we have to hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
I don't think SpaceX will be alone in this approach, and we all need to keep this in mind when the enviable happens. Let's also remember our history, where it was almost a forgone conclusion that not everyone would return from an exploration expedition. So if we want to expand our presence out into space, we're going to have to accept that we are still explorers, and that we are not yet the masters of the unknown.
Next up is Orbital Sciences and their Antares launcher - I wish them well.
I liked this article and the comments; to achieve space operations analogous to commercial airlines, we need to be able to deal with the squawks and in-route issues that are diagnosed and resolved every day. The only way to get good at that is to fly more and that seems to be the plan. One thing that wasn't mentioned in the article is that when Dragon's abort capability comes on line, that gives them the option of potentially saving the manifest on cargo missions that go awry.
The things most significant about the mission so far are that they completed an investigation of the previous Falcon 9 flight anomaly, executed a corrective action against the root cause, and had a successful flight.; and then appear to have used a solid set of diagnostic procedures and followed protocol to quickly recover all 18 Draco thrusters from the pressurization issue. Their ability to handle problems is impressive and shows a growing maturity as they proceed towards human spaceflight. I look forward to flight of the Falcon Heavy and wish Orbital Sciences success as well.
That because they are not some government entity that is so bogged down in paperwork and political agenda's that they cant get anything done. Space X is a private entity that has to make a profit if it wants to survive. They cant survive if they fail too many times in either performance or on time delivery. So they are motivated better than NASA to get things moving and fixed.
Stoned:
That is a ridiculous analysis of government vs private space flight. NASA was just as motivated to successful missions as SpaceX. Too many failures would have resulted in the program being shut down.
The only political decision in NASA programs was when LBJ located Mission Control in Texas instead of Florida. The main difference between NASA programs and SpaceX is that NASA vehicles were designed over 40 years ago, when computers were much heavier and less capable. Requiring 1970's computer or a human crew to manage 9 engines at once was just not possible, so the shuttle was built with a simpler configuration and a computer with less capability than today's typical smartphone.
Motivation does not compete with a ton of paper work and other regulations and regulating bodies that halt rapid change. Want to change a screw then fill out form blah blah and blah, send to blah, wait for blah's reply,change denied didnt fill out blah form, oops forgot blah form, fill out all forms again and the form missed the first time.....and etc, etc,
I would like to know how many "acceptable risk" commenters plan on flying on a space ship. I wonder?
dclart-3296155 - I am guessing the same number that fly on airplanes. You take acceptable risk there as well.
I judge an entity by how well it can realize and work around any mistakes. Companies (and governments) that do not make mistakes do not exist. SpaceX did well. Nasa need not worry, but the nannies now have something to worry about, commercial launch services as a success!! But I am sure they will implement a plan b. Rather than let us escape their clutch's, they'll set up nanny outposts across the galaxy....cleverly disguised no doubt.
cool if they support NASA. not cool if they want to claim land and minerals on the moon, or control space travel. the moon and the stars are not owned by corporations.
Or by governments....
But show me how you get there without one or the other.
NASA has long had a neurotic compulsion with placing safety above all else. NASA's penchant for Risk Aversion probably added hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions to spaceflight costs since the 60's, yet at the end of the day it was design flaws that doomed both Challenger and Columbia anyway ( O-Rings, foam ).
Space flight is always risky . That risk cannot be designed away , nor even fully mitigated. It might be time for NASA to learn some resolve from the Russians and start using more stoicism and less sanctimony in getting to orbit. If a space system is designed to have a 98 percent chance of success on the drawing board at first, mandating it must be at least 99 or 99.5 percent assured for qualification may double or triple costs and not be attainable anyway.
I agree with most of the commentors here who echo that . Jim Oberg is spot on , as always. NASA probably would not allow a vehicle flying its flag make a 500 day trip-for-two Mars flyby if there was a chance that a something could go wrong to endanger the crew. But I'd bet a fortune that there would be no shortage of couples lining up for consideration to berth that trip , clamoring " take us! take us! " , full well knowing the risks but more importantly accepting them. I ferdamnsure would do it...and sign the waiver.
NASA was mandated by congress not to have any accidents. After all the prestige of the country was/is at stake. You are correct that a safety margin above approximately 95% adds significantly to the cost. A private company does not have to worry about the prestige of the country, and can easily avoid massive costs. If the private air industry were ran at 99% safety air travel would also still be a rare luxury for the elite. That is why private space travel is so much cheaper. If they maintained a 90% safety rating they would still get high praise, and the cost plunges at those levels.
Dewdle,
Before you blame the Space Shuttle failures on the design you might want to check your history.
The Challenger was launched in temperatures that were outside of the design envelope. Thiokol wanted to scrub the launch, but NASA management decided to go ahead. It was a management failure, not an engineering failure.
NASA management dismissed the damage to the Columbia that occurred at launch. NASA management ignored the pleas from the engineers to use a satellite to observe the damage to the leading edge. NASA management accepted the results from a computer simulation when they had the opportunity to see what the damage really was. When the engineers ran a real world test the damage to the leading edge from a tile that was saturated with frozen water was devestating.
The Space Shuttle was an engineering masterpiece that was doomed twice by hubritic management decisions.
The scientists, engineers, and technicians who built the Space Shuttle are long gone, and there is no way to replace them.
There has not been a great deal of innovation since the 70s. The same designs with the same engines and design geometry are accomplishing the same objectives - using humans to study human life support systems. It is circular research.
In the meantime robots have been accomplishing spectacular results for relatively low costs.
The future of space exploration belongs to robots, not humans. In a relatively short period of time it will be possible to study space with robots that are at least as intelligent and capable as a human being. As soon as NASA and other agencies accept the fact that robots should do space exploration they will be able to make huge technological strides.
It is similar to the US Air Forces insistence that aircraft have pilots. An ICBM can out-perform the B-52, B-1B, or the B-2. The performance of tactical aircraft is limited by the ability of the pilot to withstand G forces, not the airframe.
I have. Something that is engineered with as little reserve in its structure as the Space Shuttle is not well engineered. Yes, it worked, barely. The thermal protection system did not have an adequate development program and had to be inspected by a legion of highly trained technicians after every flight lest it fall apart. And it had no reserve against taking a hit from a piece of ice or anything similar. The booster O-rings had leaked before in conditions that were within spect--the only thing different about Challenger was that one leaked in exactly the right place to cut a piece of structure. It was supposed to reduce launch costs drastically, it didn't.
It continued to be operated because it was paid for, not because it was good.
And the reason it was crap was political. The congress kept cutting the budget and cutting the budget and cutting the budget until there was no way to build anything that was actually decent.
The thing is, nobody cares about robots. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
J Clarke,
Not even close.
The conditions were freezing the night before the Challenger launch and the temperature was so low that the O-rings were guaranteed to leak - which is why Thiokol wanted to cancel the launch.
Pushing the technological envelope will always have problems, lots of them, and they are formidable. Some of them, like the X-31, simply cannot be built. The X-37B is the current version of the Space Shuttle, and it does everything that it needs to - robotically.
An aerospace cliche is that there is always the time and money to build it right the second time - after it fails. The O-rings were fixed, and the tile inspection program eventually got the job done.
At the end of the day the contractor builds what NASA asks for. If you refer to the Space Shuttle as crap, it is the crap that NASA asked for. If you think that it is easy, it isn't.
If you want to trivialize space exploration, go right ahead. BTW, do you have any aerospace engineering experience?
Much ado about nothing. As if NASA never had a problem with any space mission. SpaceX fixed the problem. They should be applauded not chastised.
Hope they bring along some duct tape, vacuum cleaner hoses, plastic bags, and paper manuals.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court:
The numerous despicable attempts to restrict voting made during the last election cycle are proof of that. Anyone who truly believes the VRA is obsolete needs to recognize, given last year's voter suppression efforts, the Jim Crowe era is biding its time.
Now even if you are dumb enough to believe that all is OK with the world and there are no reasons to have the voting rights act on the books. Then why are the the parties at opposite end's on this? Why are the Republicans in America trying to keep people from the poles ?
The argument is that VRA is discriminatory against Southern states to require them but not other states to seek pre-clearance for voting laws; I actually agree. The Voting Rights Act should require *ALL* states to seek pre-clearance. After what we've seen the GOP try to pass in states all across the nation prior to the last 2012 election, I see no reason this safeguard against voter suppression should be limited to just Southern states as suggested by VRA of 1965 but now should be expanded to apply to ALL 50 states.
Ajay Jain
ajain31@gmail.com
Twitter @ajain31
Mobile: 214-207-9781
Michelle Rhee - The famous controvertial former Washington DC School District Chancellor
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=215125001967375&set=vb.145530532162873&type=2&theater
Michelle Rhee on OPRAH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPsqO17f6Lw
Michelle Rhee on abc's ThisWeek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nep1mcaFthU
Michelle Rhee on The DailyShow with Jon Stewart
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-4-2013/exclusive---michelle-rhee-extended-interview-pt--2http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-4-2013/exclusive---michelle-rhee-extended-interview-pt--3" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-4-2013/michelle-rhee
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-4-2013/exclusive---michelle-rhee-extended-interview-pt--2http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-4-2013/exclusive---michelle-rhee-extended-interview-pt--3" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-4-2013/exclusive---michelle-rhee-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-4-2013/exclusive---michelle-rhee-extended-interview-pt--2http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-4-2013/exclusive---michelle-rhee-extended-interview-pt--3" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-4-2013/exclusive---michelle-rhee-extended-interview-pt--3
pbs.org FRONTLINE: The Education of Michelle Rheehttp://video.pbs.org/video/2323979463/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education-of-michelle-rhee/
Time Magazine: Rhee Tackles Classroom Challengehttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1862444-2,00.html
Michelle Rhee Discusses "Waiting for Superman," Charter Schools And Sch... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLih24QdwH8
Why Teach For America works - Michelle Rhee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUs_hsHaqSA
A Two-Tier Proposal for Teacher Pay - Michelle Rhee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pii96AoTPw
Stanford University: A Conversation on "Waiting for Superman" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzrjo7Fvs1A
"Radical" Fighting to Put Students First should be a must read for all studentsfirst.org members! Michelle Rhee's new book, "RADICAL: Fighting to Put Students First," is now in stores! For more information about where you can find it, to read an excerpt from the book, and to share your story about education in America visit the official site at http://www.edradical.com/ or http://www.facebook.com/edradical.
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/michelle-rhee/510ff3b02b8c2a138f000747
Michelle Rhee at the ACE 2011 Spring Luncheon https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=mO9F-amHDuw
Michelle Rhee and Kevin Johnson (4/20/11) https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=OCcNzh7C_Tk&feature=endscreen
Michelle A. Rhee 03.17.11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD0g8Jb9l78
Cornell Alumni: Olin Lecture 2012: Michelle Rhee '92https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwFD-wkAEi8
Harvard Public Health: Michelle Rhee, Former Chancellor of Washington D.C. Public Schools https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH0twXcxNUY
http://fora.tv/2013/02/07/Michelle_Rhee_Fighting_to_Put_Students_First
Geoffrey Canada - Conversations at KCTS 9https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxP6Ov5PSG8 Geoffrey Canada interviewed by Julian Bond: Explorations in Black Leadership ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f5MZKf6Uu4
"Waiting for Superman" the documentary and Bloomberg documentary "Risk Takers" Michelle Rhee should a required screening for all studentsfirst.org members. I saw them on Netflix and became an instant member of studentsfirst.org and Michelle Rhee follower.
"Won't Back down" the movie is another example to screen to all studentsfirst.org members.
Share the reasons you fight for education reform. Your story will inspire others to get involved. So tell us: Why are you working to put students first? http://www.studentsfirst.org/facebook-story
Check out today's blog by StudentsFirst staffer Charity Hallman, "One size fits all, or so they said," on The Fordham Institute's "Education Gadfly Daily: FLYPAPER" blog.
To view the Fordham study, "When Teachers Choose Pension Plans: The Florida Story," visit http://www.studentsfirst.org/fordham-study-on-fl-teacher-pension-reform
Watch MAKER videos on StudentFirst Founder Michelle Rhee visit www.makers.com/michelle-rhee
Ajay Jain
ajain31@gmail.com
Twitter: @ajain31
Mobile 214-207-9781
Buzz Aldrin's Cycler based travel to MARS using six such Cyclers staggered in orbit between Earth and MARS would be ideal. Elon Musk is one visionary who can accomplish regular visits to MARS and back!
Dr. Buzz Aldrin's vision of our history of Space Exploration and its place in the future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWYtsIeZEcA&list=UUJ32RMD21d1rLxoBD6s6Dcw&index=1
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/2076326?series=35
Elon Musk is a great legend ripe for the US Space Age of today but way ahead of his time. He has realized his dreams in exploiting the Internet through founding his Billion dollar company PayPal, in promoting sustainable energy production like through his company SOLAR CITY, his promotion of sustainable energy consumption like through his all electric car company TESLA and his vision to promote space travel through his company SPACEX and is making progress successfully by leaps and bounds.
SpaceX is our answer to Space Exploration and a visit to settle on MARS and an Asteroid. An offshoot to our MARS exploration should building an Asteroid avoidance system before 2039 which is of prime importance.
Elon Musk made his first fortune selling PayPal to eBay in 2002. Now NASA is using his SpaceX to resupply the International Space Station while shares of his Tesla electric car company gained 10% last year. Next up: SolarCity, run by Musk's cousin Lyndon Rive, wants to put solar panels on your home (except not for my home in Garland Texas USA because my local Utility company does not provide the appropriate solar rebates!).
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk at the House Appropriations Texas Published Mar 8 '13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhVNOYz5ciw.
Space Exploration gets private with SpaceX Dragon Published Mar 5 '13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCk8V3z8Cjo.
SpaceX Hatch Opening of CRS-2 Dragon on ISS Published Mar 4 '13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlACnuHFPg0.
SpaceX Dragon carrying NASA Cargo arrives at International Space Station Published Mar 3 '13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMGxUPshOco.
SpaceX Elon Musk's view from Mission Control Published Feb 28 '13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53gkLHvljxg.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk - Europe's rocket has no chance Published Nov 20 '12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on6pzefo4t8.
SpaceX boldly looks to blast millions of people Mars Published May 3 '12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svzXxuQIKlc.
SpaceX Next - Falcon Heavy Press Conference April 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtoADdSry6g&list=PL804F06E0DFC20878&index=4&feature=plpp_video
A Pioneer in Space and On Earth.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/10/opinion/mccray-elon-musk/index.html CNN, June 11, 2012.
SpaceX: Entrepreneur's race to space.
CBS 60 Minutes, June 3, 2012 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57438584/spacex-entrepreneurs-race-to-space/.
Elon Musk on Sixty Minutes http://blog.ted.com/2013/02/27/transforming-transportation-elon-musk-at-ted2013/.
The Colbert Report: Elon Musk http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/341483/july-28-2010/elon-musk The Colbert Report, July 28, 2010.
Elon Musk Profiled: Bloomberg Risk Takers: Video - Bloomberg Uploaded Jan 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTJt547--AM.
"Bloomberg Risk Takers" profiles Elon Musk, the entrepreneur who helped create PayPal, built America's first viable fully electric car company and started SpaceX...
National Geographic: Megafactories TESLA Model S (English) Uploaded Jan 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=VUgDcA1pZAM&feature=endscreen.
2013 TESLA Model S - The quickest Sedan Built in America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOdsTuaJEfc&list=PL2CC76D636F09E03D.
Elon Musk - Presentations.
1) An Evening with Elon Musk and Alison van Diggelen Uploaded Feb 2013.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHHwXUm3iIg
2) The future of Energy & Transport Uploaded Nov 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pKHyZxSCseE#!
3) Interview with Elon Musk Uploaded Sept. 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g92rP1Mi_oQ
4) Fireside Chat with Elon Musk Uploaded July 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uegOUmgKB4E.
5) National Press Club Luncheon with Elon Musk Uploaded Sept. 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrVD3tcVWTY
6) Chairman's Forum Uploaded April 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNCdh05ck8.
7) Elon Musk at the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Apr 2012 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-10-2012/elon-musk.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-10-2012/exclusive---elon-musk-extended-interview-pt--2
8) Time Magazine: 10 Questions - Elon Musk Uploaded July 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwT3Y0lkYaQ.
9) Elon Musk - The mind behind Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity Published Feb 2013 http://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spacex_solarcity.html
Pricing is important. Suggestion: Why don't all TESLA Model S YouTube Videos say UPFRONT that this car is about $90,900 direct from Tesla. The most economic model (Model S 40kWh) can be had for just over $50k with 160 mile range. Chevy Hybrid VOLT publicizes its price at $32K with just an EPA estimated 38 mile range. TESLA Model S 40kWh 160 mile range range beats VOLT, LEAF & others.. anyday!
TESLA Model X Official Reveal Uploaded Feb 2012 Reservations for TESLA Model X is open at TeslaMotors.com for 2014 delivery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0I7dByeTt4
TESLA Model X Crossover unvieled - Autoweek TV Uploaded Feb 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DevNb18bkuc
TESLA Motors, Elon Musk speech in Geneva Motor Show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMzgHnszMkA
PopularMechanics.com: Elon Musk Panel BTA 2012 Uploaded Jan 2013.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_af0ow1__E
Ajay Jain
ajain31@gmail.com
Twitter: @ajain31
Mobile 214-207-9781