Musk's explosive performance

On June 12th, SpaceX, valued at a trillion dollars, is ready to list on Nasdaq—valued at $1.77 trillion and raising $75 billion, potentially making founder Elon Musk the world's first trillionaire. Market attention is at an all-time high, and the launch of this "heavy rocket" has drawn the world's attention to this seemingly eccentric man. But what many don't know is that not so long ago, in 2008, the company destroyed three rockets, leaving only enough money for the final launch. Musk himself slept in the factory, raising money to pay employees while being ridiculed by the world's media as the most foolish internet nouveau riche. How did Musk overcome all that challenges along the way? Why was he so determined to build rockets in the first place? What made him so confident that he could accomplish what NASA hadn't been able to do in decades? The newly released book by CITIC Press, *The Musk Principle*, uses Musk's own words for the first time, presenting a complete and authentic picture of Musk. This excerpt is from Chapter Eleven of *The Musk Principle*. Musk recounts his personal journey in founding SpaceX. Space Exploration Fanatic

Affordable electric cars for the masses are an inevitable trend.

Even without me, the situation would be the same.

But making human civilization an interstellar civilization is not something that is destined to happen.

I've always been optimistic, otherwise I wouldn't have made these crazy attempts. I think I'm probably a morbid optimist.

I've always been optimistic, otherwise I wouldn't have made these crazy attempts. I think I'm probably one of those morbid optimists.

My initial motivation for founding SpaceX was to understand why humans haven't yet landed on Mars. After the successful Apollo program's manned lunar landing, the logical next step was to send humans to Mars. Year after year, I checked NASA's website, and they didn't seem to have any plans for this. In 1969, humans successfully landed on the moon. The last time humans landed on the moon was in 1972. Now, half a century later, we haven't returned. If the Apollo program represents the pinnacle of human space exploration, and the moon is the limit of human progress into space, then it's a complete tragedy. The Space Shuttle could only send people into low Earth orbit. After the Space Shuttle was retired, the United States no longer had the capability to send people into space orbit. Humanity has gradually lost its drive to explore space. Does this mean that human civilization has reached its peak and is beginning its decline? If you asked people in 1969 what they thought the world would be like 50 years from now, they would certainly imagine that humanity would have established a lunar base, landed on Mars, and even established a Martian base. They would also expect space hotels to be in orbit, and many other amazing things to be found. If you tell them, "We have a device smaller than a deck of cards that can access information worldwide and communicate instantly with anyone on Earth anytime, anywhere, yet the US can't even send people into space," they'll definitely think you're talking nonsense. They'll say: "You have such advanced technology, yet you've made no progress in space exploration?! How is that possible?!" Since selling PayPal in 2001, I've been pondering this question. SpaceX's initial concept wasn't to create a company, but to explore why humans haven't yet landed on Mars. I thought perhaps it was because humanity had lost its drive to explore, so we had to rekindle that drive. Turns out, I was wrong. Humanity doesn't lack the desire to explore space; it simply believes there's no further path forward. If people believe there's no room for improvement, they won't repeatedly strive for progress. There must be something that inspires us, something that makes us proud to be human. The Apollo program is a prime example. Although only 12 people actually landed on the moon, in a sense, we can say that we all landed on the moon. We indirectly experienced the lunar landing through the astronauts' perspective and participated in this adventure together. No one will question the correctness of the Apollo program or deny its greatness. We need more space exploration programs. Be prepared to lose everything. For truly important things, even with slim odds, take a gamble. When I founded SpaceX and Tesla, I estimated that the success rate of both companies was less than 10%. When faced with various entrepreneurial ideas, I don't judge them based on financial returns. What I seek are pressing problems concerning humanity's current well-being and future prospects. If you were to estimate and rank the risk-adjusted returns of different business opportunities, building rockets and building cars would most likely be at the bottom. They are the most foolish investment choices. Company stock prices have never been my yardstick for measuring my own achievements. Many friends advised me against starting a rocket company because they thought it was crazy. Everyone thought the idea was impractical. Some of them had tried to start rocket companies, but all failed. They also advised me against it. A friend made a video, splicing together many scenes of failed rocket launches and explosions, and insisted I watch it. I said, "I've seen all of that." I think they misunderstood my intentions. When I founded SpaceX, I didn't expect it to succeed; I knew very well that it would most likely fail. They tried to dissuade me: "You'll lose everything." I replied, "Well, I was prepared for the worst anyway, so I don't care!" Of course, I care about the money, but my decision to invest in space exploration wasn't based on the rate of return. I don't think: I can invest in real estate, I can invest in shoe manufacturing, and… wow! Space exploration has the highest rate of return! Making a lot of money wasn't my primary goal. Many times I thought I was going to lose everything. How could anyone start both a car company and a rocket company and expect them both to succeed? I certainly wouldn't. I thought the chances of success for both were very low, less than 10%, maybe only 1%. Frankly, I was right. How to win people's trust and support for a Mars mission? To convince the public, you have to think about what can ignite people's passion. What message do we want to convey? What message will resonate with people? If I were an ordinary person taking an objective stance, what would move me? I think we could use rockets to send a small greenhouse to the surface of Mars, filled with plant seeds and a gel to provide moisture and nutrients for the seeds after landing. This greenhouse mission would realize the first-ever survival of Earth life on another planet and break the record for the farthest distance reached by Earth life. We could take a stunning photo of green plants growing against the red Martian background. That would be a moving photo, igniting public discussion. People are often excited by groundbreaking and groundbreaking achievements. I believe that building greenhouses on Mars could inspire enthusiasm for a manned mission to Mars. I'm willing to take half of what I earn on PayPal—that is, $90 million—and invest it in this project, without expecting any return. It's an important cause worth doing. If spending $90 million can secure more funding for NASA and ultimately lead to a human landing on Mars, that will be enough. Additionally, I'm also exploring whether I can afford to build a spacecraft. I wanted to budget for two missions because if we only had a budget for one mission, a single failure could cripple the company and discourage others from pursuing this career. I could reduce the cost of spacecraft, communication equipment, and small greenhouses, but one cost was insurmountable: launch costs. There weren't many options, and the option based in the U.S. was too expensive. Later, I traveled to Russia three times to try and purchase the largest intercontinental ballistic missile in Russia's nuclear arsenal, but without success. In the process, I realized that what we really needed to do was revolutionize space transportation technology. Without a startup to drive rocket technology development, new technologies won't emerge. Such progress either comes from a startup or it simply won't happen at all. So I founded SpaceX in mid-2002, prepared from the beginning for it to fail. Why did I decide to fund SpaceX myself? After selling PayPal, I started thinking about what to do next, wavering between solar energy, electric vehicles, and aerospace. I felt that the chances of success in aerospace were the lowest, and therefore the least likely to attract other entrepreneurs. Nobody was as crazy as me about space exploration, so I figured I'd better start in aerospace first. My first idea, the greenhouse mission, would almost certainly bankrupt me. In comparison, starting a rocket company has a less than 100% chance of losing all my money. The most likely outcome is that I will lose all my money. But are there any other options? Should we let space exploration stagnate? We must do this, or we will be trapped on Earth forever. I don't recommend first-time entrepreneurs choose the aerospace field; it's more suitable for experienced entrepreneurs with sufficient capital and experience. I firmly believe in this principle: If you're not willing to invest your own money, don't ask investors to. Asking others to invest without investing yourself is wrong in my view. I'd rather lose money myself than let my friends or investors suffer losses. In SpaceX's first three rounds of financing, I didn't even seek investment because investors would first ask: What are some previous success stories in this field? Which cases can this project be compared to? If there are almost no success stories in this field, but a mountain of failures, investors naturally won't be interested. For most venture capitalists, rocket projects are far beyond their comprehension; they simply wouldn't dare touch them. Building rockets is difficult. Before founding SpaceX, I had never worked in the manufacturing industry, let alone building rockets. I had to prove that I was indeed capable of working in manufacturing. How to determine if SpaceX has a chance of success? I wanted to understand the fundamental reason for the high cost of rockets—to look at rockets using first principles. How can the Russians build low-cost rockets? There aren't such big differences in other fields. We don't drive Russian-made cars, fly on Russian-made planes, or use Russian-made kitchen appliances. The US is a highly competitive place; we should be able to build cost-effective launch vehicles. I started studying rocket data extensively, trying to understand why they were so expensive. The Delta II rocket used to cost $60 million; now it's $100 million. That's an astonishing figure! And that's just a relatively small rocket; larger rockets cost between $200 million and $400 million. I was furious, and every time I got angry, I would break the problem down again. I studied NASA's long-term suppliers. I found that relying on suppliers like Boeing and Lockheed would be disastrous. First, one of the problems with these large aerospace companies is their extreme risk aversion. Even with more advanced technology, they insist on using older parts, many developed in the 1960s and still in use today. Everyone is doing everything they can to avoid risk and liability. Second, large aerospace companies have a bad habit of outsourcing everything. Extensive outsourcing is common in many industries, but the aerospace industry takes it to an absurd degree. They outsourced the work to subcontractors, who in turn subcontracted to the next level of subcontractors, and so on, layer upon layer. You had to trace back four or five layers to find the people actually doing the work—the ones cutting metal and manufacturing parts. Each additional layer of outsourcing added to the cost, increasing it fivefold until it became ridiculously expensive. I finally understood why rockets are so expensive. Boeing and Lockheed just wanted to maintain the status quo and continue to reap huge profits. Once success lasts too long, people lose their desire to take risks. With that kind of system, humanity will never reach Mars. I assembled a team of engineers who had participated in the development of all the major launch vehicles of the past 30 years, and I conducted feasibility studies with them. In early 2001, we met every Saturday to discuss and find the best solution that balanced launch costs and reliability, eventually arriving at a basic design. The timing was perfect. Just as this feasibility study was completed, we agreed to eBay's offer to acquire PayPal. So, at the same time that deal was finalized, I moved to Los Angeles, the world's most concentrated area of ​​aerospace talent. Did anyone question you at the time? It seems many people said: Musk is a software engineer, what makes him think he can do hardware? Of course. Many reports from that time can still be found online today. The media always called me an internet kid, saying that my starting a rocket company was wishful thinking. They ridiculed SpaceX relentlessly. When it came down to a desperate gamble, the NASA contract was secured. I thought to myself, if SpaceX fails to reach orbit in three consecutive launches, we deserve to go bankrupt. That was my initial thought. In 2006, our first rocket exploded near the launch site. The second launch also failed. But we made progress each time. In 2008, the Falcon rocket failed for the third consecutive time. I only had a budget for three launches. At that point, I gave all my remaining money to Tesla and SpaceX. If we accelerate the process, this money will be just enough for SpaceX's fourth launch. I called everyone into the meeting room and said: We only have one last chance. Get ready, get back to the island base, and launch the rocket. You only have six weeks. Here is the email I sent to the team: "SpaceX's rocket will successfully reach orbit, demonstrating reliable space transportation capabilities. Everyone must have unwavering faith in this. Personally, I will never give up, never. Thank you for your hard work. Now, on to the fourth launch." If we fail, we will be used as a negative example, discouraging others from attempting space exploration. We must persevere at all costs. I will never give up. Unless I die, or become completely immobile. My money was gone; that time was a close call. If we had failed, we would have become just another rocket startup to die on the road. Fortunately, our fourth launch was finally a success. By the time of the successful launch, my cortisol levels were pathologically high. I felt no joy or celebration. I was under immense pressure. The rocket's successful orbit simply meant, "Okay, the company won't go bankrupt today." SpaceX could survive a little longer. In 2008, after the successful launch, while I was frantically raising funds for Tesla, NASA suddenly called to tell me that SpaceX had won their contract. It was unbelievable. I yelled, "I love NASA! You guys are amazing!" Then I hung up and called SpaceX President Gwen Shotwell, telling her that whatever NASA asked for, we'd sign immediately. This feeling of being saved was like being blindfolded and led to an execution squad. They yelled "Shoot!" I heard the click of the trigger, but the gun was empty, and then they let me go. I'm naturally very happy to have survived, but I'm still incredibly nervous. We're so lucky we didn't go bankrupt. At the time, NASA announced the retirement of the Space Shuttle, but they didn't have enough budget to develop a new spacecraft to transport cargo to the space station. They decided to hold a public tender—the first time in NASA's history. Our rocket ultimately cost about $6 million, much lower than other rockets in its class ($25 million). Our price was only a quarter of Boeing's or Lockheed's. Once rockets become reusable, payload transportation costs can be reduced by two orders of magnitude (to 1% of the original cost). What is the grand vision we want to achieve? The most ambitious optimization goal is to establish a city on Mars as quickly as possible. The next sub-goal is to build a fully functional rocket as quickly as possible. The next sub-goal after that is to send a spacecraft into orbit as quickly as possible. The initial production was just a trial run. The initial designs weren't intended for long-term use. We just wanted to accumulate experience as quickly as possible. To be honest, the early starship assembly area looked like a garage workshop. It's a rather absurd scene—we were actually working on cutting-edge technology in a tent in a parking lot. In one's life, there are bound to be some things that make you feel exhilarated and that your life has been worthwhile. For me, the most important thing is to get humans on Mars. Numerous challenges could lead to the end of civilization; they are the great filters for its survival. One of these is whether humanity can become a multiplanetary species, that is, to continue its civilization on multiple planets. Can humanity leave Earth and become one of the species to pass through this "great filter"? To become a multiplanetary species, we need a breakthrough: creating a rapidly reusable space transportation system. This is a formidable challenge, and the possibility of solving it is extremely slim. This is precisely the breakthrough that SpaceX is truly trying to achieve. Our current progress is good, better than expected. But this is only incremental, not revolutionary. We want to achieve a revolutionary technological leap.