Making Life Multiplanetary

This documet is an abridged transcript of Elon Musk’s presentation at the 68th International Astronautical Congress on September 28th, 2017 in Adelaide, Australia. MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY “You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great - and that’s what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It’s about believing in the future and thinking that the future will be better than the past. And I can’t think of anything more exciting than going out there and being among the stars.” Elon Musk, CEO and Lead Designer, SpaceX BECOMING A MULTI-PLANET SPECIES good sense of what it takes to create a huge carbon fiber tank that can hold cryogenic liquid. That is actually extremely important for This presentation will cover the updated design for what we are making a light spaceship. currently calling BFR. The most important thing that I want to convey in this presentation is that I think we have figured out how to pay for it. This is very important. In last year’s presentation, we were really searching for the right way to pay for this thing. We went through various ideas— Kickstarter, collecting underpants, etc. These didn’t pan out, but now we think we have got a way to achieve this. Our updated design leverages a smaller vehicle, still pretty big but a single vehicle that can do everything that’s needed for greater Earth orbit activity. Essentially we want to make our current vehicles redundant. We want to have one system—one booster and one ship—that replaces Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Dragon. If we can do that, then all the resources that are used for Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Dragon can be applied to this system. That’s really fundamental. PROGRESS Fig.1. Deep cryo liquid oxygen tank developed by SpaceX DEEP CRYO LIQUID OXYGEN TANK RAPTOR ENGINE TESTING The next key element is on the engine side. We have to have an This giant deep cryo liquid oxygen tank is actually a twelve meter extremely efficient engine; the Raptor engine will be the highest tank—you can see the relative scale of it in figure 1. It’s a thousand thrust-to-weight engine, we believe, of any engine of any kind cubic meters of volume inside. That is actually more pressurized ever made. We already have 1200 seconds of firing across 42 main volume than an A380, to put that into perspective. We developed a engine tests. We have fired Raptor for as long as 100 seconds. It new carbon fiber matrix that is much stronger and more capable at could fire for much longer than 100 seconds, this is just a reflection cryo than anything before, and it holds 1200 tons of liquid oxygen. of the size of the test tanks. The duration of the firing for landing on We successfully tested the tank up to its design pressure and then Mars is about 40 seconds. The test engine currently operates at 200 went a little further. We wanted to see where it would break, and we atmospheres, or 200 bar, the flight engine will be at 250 bar, and succeeded in that effort. It shot about 300 feet into the air, landed then we believe over time we could probably get that to a little over in the ocean and we fished it out. At this point we have got a pretty 300 bar. abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spacex.com/mars 1

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY Fig.2. Falcon 9 completing a successful propulsive landing PERFECTING PROPULSIVE LANDING watch, not your calendar. The next key element is propulsive landing. In order to land on a So while SpaceX’s launch rate is quite high by conventional place like the Moon where there is no atmosphere and certainly no standards, it is still a very small launch rate compared to what will runways, or to land on Mars where the atmosphere is too thin to ultimately be needed. land with wings even if there were runways, you really have to get propulsive landing perfect. Propulsive landing is what we have been practicing with Falcon 9. As of the time of this presentation, SpaceX has had 16 successful landings and that is really without any redundancy. Falcon 9’s final landing is always done with a single engine whereas with BFR, we will always have multi-engine out capability. You want minimum pucker factor on landing—you need to be able to essentially count on the landing. If you can get to a very high reliability with even a single engine, and then you can land with either of two engines, I think we can get to a landing reliability that is on par with the safest commercial airliners. Fig.3. Launch rate to date and projected 2017/2018 Falcon 9 can also land with very high precision. In fact, we believe RENDEZVOUS AND DOCKING the precision at this point is good enough that we will not need legs for the next version. It will literally land with so much precision that it will land back on its launch mounts. The next key technology is automated rendezvous and docking. In order to refill the spaceship in orbit, you have to be able to LAUNCH RATE rendezvous and dock with the spaceship with very high precision and transfer propellant. That is one of things that we have perfected When you seriously consider the idea of establishing a self- with Dragon. Dragon 1 will do an automated rendezvous and docking sustaining base on Mars or the Moon or elsewhere, you ultimately without any pilot control to the space station. need thousands of ships and tens of thousands of refilling Dragon 1 currently uses the Canadarm for the final placement onto operations. This means you need many launches per day. In terms the space station. Dragon 2, which launches next year, will not need of how many landings are occurring, you need to be looking at your abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spacex.com/mars 2

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY to use the Canadarm as it will directly dock with the space station, FALCON HEAVY and it can do so with zero human intervention. You just press “go” and it will dock. Hopefully, towards the end this year we will be launching Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy ended up being a much more complex program Dragon has also allowed us to perfect heat shield technology. than we thought. When you enter at a high velocity, you will melt almost anything. The reason meteors do not reach Earth is they melt or disintegrate It sounds like Falcon Heavy should be easy because it’s two Falcon before they reach the ground, unless they are very big. You have 9 first stages strapped onto a center first stage as boosters. It is to have a sophisticated heat shield technology that can withstand actually not easy. We had to redesign almost everything except unbelievably high temperatures and that is what we have been the upper stage in order to take the increased loads. Falcon Heavy perfecting with Dragon—also a key part of any planet colonizing ended up being much more a new vehicle than we realized, so it system. took us a lot longer to get it done, but the boosters have all now been tested and they are on their way to Cape Canaveral. And we VEHICLE EVOLUTION are now beginning serious development of BFR. FALCON 1 Falcon 1 is where we started out. A lot of people really only heard of SpaceX relatively recently, so they may think Falcon 9 and Dragon just instantly appeared and that’s how it always was—but it wasn’t. We started off with just a few people who really didn’t know how to make rockets. And the reason that I ended up being the chief engineer or chief designer, was not because I wanted to, it’s because I couldn’t hire anyone. Nobody good would join, I ended up being that by default. And I messed up the first three launches, the first three launches failed. Fortunately the fourth launch—which was the last money that we had for Falcon 1—the fourth launch worked, or that would have been it for SpaceX. But fate liked us that day. So the fourth launch worked and it’s interesting—today is the ninth anniversary of that launch. I didn’t realize that until I was told that just earlier today but this is a very emotional day, actually. Falcon 1 was quite a small rocket. When we were doing Falcon 1 we were really trying to figure out, “What is the smallest useful payload that we could get to orbit?” We thought, okay, something that could launch around half a ton to low Earth orbit. And that is how we sized Falcon 1, but it is really quite small compared to Falcon 9. FALCON 9 Falcon 9, particularly when you factor in payload, is roughly on the order of thirty times more payload than Falcon 1. And Falcon 9 has reuse of the primary booster, which is the most expensive part of the rocket. Hopefully, Falcon 9 will soon have reuse of the fairing, the big nose cone at the front. We think we can probably get to somewhere between 70 and 80 percent reusability with the Falcon 9 system. Fig.4. Vehicle overview: Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and BFR abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spacex.com/mars 3

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY With BFR, you can get a sense of scale by looking at the tiny person in the image below. It is really quite a big vehicle. Main body diameter is about 9 meters or 30 feet and the booster is lifted by 31 Raptor engines that produce a thrust of about 5,400 tons, lifting the 4,400 ton vehicle straight up. BFR SHIP OVERVIEW The ship is 48 meters in length. Dry mass is expected to be about 85 tons. Technically, our design says 75 tons but inevitably there will be mass growth. The ship will contain 1,100 tons of propellant with an ascent design of 150 tons and return mass of 50 tons. You can think of this as essentially combining the upper stage of the rocket with Dragon—it is as if the Falcon 9 upper stage and Dragon were combined. In figure 7, you have the engine section in the rear, the propellant tanks in the middle and then a large payload bay in the front. That payload bay is actually eight stories tall. In fact, you can fit a whole stack of Falcon 1 rockets in the payload bay. Compared to the design I showed last time, you will see that there is a small delta wing at the back of the rocket. The reason for that is to expand the mission envelope of the BFR spaceship. Depending on whether you are landing or you are entering a planet or a moon that has no atmosphere, a thin atmosphere, or a dense atmosphere, and Fig.5. Vehicle payload comparison in tons depending on whether you are reentering with no payload in the front, a small payload, or a heavy payload, you have to balance the BFR rocket out as it is coming in. The delta wing at the back, which also includes a split flap for pitch and roll control, allows us to control the pitch angle despite having a wide range of payloads in the From figure 5, you can see that the payload difference between BFR nose and a wide range of atmospheric densities. We tried to avoid and the other vehicles is quite dramatic. With BFR in fully reusable having the delta wing but it was necessary in order to generalize the configuration, without any orbital refueling, we expect to have a capability of the spaceship such that it could land anywhere in the payload capability of 150 tons to low Earth orbit. That compares to solar system. about 30 tons for Falcon Heavy, which is partially reusable. Where this really makes a tremendous difference is in the cost, which will be discussed later in the presentation. abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spacex.com/mars 4

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY BFR CARGO/CABIN AREA The cargo area has a pressurized volume of 825 cubic meters— greater than the pressurized area of an A380. BFR is capable of carrying a tremendous amount of payload. In a Mars transit configuration, since you would be taking three months in a really good scenario but maybe as much as six months, you probably want a cabin, not just a seat. The Mars transit configuration consists of 40 cabins. You could conceivably have five or six people per cabin if you really wanted to crowd people in, but I think mostly we would expect to see two to three people per cabin, or about a hundred people per flight to Mars. And then there is a central storage area and galley and a solar storm shelter, entertainment area, and I think probably a good situation Fig.7. BFR main body for at least BFR version one. which makes quite a big difference for the propellant load. We expect to carry 240 tons of methane (CH4) and 860 tons of oxygen. In the fuel tank are header tanks; when you come in for landing, your orientation may change quite significantly, but you cannot have the propellant just sloshing around all over in the main tanks, you have to have the header tanks that can feed the main engines with precision. That is what you see immersed in the fuel tank on figure 7. BFR ENGINES The ship engine section consists of four vacuum Raptor engines and two sea-level engines. All six engines are capable of gimbaling. The engines with the high expansion ratio have a relatively smaller gimbal range and slower gimbal rate. The two center engines have a very high gimbal range and can gimbal very quickly. And you can land the ship with either one of the two center engines. When you come Fig.6. BFR engines in for a landing, it will light both engines but if one of the center engines fails at any point, it will be able to land successfully with the BFR MAIN BODY other engine. Within each engine there is a great deal of redundancy as we want the landing risk to be as close to zero as possible. The In the center body of the vehicle, this is where the propellant is sea-level engines are about 330 ISP at sea level. The upper stage located—sub-cooled methane and oxygen. As you chill the methane engine is 375 ISP. Over time there is potential to increase that and oxygen below its liquid point you get a fairly meaningful density specific impulse by 5 to 10 seconds and also increase the chamber increase. You get on the order of 10 to 12 percent density increase, pressure by 50 bar or so. BFR REFILLING For refilling, the two ships would actually mate at the rear section. They would use the same mating interface that they used to connect to the booster on liftoff. We would reuse that mating interface and reuse the propellant fill lines that are used when the ship is on the booster. To transfer propellant, it becomes very simple—use control abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spacex.com/mars 5

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY Fig.8. Rocket capability: Payload to low Earth orbit in tons. BFR has larger payload capacity than Saturn V, while being fully reusable. thrusters to accelerate in the direction that you want to empty. If crazy and you would sell zero aircraft.” So reusability is absolutely you accelerate in this direction, propellant goes that way, and you fundamental. transfer the propellant very easily from the tanker to the ship. ROCKET CAPABILITY VALUE OF REFILLING Now I want to talk about the value of orbital refilling. This is also Figure 8 gives you a rough sense of rocket capability, starting off extremely important. If you just fly BFR to orbit and do not do any at the low end with the Falcon 1 at a half-ton and then going up to refilling, it is pretty good—you’ll get 150 tons to low Earth orbit, and BFR at 150 tons. I think it is important to note that BFR has more have no fuel to go anywhere else. capability than Saturn V even with full reusability. But here is the However, if you send up tankers and refill in orbit, you can refill the really important, fundamental point—let us look at the launch cost. tanks all the way to the top and get 150 tons all the way to Mars. And if the tanker has high reuse capability, then you are just paying for When you look at the vehicles against marginal launch cost, the the cost of propellant—the cost of oxygen and the cost of methane is order reverses. I know at first glance this may seem ridiculous but extremely low. If that is all you are dealing with, the cost of refilling it is not. The same is true of aircraft. If you bought a small, single- your spaceship on orbit is tiny and you can get 150 tons all the way engine turboprop aircraft—that would be one and a half to two to Mars. So automated rendezvous and docking and refilling are million dollars. To charter a 747 from California to Australia is half a absolutely fundamental. million dollars, there and back. The single-engine turboprop cannot even get to Australia. So a fully reusable giant aircraft like the 747 costs a third as much as an expendable tiny aircraft. In one case you have to build an entire aircraft, in the other case you just have to PAYING FOR BFR refuel something. It is really crazy that we build these sophisticated rockets and then crash them every time we fly. This is mad. I cannot Getting back to the question of “How do we pay for this system?” emphasize how profound this is and how important reusability is. This was really quite a profound—I would not call it a breakthrough Often I will be told, “but you could get more payload if you made but a realization—that if we can build a system that cannibalizes our it expendable.” I say “yes, you could also get more payload from own products, makes our own products redundant, then all of the an aircraft if you got rid of the landing gear and the flaps and just resources, which are quite enormous, that are used for Falcon 9, parachute out when you got to your destination. But that would be Falcon Heavy and Dragon, can be applied to one system. Fig.9. Launch cost: Marginal cost per launch accounting for reusability. Due to full reusability, BFR provides lowest marginal cost per launch, despite vastly higher capacity than existing vehicles. abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spacex.com/mars 6

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY Some of our customers are conservative and they want to see BFR fly several times before they are comfortable launching on it, so what we plan to do is to build ahead and have a stock of Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles so that customers can be comfortable. If they want to use the old rocket or spacecraft, they can do that because we will have a bunch in stock but all of our resources will then turn towards building BFR; we believe that we can do this with the revenue we receive for launching satellites and for servicing the space station. SATELLITES The size of this being a nine meter diameter vehicle is a huge enabler for new satellites. We can actually send something that Fig.11. Docking with the International Space Station is almost nine meters in diameter to orbit. For example, if you want to do a new Hubble, you could send a mirror that has 10 MOON MISSIONS times the surface area of the current Hubble, as a single unit that does not have to unfold. You could send a large number of small Based on our calculations, we can actually do lunar surface satellites. You can actually go around and, if you wanted to, collect missions with no propellant production on the surface of the Moon. old satellites or clean up space debris—that may be something If we do a high elliptic parking orbit for the ship and retank in high we have to do in the future. The fairing would open up, retract elliptic orbit, we can go all the way to the Moon and back with no and then come back down, enabling launching of Earth satellites local propellant production on the Moon. I think that would enable that are significantly larger than anything we have done before or the creation of Moon Base Alpha or some sort of lunar base. It is significantly more satellites at a time than anything that has been 2017. We should have a lunar base by now. done before. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION Fig.12. Establishing a Moon base Fig.10. Satellite delivery in Earth orbit It is also intended to be able to service the space station. I know it looks a little big relative to the space station but the Shuttle also looked big—so it will work. It will be capable of doing what Dragon does today in terms of transporting cargo and what Dragon 2 will do in terms of transporting crew and cargo. It can also go out to much further than that, like for example, the Moon. Fig.13. Lunar surface missions abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spacex.com/mars 7

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY MARS Becoming a multi-planet species beats the hell out of being a single planet species. We would start off by sending a mission to Mars MARS ENTRY where it would be obviously just landing on rocky ground or dusty ground. For Mars entry, you are entering very MARS TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE quickly, going seven and a half kilometers a second. For Mars, there will be some ablation It is the same approach that I mentioned before, which is to send of the heat shield, sort of like a brake pad wearing the spaceship up to orbit, refill it until it has full tanks, and then it away. It is a multi-use heat shield, but unlike for Earth travels to Mars and lands. For Mars you will need local propellant operations, it is coming in hot enough that you really will see production. But Mars has a CO2 atmosphere and plenty of water ice. some wear of the heat shield. That gives you CO2 and H2O, so therefore you can make CH4 and O2 MARS LANDING using the Sabatier Process. I should mention that, long term, this can also be done on Earth. Sometimes I get some criticism along Because Mars has an atmosphere, albeit not a particularly dense the lines of: “Why are you using combustion in rockets and you have one, you can remove almost all the energy aerodynamically. And we electric cars?” Well there is no way to make an electric rocket, have proven out supersonic retropropulsion many times with Falcon I wish there was, but in the long term you can use solar power 9, so we feel very comfortable about that. to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, combine it with water and produce fuel and oxygen for the rocket. The same thing that we’re MARS MISSION GOALS doing on Mars, we could do on Earth in the long term. Similar to the Moon, you land on Mars, but the tricky thing with We are targeting our first cargo missions in 2022—that’s not a Mars is we do need to build a propellant depot to refill the tanks and typo, although it is aspirational. We’ve already started building return to Earth. Because Mars has lower gravity than Earth, you do the system—the tooling for the main tanks has been ordered, the not need a booster—you can go all the way from the surface of Mars facility is being built and we will start construction of the first ship to the surface of Earth just using the ship. You need a max payload around the second quarter of next year. In about six to nine months number of about 20 to 50 tons for the return journey to work, but it we should start building the first ship. I feel fairly confident that we is a single stage all the way back to Earth. can complete the ship and be ready for a launch in about five years. Fig.14. Mars transportation architecture abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spacex.com/mars 8

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY Five years seems like a long time to me. The area under the curve MARS BASE of resources over that period of time should enable this time frame to be met, but if not this time frame, I think pretty soon thereafter. The base starts with one ship, then multiple ships, then we start But that is our goal, to try to make the 2022 Mars rendezvous. The building out the city and making the city bigger, and even bigger. Earth-Mars synchronization happens roughly every two years, so Over time terraforming Mars and making it really a nice place to be. every two years there is an opportunity to fly to Mars. It is quite a beautiful picture. You know that on Mars, dawn and dusk are blue. The sky is blue at dawn and dusk and red during the day. It’s the opposite of Earth. Fig.15. Initial Mars mission goals Then in 2024 we want to try to fly four ships—two cargo and two crew. The goal of the first mission is to find the best source of water, and for the second mission, the goal is to build the propellant plant. We should—particularly with six ships there—have plenty of landed mass to construct the propellant depot, which will consist of a large array of solar panels, and then everything necessary to mine and refine water, draw the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and then create and store deep cryo CH4 and O2. Fig.16. Mars base buildup progression Fig.17. Mars colony abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spacex.com/mars 9

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY EARTH TO EARTH With BFR for Earth to Earth transport, we are traveling at 27,000 kilometers an hour, or roughly 18,000 miles an hour. During the TRANSPORT final descent is where propulsive landing becomes very important. Most of what people consider to be long-distance trips would be But there is something else. If you build a ship that’s capable of completed in less than half an hour. The great thing about going to going to Mars, what if you take that same ship and go from one space is there is no friction, so once you are out of the atmosphere, place to another on Earth? We looked at that and the results are it will be smooth as silk. No turbulence. If we are building this thing quite interesting. to go to the Moon and Mars, then why not go to other places on Earth as well? Thank you. Fig.18. Earth to Earth time comparisons abridged tr abridged transcript 9/28/2017 © Spacanscript 9/28/2017 © SpaceX 2017 spaceX 2017 spaceex.cx.com/marom/marss 1010