SpaceX：火箭飞船 - [商业拆解，第194集]

这是商业拆解。

This is Business Breakdowns.

《商业拆解》是一系列与投资者和经营者进行的深度对话，聚焦于单一企业。

Business Breakdowns is a series of conversations with investors and operators diving deep into a single business.

对于每个企业，我们都会探讨其发展历程、商业模式、竞争优势以及成功的关键所在。

For each business, we explore its history, its business model, its competitive advantages, and what makes it tick.

我们相信，每一家企业都蕴含着投资者和经营者可以学习的经验与秘密，而我们的使命就是将这些内容呈现给你。

We believe every business has lessons and secrets that investors and operators can learn from, and we are here to bring them to you.

要查找更多拆解节目，请访问 joincolossus.com。

To find more episodes of breakdowns, check out joincolossus.com.

主持人和播客嘉宾表达的所有观点均为他们个人的观点。

All opinions expressed by hosts and podcast guests are solely their own opinions.

主持人、播客嘉宾及其雇主或关联方可能持有本播客中讨论的证券。

Hosts, podcast guests, their employers, or affiliates may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this podcast.

本播客仅用于信息参考，不应作为投资决策的依据。

This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a basis for investment decisions.

这是马特·拉塞尔，今天我们要拆解SpaceX。

This is Matt Russell, and today we are breaking down SpaceX.

我们一直非常重视商业拆解的质量，但当我们讨论像SpaceX这样的名字时，更是容不得半点差错。

We are always serious about the quality of our business breakdowns, but there is especially no room for error when you cover a name like SpaceX.

来自Bailey Gifford的卢克·沃德是这一集的完美人选。

Luke Ward from Bailey Gifford was the perfect match for this episode.

卢克和他的团队在2018年首次投资了SpaceX。

Luke and his team at Bailey Gifford first invested in SpaceX in 2018.

正如你将听到的，他们欣赏其中的科学、商业以及运营所需的方方面面。

As you'll hear, they appreciate the science, the business, and everything that goes into running this operation.

在这次对话中，我们探讨了SpaceX的故事及其背后的科学奇迹，但我真正想了解的是它的商业模式。

In this conversation, we covered the story of SpaceX and the scientific magic in what they're doing, but I really wanted to understand the business.

卢克在这里的表现完全超出了我的预期。

And Luke exceeded all my expectations here.

我们重点讨论了发射成本曲线，区分了制造成本与可重复使用性因素，然后深入探讨了星链如何成为推动星舰计划及整体经济模型运转的关键组成部分。

We really focus on the cost curve of launches, separating the manufacturing from the reusability factor, and then we get into how Starlink represents a key component in making the Starship program and the broader economic model work.

接着，我们用理智诚实的头脑去想象未来太空经济可能是什么样子，卢克对像SpaceX这样资本密集型任务所伴随的风险非常坦诚，我相信这也会像赢得我的信任一样赢得你的信任。

We then use our intellectually honest galaxy brains to imagine what the space economy could look like in the future, And Luke is very open and honest about the risks with such a capital intensive mission like SpaceX, and I expect that will earn your credibility grade as it did mine.

现在，请享受本期关于SpaceX的节目。

Now please enjoy this episode on SpaceX.

卢克，今天我们有一个非常特别的企业要探讨，那就是SpaceX。

Luke, we have a very special business to cover today in SpaceX.

我们已经谈论了好几个月要做这一期节目了。

We've been talking about doing this episode for several months now.

现在是2024年11月。

We're in November 2024.

在这段时间里，我们见证了我一生中印象最深刻的壮举之一——将火箭送入太空，然后又将其安全接回地球。

In between that time, we saw one of the more impressive feats that I can remember in my lifetime in terms of having a rocket out to space then catching that rocket back on Earth.

这恰恰凸显了SpaceX这家公司为何如此了不起。

It just really emphasizes exactly what makes SpaceX amazing as a company broadly.

但我也想稍微谈谈它的商业层面。

But I wanna also talk a bit about the business itself.

我认为很多人知道这个名字。

I think many people know the name.

但很少有人真正了解SpaceX内部的运作。

Few people really know what's going on under the hood of SpaceX.

所以也许我们可以先从你对这个业务的简单概述开始，然后在对话过程中逐步深入细节。

So maybe we could just start out with your simple overview of how you would describe the business, and then we'll get into the nitty gritty details as we go through the conversation.

非常感谢你邀请我。

Thanks very much for having me.

我认为描述SpaceX或人们误解它的方式是，它既是商业创新，也是技术创新。

I think the best way I would describe SpaceX or how it's misunderstood is that I think it's as much a business innovation as it is a technology innovation.

这一点对商业至关重要，不仅使其成为一项可持续的经济追求，还能为进一步的技术创新提供资金，以扩大市场规模，提升火箭和卫星的能力。

That really matters to the business in both in making it a sustainable economic pursuit, but also being able to fund additional technology innovation to grow the size of the market, to grow the capability of what the rockets and the satellites are able to do.

因此，一开始非常重要的是要说明，SpaceX令人兴奋的地方就在于这两个方面。

So I think it's really important at the outset to say I think it's both of those aspects which are exciting about SpaceX.

也许你可以简单讲讲你和贝利·格里福德参与这个业务的历史。

Maybe just some history from you in terms of you and Bailey Gifford, your involvement with this business.

我记得你最初在2018年进行了投资。

I think you originally funded or had an investment in 2018.

但你能谈谈你是如何逐步了解这家公司，并发现这个机会的吗？

But can you just talk about your experience getting to know the company and getting to look at this opportunity?

我原本是工程背景，所以SpaceX以及马斯克旗下的那些工程公司，早在我们有机会投资之前就已经在我关注的范围内了。

My background's from engineering originally, and so SpaceX and the sort of Musk engineering companies were definitely on the radar many years before we had the opportunity to make an investment.

这家公司一直被视为毕业生们梦寐以求的工作去处，站在航空航天技术前沿的地方。

This was an entity that was always held out as a really aspirational place for people to go and work once they graduated if they could, sitting on the frontier of what's possible in aerospace.

因此，在工程界，SpaceX的名字早已广为人知。

So it had been something which, within the engineering community, had been reasonably familiar with in terms of name recognition.

但那时，我认为很少有人把它当作一项经济事业来看待。

But at that time, I think few people were thinking of it as an economic pursuit.

人们普遍认为，这只是某一个人实现童年梦想的愿景——让《星球大战》和《星际迷航》成为现实，拓展人类文明。

This was perceived as one man in particular's vision to realize a childhood ambition of making Star Wars and Star Trek, etcetera, possible, expanding human civilization.

人们并没有真正意识到，这其实是一种能为投资者带来极高回报的财务机会。

People weren't necessarily thinking of it, of this is a really high returning way to make a financial profit for investors.

在投资之前，我们早在实际投资前的几年就开始认真对待这件事了。

In the lead up to the investment, we started taking this seriously a couple of years before we actually did that.

我认为我面临的第一个挑战是说服我的同事，这不仅仅关乎技术，也关乎为客户带来的商业和投资机会。

I think the first challenge which I had was to convince my colleagues that this wasn't just about technology, this was about business and investment for clients as well.

幸运的是，凭借我们长达十年以上的长期视角来看待公司，SpaceX所处的时间阶段确实符合我们的投资周期，这让我们比当时其他人更有理由去参与其中。

Thankfully, with a long term approach we have over that ten year plus period to think about companies, that it did fall within the ballpark of the kind of periods that SpaceX was looking at, and so that gave us a bit more license to engage, I guess, so than others at the time were able to.

我们在2018年进行了首次投资，但我认为我们大约在2016年就开始直接了解这家公司了，当时我们主动联系并前往拜访。

We made the first investment in 2018, but I'd say we got to know the company directly in about 2016, So we made efforts to reach out to them directly to go and visit them.

格温·肖特维尔在各种会议上发表演讲。

Gwen Schottle was speaking at conferences.

我们趁着前往洛杉矶的其他投资考察之机，专程前往霍桑的总部拜访她，试图与公司建立联系。

We went to see her going and stopping by the headquarters in Hawthorne off the back of other investment trips which we'd be making out to Los Angeles, trying to establish a relationship with the company themselves.

由于大多数私营公司有权选择自己的投资者，而不是由投资者挑选公司，因此作为投资者，展示你如何为他们的资本结构带来价值、支持双方共同的目标至关重要。

As most private companies get to choose their investors rather than investors choosing them, it's important to demonstrate how you can be somewhat value add as an investor on their cap table and support a combined mission which both parties are trying to achieve.

从这个角度来看，这确实起到了积极作用。

It definitely helped on that perspective.

贝利·吉福德是特斯拉的大型投资者，也是长期投资者，我认为在特斯拉经历困难时期时，他也一直给予了相当有力的支持。

Bailey Gifford being a large investor in Tesla and a long standing investor in Tesla, and I think one wish have been reasonably supportive when they were going through some tricky times as well.

于是他们回去做了深入调查，试图弄清楚这些来自英国的人究竟是谁，他们声称认同这一经济主张，但我们需要哪些具体证据来支持这一点。

So they went back and did their homework to try and figure out who exactly these Brits are who've come over and saying that they agree with this as an economic proposition, but what the proof points we have around them.

因此，这个品牌及其历史背景帮助我们顺利进门，并达到了他们愿意接纳我们客户资本的阶段。

So the brand and that history really helped us get through the door and get to a point where they were willing to take our clients' capital onboard.

当涉及到公开市场的拉拢时，这确实非常有趣。

Very interesting when there's a courting involved, I think, from the public side.

许多投资者只关注屏幕上的数据，只需点击几下按钮就能成为股东，但私募市场则完全不同，尤其是像这样的知名公司。

So many investors just think about what's on the screen, and you can essentially click a few buttons and be an owner, and the private market's much different and particularly a name like this.

在进一步讨论业务之前，我想先梳理一下这段历史。

Before we get further into the business, I do wanna cover some of the history here.

我读过你的一些作品。

I've read some of your work.

我认为你对这些内容的阐述非常到位，准确捕捉到了航天领域各个阶段的关键时刻和发展脉络。

I think you cover a lot of this really well and capture the moments or the phases in the space market and what has happened.

所以你可以谈谈太空革命第一阶段之后的时期，也就是NASA任务成功登月之后的情况吗？

So maybe you can talk about the period after version one of the space revolution, NASA missions making it to the moon.

后来发生了什么，导致这一切衰落了？

What happened where this died out?

在九十年代初我成长的时候，我还能记得当时人们依然怀有成为宇航员的梦想。

And what would you highlight over that time period where in the early nineties, I was growing up, and I can remember there was still this idea of being an astronaut.

但等我到了青少年时期，这个想法就完全消失了。

And then by the time I was a teenager, that really just went away.

这已经不再是人们关注的事了。

It was not a thing.

所以请你简单梳理一下那段时期，以及你认为当时发生了什么变化。

So walk us through a little bit of that time period and how you would highlight what happened.

我们之所以有太空产业，最初是因为上世纪五十年代、六十年代美国与苏联之间的竞争。

The reason why we have a space industry to begin with is because of a competition between The US and The Soviet Union back in the fifties, sixties, etcetera.

这个市场最初增长的主要驱动力是政府出于非经济性的战略考量，而非追求经济回报。

The main driver for growth in this market initially was government noneconomic strategic reasons rather than a pursuit of economic return.

当美国完成登月任务时，这个目标就已经达成了。

When The US achieved that with the moon landings, that was the tick box done.

由于苏联不再构成竞争威胁，因此并没有必要继续资助更大的创新。

There wasn't necessarily a need to carry on funding greater innovation because The Soviet Union went in a competitive position.

有一种观点认为，苏联自身的太空计划正是导致其在七八十年代破产的重要原因之一。

One argument says that their own space program was a large reason in that going bankrupt in the 70s, 80s.

因此，没有内在的动力去降低成本、使其更实惠。

So there wasn't a natural forcing function to make it cheaper, to make it more affordable.

当时，由大型电信公司或军方发射的卫星非常昂贵，是价值数十亿美元的设备。

There was no reason satellites, which were being launched by large telecoms companies or the military, We're really expensive billion dollar pieces of kit.

所以如果你去对他们说：‘太棒了，我们可以用一种新火箭发射卫星，这是我们研发的，虽然还不确定风险有多大，但相信我，它成本只有一半。’

So if you came to them and said, this is great, can launch a satellite, we're going to put it on this new rocket which we've come up with, which we're not quite sure how risky it is, but trust us, it's great because it's half the cost.

客户听到后会吓坏，因为他们不愿意拿价值十亿美元的卫星去冒险。

The customers freak out at that because they don't want to take any risk with their billion dollar satellite.

同样地，从客户的角度来看，反而没有动力去降低发射成本。

Again, from the customers perversely, there isn't this incentive to make launch cheaper.

随着时间的推移，整个行业变得僵化。

As time goes on, that ossified the industry.

进入太空的成本实际上没有任何改善。

There wasn't any improvement really in the cost of getting to space.

事实上，航天飞机每公斤的发射成本比土星五号火箭还要高。

The space shuttle in fact was more expensive per kilogram than the Saturn V rocket.

所以尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森对此有一个非常精辟的说法：如果你倒着看太空竞赛，会比正着看更合理。

So Neil deGrasse Tyson's got a really good quote about this is the space race makes more sense if you play it backwards rather than forwards.

随着时间的推移，我们的雄心壮志越来越小，尤其是在九十年代。

We've become less and less ambitious over time, particularly in the nineties.

即使冷战结束，从经济角度来看，在太空做任何事情的理由也几乎不存在。

Even with the end of the Cold War, there was just barely any reason to do anything from an economic point of view in space.

我认为你提到的关于梦想成为宇航员的那种情感因素，确实让很多工程企业家在80年代和90年代对创办企业感到兴奋，但他们意识到在太空领域无法实现，于是转而创立了.com公司——比如杰夫·贝索斯、埃隆·马斯克、理查德·布兰森，还有微软的保罗·艾伦等等，他们都是太空迷，本想从事相关事业，但最终选择了在经济上更明智的商业发展道路。

And I think that sort of emotional thing which you talk about there about dreaming about an astronaut is what got a lot of engineering entrepreneurs excited about creating businesses in the 80s and 90s, realized they couldn't do it in space and went off and founded, know, .com companies, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, you got Paul Allen at Microsoft, etcetera, all space fanboys that wanted to do something like that, but went into something which was more economically sensible way of developing a business.

但当他们赚够了钱，不再需要为经济问题担忧时，他们的思绪又回到了最初的想法：我们能否在太空领域取得进展？

But then when they'd made enough money that they didn't have to think about that, their thoughts ran back to, oh, actually, can we make inroads into space?

为什么太空领域没有像半导体、生物技术或软件等领域那样出现如此程度的颠覆性变革？

Why hasn't there been the level of disruption in space which we've seen in semiconductors or biotechnology or software, etcetera?

究竟是哪些根本原则使得这一领域更难进一步发展？

What are the actual first principles that are making that hard to develop further?

硅谷那种‘快速行动，打破常规’的心态，与传统行业格格不入，但只要有足够雄厚的资金支持，就能绕过投资更先进火箭的经济障碍。

Taking the mindsets from Silicon Valley of move fast and break things, which was an anathema to the traditional industry, but having a checkbook big enough to fund that level of development meant that they're able to short circuit the economic disincentive for investing in better rockets.

于是他们着手建立企业，宣称要将发射成本降低十倍、一百倍，如果能做到这一点，价格弹性就会催生一个以商业为主导、而非政府主导的市场，从而为这一目标提供资金支持。

And so they set out to construct businesses which said we're going to make launch 10 times cheaper, 100 times cheaper, and if we can do that, then the price elasticity means there might actually be a business led rather than a government led economy or market there, which is able to fund that.

如果我们能做到这一点，这个领域就会突然变得自我维持，效率提升和性能改进就能以美元收益的形式获得回报，而不仅仅是战略意义上的认可。

If we can do that, this thing all of a sudden becomes self sustaining and then there is a reason why increased efficiency, increased performance is rewarded in dollar terms rather than just in strategic terms.

你在关于太空的撰文中提到一个绝佳的数据点：每增加一公斤载荷，就需要额外20公斤的管路和推进剂，这精准地揭示了这一领域面临的物理难题。

You had this great data point in your write up on space about every additional kilogram of cargo requires 20 kilograms of plumbing and propellant, which really captures the physics problem with a lot of this.

你通过火箭的可抛弃段和发射过程中的设计来解决这个问题。

And you solve that via disposable sections of a rocket and as part of the launch.

但按定义，这仅仅意味着东西只能使用一次就被丢弃。

But by definition, that just makes something disposable one time use.

所以这是一种短期的经济解决方案，本质上并不会重复发生。

So that's this short term economic solve that is not reoccurring in nature.

我认为这很好地引出了关于这些太空企业或公司现在正试图做什么的讨论。

And I think it parlays well into the conversation about what some of these space businesses or space companies are now trying to do.

在SpaceX、蓝色起源等新一代太空公司成立之前，曾有一段时间，其他公司也试图进入这个市场，但结果却是一片倒闭的坟场。

I do wanna capture before SpaceX, Blue Origin, some of the newest wave of space companies were launched, there was a period of time where you had others try to move into this market, and it was just a graveyard of companies.

那么，当时缺少了什么呢？

So what was missing during that time period?

也许我只是不像今天这样熟悉那些公司的名字，而现在的参与者都有雄厚的资金支持。

It might just be that I don't know the names like I know these names today, and there's deep pockets with the players that have been involved.

但你认为还有其他什么因素是当时缺失的，而这些因素恰恰被SpaceX抓住了，其他公司也在一定程度上做到了？

But do you think there's anything else you would point to that was missing that was really captured particularly by SpaceX and to a lesser extent by the others?

有两个因素。

Two factors there.

我认为第一个是专注于可重复使用性，而在80年代、90年代，由于技术原因，这要困难得多。

I think the first one is the focus on reusability, which for reasons previously in the 80s, 90s was technologically a lot more difficult.

与所有公司或技术创新一样，它们往往站在巨人的肩膀上。自20世纪80年代和90年代以来，精密制造、仿真等相关行业取得了大量发展，这些都降低了研发成本，而这些在那段过渡时期是其他人无法享有的。

As with all companies or technological innovations, they tend to stand on the shoulder of giants, and so since that period in the '80s and '90s, there's been an awful lot of development in many associated industries around precision manufacturing or simulation, etcetera, all of which have reduced the development costs, which weren't available in that interim period for others to enjoy.

在互联网泡沫时期，有一家名为Teledesic的公司，与比尔·盖茨有关联，试图开展卫星互联网业务。

There's a company called Teledesic around the .com bubble, which is Bill Gates' letter associated with, to try and do satellite Internet.

但同样，当时在火箭技术方面没有任何创新，卫星本身也 arguably 缺乏重大突破。

But again, there was no innovation in Rocket Tree to go along with that, and there was arguably not a huge amount of innovation within the satellites as well.

这更多是出于非理性的狂热，但当时围绕数据和互联网连接性存在极大的热情，这意味着：好吧，现在我能看出这个市场足够大。

It was more a case of maybe irrational exuberance, but there was an awful lot of excitement around data and connectivity on the internet, etcetera, which means, okay, well now I can see there's a big enough market for it.

如果我们能承担所有这些成本，或许就能在这上面收支平衡，这就是实现的方式。

If we can expend all this cost, then maybe we can break even on that and that's the way to do it.

但忽略了关键的一点：成本必须降低几个数量级，这项事业才可能长期可持续。

But missing out that larger point around the costs really need to come down by orders of magnitude for that to be a sustainable enterprise long term.

马斯克经常提到，他曾多次听人说，成为百万富翁最简单的方式就是成为亿万富翁，然后创办一家太空公司。

Musk likes to quote a number of times he's been told that the easiest way to become a millionaire is to be a billionaire and start a space business.

我认为在许多情况下确实如此。

And I think that has been the case in lots of instances.

缺失的是财务创新，尤其是在成本方面，以及在技术与经济之间建立业务内的反馈循环。

The financial innovation, particularly on cost, is what was missing and having a feedback loop within your business between the technology and the economics.

我们通常在进入商业或经济议题时，首先关注收入端，但成本在这里至关重要。

We usually transition into the business or the economics by focusing first on the top line, but cost is so important here.

你之前提到将发射成本降低了90%。

And you mentioned earlier bringing the cost of launch down by 90%.

你能稍微拆解一下吗？

Can you break that up a little bit?

你提到的组件构成是你要建造的部分，但还有可重复使用性这一因素，我认为这非常关键且重要。

You have the components in terms of what you're building, but then you also have the reusability factor, which I think is so key and so important.

有没有办法区分这两者？

And is there any way to differentiate those two?

成本节约或成本结构的变化中，有多少是依赖于可重复使用性以及火箭可重复使用的次数，又有多少是源于所使用的组件和零部件？

How much of the savings or the change in cost structure is dependent on that reusability and a certain amount of times that these rockets can be used versus how much is based on the components and parts that have gone into it?

如果我们先来看资本支出部分，NASA估计从零开始研发猎鹰九号的成本约为40亿美元，但SpaceX最终只花了大约十分之一的价格。

So if we take the CapEx part of that first, NASA estimated that the cost to develop the Falcon nine from scratch would be about $4,000,000,000 but SpaceX ended up doing it for about a tenth of that price.

首先，这在所需投资水平上实现了数量级的提升。

So to begin with, that's an order of magnitude improvement in the level of investment required.

SpaceX 在其网站上公布了发射价格，每次猎鹰九号发射为7000万美元。

SpaceX gave you the prices for launches on their website, so $70,000,000 per launch of a Falcon nine flight.

这已经比航天飞机每公斤入轨成本便宜了20倍。

That's already 20 times cheaper than the space shuttle was per kilogram into orbit.

但正如你所指出的，真正的关键在于部分可重复使用所带来的运营杠杆效应。

But the real kicker, as you point out, is the operating leverage that comes from having partial reusability.

通过将原本一次性使用的设备转变为可折旧资产，你可以将研发和制造成本分摊到多次发射中。

By taking something that was disposable and making it depreciable, you can start spreading the R and D and the manufacturing costs over multiple launches.

同样，在网站上你可以看到，猎鹰九号总共已经飞行了约400次。

Again, on the website, you can see that Falcon nine has flown about 400 times in total.

其中最近的320次发射都是助推器的重复使用。

The last three twenty of those launches have been reflights of the booster hardware.

因此，平均而言，助推器的成本现在被分摊到了大约五次任务，而不是一次。

So on average, the booster cost is being spread over about five missions rather than one.

每次你仍然需要考虑燃料、维护和更换一次性上面级的可变成本。

Now each time, you still have to factor in the variable costs of fuel and maintenance and replacing the disposable upper stage.

但最终，这种模式有助于为客户和SpaceX本身提升发射频率。

But, ultimately, that model is geared into helping unlock a better launch rate for customers and for SpaceX themselves.

这太不可思议了。

That's incredible.

我的意思是，从资本支出的角度来看，这是一个巨大而有意义的差异，但看到这一点以及可重复使用性的先例，确实非常有趣。

I mean, from a CapEx perspective, where that's a huge meaningful delta, but then also seeing it there and just the precedent for reusability is really interesting.

在你看来，这样思考问题是否正确？比如是10次、15次，还是可能达到20次？

In your mind, is that the right way to think about things in terms of whether it's 10 launches, 15 launches, maybe upwards of 20?

我们通常会想到飞机，衡量标准更多是飞行里程。

We think about aircrafts and it comes down to miles more than anything.

但很多时候，它们已经服役三十年，仍在飞行。

But oftentimes, you could see them being thirty years and they're still in the air.

你心中是否有衡量火箭使用寿命的框架？

Is there a framework that you have in your own mind in terms of a rocket's useful life?

是的。

Yeah.

说实话，这仍然是一个开放性问题。

It's a bit of an open question still, to be honest.

目前有一些猎鹰九号助推器已经重复使用了20多次。

So there are some Falcon nine boosters at the moment which have been reused over 20 times.

因此，成本不再是分摊到5次发射，而是分摊到20次发射上。

So rather than five times, that cost is being spread across 20 launches.

它们仍然状态良好。

They're still going strong.

随着时间推移，设备老化会导致维护成本略有上升，但我们尚未找到这个极限。

Now the maintenance costs will increase slightly over time as things get older, but we haven't quite found that limit yet.

如果SpaceX是一家传统公司，他们很可能会利用这一能力，尽可能充分挖掘资产价值，最大化边际经济效益。

Now if SpaceX were a traditional company, they'd probably just take that capability and try to sweat the asset as much as possible, really max out on the incremental economics.

但既然你已经拥有行业领先的产品，为什么还要进一步突破极限呢？

But why bother pushing the capabilities even further than that if you've already got the industry's leading product?

SpaceX是不同的。

SpaceX is different.

他们受制于一项使命：前往火星，使人类成为多行星物种。

They're driven by this mission to get to Mars and make humans a multiplanetary species.

他们知道，这将需要一种更强大的火箭，以及能够进一步降低成本的创新。

They know that that's going to require a much more powerful rocket and innovations which can bring the costs down even further.

当我们考虑长期估值或对这一成本基础的分析时，真正对未来至关重要的将是星舰的经济性。

When we're thinking about longer term valuation or analysis of that cost base, what's really going to matter for the future is the economics of Starship.

这是我们在德克萨斯州目前正在测试的新巨型火箭。

This is the new enormous rocket that we're currently testing in Texas.

星舰的设计是完全且快速可重复使用的，与仅部分可重复使用的猎鹰九号不同，它还能每天多次飞行。

Starship is designed to be fully and rapidly reusable, so unlike Falcon nine, which is only partial, but also able to fly multiple times every day.

它最初的近地轨道有效载荷能力约为100吨，但随着时间推移，可能会接近200吨；马斯克曾表示，在规模化稳定运行状态下，他们目标的单次发射可变成本约为1000万美元。

It's going to have a payload capacity that's about 100 tons to orbit at the beginning, but probably rising to closer to 200 tons to orbit over time, and Musk has suggested that a variable cost of around $10,000,000 per launch is the ballpark figure which they'd be aiming for at scale in a steady state.

更有雄心的目标是，成本甚至可能降至200万美元。

Ambitiously, maybe even falling to $2,000,000 is a figure which has been touted.

如果你相信这些性能水平是可行的，那么成本就能降到每公斤约10美元。

If you believe those kinds of performance levels are feasible, that gets the cost down to around $10 per kilogram.

这比我们现在讨论的猎鹰九号便宜了100倍以上，这将对人类在太空中哪些经济活动可行产生巨大影响。

That's over a 100 times cheaper than the Falcon nine we're talking about at the moment, and that would have a dramatic effect on what's economically feasible for humanity to do in space.

关于每公斤成本的表述，你能结合猎鹰计划和向近地轨道发射的情况，提供一些背景吗？我觉得那里有大量卫星。

The framing of kilogram cost, can you put some context around what that actually means for the Falcon program and launching into lower Earth orbit, which I would think of as a lot of satellites are out there?

你能给出一个具体的重量数字吗？

Can you put a number in terms of what those might weigh?

能装多少颗？

How many you could fit?

并从这两种不同火箭类型的目标差异角度，解释一下这种区别。

And just contextualize that around how that could differ between the two different body types in terms of what they're looking to do.

如果我们以公司的星链卫星作为参考，一次猎鹰九号发射可以搭载大约60颗这样的卫星。

If we take the company's Starlink satellites as a guide for that, you can fit around 60 of these satellites in a single Falcon nine launch.

由于星舰的载荷舱直径是猎鹰九号的两倍，高度可能超过两倍，每次发射可以搭载数百颗卫星，成本却只是零头，因此在运载量上实现了真正的飞跃。

With Starship having a payload bay that's double the diameter, I think over double the height of the Falcon nine, you'd be looking at hundreds of satellites per launch for a fraction of the cost, so a real step up in volumes there.

或者，你可以考虑制造比现在大得多、功能强得多的单颗卫星，这样虽然发射的卫星数量相同，但每颗卫星的能力却远超当前水平。

Alternatively, you could look at making individual satellites much bigger and more powerful than they are today, so launching the same number of satellites but have them with far greater capabilities than they do at the present time.

无论选择哪种方式，都会对卫星通信服务的整体经济性和可用性产生变革性影响。

Either option would have a transformational effect on the overall economics and the availability of the satellite communication services.

事实上，仅凭这一优势，就足以证明星舰开发成本的合理性。

In fact, you could probably justify a lot of the Starship development cost purely on that benefit alone.

不过，对于星链网络的发射而言，猎鹰九号的重点仍将放在卫星上，特别是因为其与猎鹰九号存在显著的增长协同效应。

With Falcon nine, the focus is gonna remain on satellites, though, in terms of launching the Starlink network, particularly because of the growth synergy there with Falcon nine.

但你说得完全正确。

But you're absolutely right.

星舰在完全投入使用后，凭借容量和成本的双重提升，能够开辟超越卫星的全新应用场景。

The dual improvement in capacity and cost gives Starship the ability to open up new use cases beyond satellites when it's fully operational.

如果我们以国际空间站为例，这个轨道实验室花了大约十年时间才建成。

If we take the International Space Station as an example of this, that orbiting laboratory took about ten years to build.

建造和组装它共耗用了36次航天飞机飞行任务。

It took about 36 space shuttle flights to build and assemble it.

这使得它成为一块非常有用的资产，但运营成本极其高昂。

That makes it a really useful piece of real estate but a really, really expensive facility to operate.

目前，美国宇航局使用猎鹰九号将宇航员和货物往返于空间站。

So right now, NASA uses the Falcon nine to ferry astronauts and cargo to and from the space station.

随着即将推出的星舰货舱，它将足够大，能够在单个下午内发射与国际空间站同等规模的设施，且成本可能低于0.1%。

With Starship's cargo bay, which is coming, it's going to be big enough to launch something the same size as the International Space Station in a single afternoon and potentially for less than 0.1% of the cost.

想象一下，未来可以发射整个空间站，而不仅仅是发射和回收单个宇航员，还能将他们从轨道上接回地球。

So think about launching entire space stations rather than launching individual astronauts and recovering them as well from orbit, being able to take them out of orbit and back to the Earth.

这在2030年代可能会成为常态。

That might become a regular fixture in the 2030s.

不过，我认为我们很快就能看到这一场景的精彩预告片。

We're going to get a really good trailer for that, I think, sooner though.

因此，美国宇航局计划使用星舰以极低的成本将宇航员送回月球。

So NASA's planning to use Starship to return astronauts to the moon for, again, a fraction of the cost.

阿耳忒弥斯计划的宇航员——这是新的称呼，过去我们称阿波罗宇航员——将能够带着整栋摩天大楼大小的货物和生活空间登陆月球表面，而阿波罗宇航员则只能挤在狭小的铁罐里，在月面停留数小时。

The Artemis astronauts, which is the new nomenclature, whereas we had Apollo astronauts in the past, Artemis astronauts are going to be able to land on the lunar surface with an entire skyscraper full of cargo and living space, whereas the Apollo astronauts sort of arrived in this cramped tin can and could spend a couple of hours on the surface.

所以这对下一代探险者来说将是一种真正的奢侈体验。

So it's really gonna be comparative luxury for the next generation of explorers.

我记得曾经关注过部分业务，以及按体积重量而非传统重量计费的概念。

I remember looking at the partial businesses and the idea of dimensional weight rather than just traditional weight.

你必须捕捉到所运输物品的尺寸。

You have to capture the size of whatever is being shipped.

而货运容量越大，就能开启越多的可能性。

And to the extent that you have wider cargo capacity, that opens up a lot of possibilities.

当我们思考SpaceX实际发射的内容时，你提到目前其中三分之二是星链项目。

When we think about what SpaceX is actually launching, you mentioned two thirds of this is Starlink at the moment.

三分之二的运力都用于这个项目。

Two thirds of the capacity goes to that.

他们是否还在利用这些运力做其他事情？还有哪些明显的市场？

Are there other things that they're doing with that capacity and other obvious markets?

所以有一个

So there's a

有几个业务线，SpaceX负责火箭部分的业务。

couple of business lines, SpaceX for the rocket side of the business.

总的来说，他们的Starlink内部项目在数量上是最大的，此外还有政府民用、政府国防，以及一些载人项目，比如Jared Isaacman（来自Shift4 Payments）资助了几次发射，作为Polaris项目的一部分。

Broadly speaking, their internal program for Starlink, which is the largest in terms of number, you have government civil, government defense, and then you have some of the human programs and some of the stuff like the Polaris program with Jared Isaacman from Shift4 Payments paying for a couple of launches on the back of that.

大部分业务量集中在Starlink上，我认为政府方面的业务增长非常强劲，特别是最近宣布了与国家侦察办公室（NRO）的合作项目，因此也在发射军用或国防版本的Starlink。

The bulk of where the volume is focused is in Starlink, I think the government side of the business is growing really well, particularly there's announcements of programs with the NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office, so military or defense versions of Starlink are being launched as well.

但再次强调，大部分发射量仍然是他们自己的Starlink内部项目，用于发射通信卫星，这占了三分之二的发射任务。

But the majority of the volume, again, is their own internal Starlink program for launching the communications satellites, and that's two thirds of launch.

明年及以后，这一比例可能会更高，因为目前火箭最有价值的用途就是部署更大容量的卫星互联网服务。

It's probably going be an even greater share of launch next year and so on and so forth because that's really the most useful thing which the rocket can do at the moment is deploy greater capacity for satellite Internet.

我推测，Starlink的发射对业务来说实际上经济性很强，能够为发射领域的创新提供资金支持。

I would imagine that the Starlink launches are actually quite economically viable for the business and can fund some of the innovation that's going on with the launches.

所以，正如你所说，这里存在一个反馈循环。

So to your point, there is a feedback loop here.

这是否是推动他们使用大量运力的主要原因，而不是与他人合作？

Is that a lot of what is driving the capacity that they are using versus potentially working with others?

换个问法，如果他们在其他地方释放了这种需求，你认为会立即有第三方填补吗？

Another way of asking this is if they opened up that demand elsewhere, do you think that would be immediately filled with third parties?

是的。

Yeah.

目前，SpaceX内部的大量需求正是推动猎鹰九号发射频率的主要因素。

So a lot of the demand internally at SpaceX is what's driving the launch rate for Falcon nine at the moment.

火箭的发射速度将取决于它们制造卫星的速度。

So the rockets are going to launch as quickly as they can manufacture satellites to go on them.

但整个发射行业仍然受到供应限制，这听起来似乎很荒谬，但随着制造卫星并将其送入轨道的成本越来越低，市场对发射资源的需求正在急剧上升。

But the overall launch industry itself, I think, is still supply constrained, which on the face of it sounds like a daft thing to say, but there really is starting to be a clamor to get more access to launch, particularly as it's getting cheaper and cheaper to manufacture satellites to go into orbit.

比如亚马逊及其柯伊伯星座，就有许多其他公司。

So there are lots of other companies Amazon, for example, and their Kuiper constellation.

苹果公司最近也对Globalstar进行了投资。

There's Apple, which has made an investment in Globalstar recently.

还有OneWeb，它正试图部署类似的低地球轨道星座。

There is OneWeb, which is trying to launch a similar low Earth orbit constellation.

还有很多其他竞争对手开始对在这个领域运营产生兴趣。

There are lots of other competitors starting to get interested in operating in this space.

我认为SpaceX非常清楚这一点，因此他们向这些外部客户开放平台，因为这有助于提升他们自身商业模式的运营杠杆。

I think SpaceX are very aware of this, so they do open the platform up to that because it helps introduce the operating leverage into their own business model.

所以他们喜欢这样，因为这能维持飞轮效应持续运转。

So they like it because it can keep that flywheel going.

与五年前相比，如今提供多余的运力要容易得多。

It's not as hard to offer that excess volume today as it was five years ago, for example.

但就他们自身而言，真正能带来诱人回报并支持其长期愿景的，是他们能否以更大规模发射星链卫星。

But I think for their own purposes, where they can really get the attractive returns and the ability to fund the longer term vision for them, it's all about can they launch Starlink at greater and greater scale.

这在资本配置方面呈现出一种有趣的现象，虽然不完全等同，但在战略思考上是相似的。

It's an interesting almost capital allocation dynamic in terms of it's not quite that, but similar in terms of how you think about it strategically.

为了更深入地了解星链，你能简要介绍一下它是什么吗？

Just to get into Starlink a bit more, can you give some overview of what that is?

我认为全球越来越多的人对星链是什么有了越来越高的认知。

I think it's increasingly popular to people around the world in terms of what it is.

但你能简单描述一下Starlink作为一项业务的运作方式，以及它目前的规模和体量吗？

But if you could just sketch out what Starlink is as a business and some reference to the size and scale of it today.

Starlink是SpaceX内部提供的卫星通信服务。

Starlink is SpaceX's internal version of delivering satellite communications.

目前，它由大约6000颗卫星组成，这些卫星在低地球轨道上形成一个全球性的网络，通过用户终端提供卫星连接，用户终端大小与普通笔记本电脑相当，能提供与光纤电缆相当的高速互联网服务。

So it's a constellation of, I think, around about 6,000 satellites in orbit at the moment, which are flying in this mesh around the world in low Earth orbit and delivering satellite connectivity to a user terminal, which is about the size of a standard laptop, and delivering high speed internet of the equivalent that you would get from a fiber optic cable or something like that.

这很有吸引力，因为无论用户终端位于地球上的哪个位置，都能获得相同水平的服务。

That is attractive because it doesn't matter where the user terminal is on the planet, it still gets the same degree of service.

因此，全球有许多地区缺乏传统的基础设施，比如5G基站、光纤电缆等，这些地方的人们希望享受宽带服务的好处，但物理上无法获得，或者在只有一个供应商、存在垄断定价的市场中，即使有一定程度的监管，他们也无法获得。

And so there are many areas of the globe which don't have access to traditional legacy infrastructure, five gs towers, fiber optic cable, etcetera, where they want to have the same benefits of broadband but physically aren't able to purchase them or in a market where there's one provider and they have monopoly pricing, etcetera, even if it is regulated to a degree.

因此，SpaceX有机会在真正需要且几乎没有其他选择的地方提供这项服务。

And so SpaceX has got a really good opportunity of providing a service where it's really needed and there aren't many other options to get access to that.

那么，这里的根本优势或核心竞争力是什么？

Fundamentally, what is the advantage here or what is the edge?

如果你考虑扩展地面网络，传统上新增一个用户的边际成本主要来自土木工程。

If you think about scaling a ground based network, the incremental costs to providing or connecting another user are traditionally civil engineering based.

我们是否需要挖开道路，找到一条通向某处房产或农场的电缆？

It's can we dig up a road and find a cable that goes all the way to a property or farm or something like that.

从该地点获得的收入无法抵消所需的巨额资本支出，因此网络通常在边缘地区受限。

The revenue which you'll be able to generate from that one location does not warrant the amount of CapEx which you have to put in, and so the network size is typically limited at the fringe.

当你转向卫星星座时，其工厂化成本是固定的，而基础设施的增量扩展成本则受摩尔定律支配。

When you go to a satellite based constellation, there's a fixed factory based cost where a lot of the components for incremental growth for the infrastructure are a function of Moore's Law.

半导体元件是卫星的主要投入成本。

The semiconductor components are the main input costs to the satellites.

发射成本正变得越来越低，这一点我们之前讨论过，属于折旧范畴。

Launch is getting increasingly cheap, it's brought up as a depreciation aspect which we talked about.

但通过太空连接一个用户的增量成本，就是用户终端的成本——这同样是工厂化成本、基于摩尔定律的成本，具有极佳的可扩展性，并且随着时间推移变得越来越便宜。

But the incremental cost of connecting one user via space is the cost of the user terminal, which is again a factory based cost, is a Moore's Law based cost, it's one that scales really well and it's getting cheaper and cheaper over time.

因此，与地面网络不同，客户获取成本或单位客户服务成本与客户在全球的地理位置无关，并且也在随时间不断降低。

And so unlike a terrestrial network, the customer acquisition cost or the cost of service against customer is agnostic to where they are in the world and is also getting cheaper and cheaper over time.

所以，尽管目前在西方一些人看来，这可能是一种边缘化或奢侈品，但五年后、十年后再回过头看，这项服务将比任何地面技术所能提供的都更强大、更先进。

So whilst it might appear to be a peripheral or a luxury product to some in the West at the moment, come back in five years' time, come back in ten years' time and the service is going to be significantly more powerful, significantly more capable than anything which we're able to offer via the ground.

因此，可服务的市场随着时间推移显著增长，既包括那些别无选择的人群，也包括在城市边缘地带变得成本有竞争力的区域，然后逐渐向更内部的地区扩展，等等。

So the addressable market is something that grows significantly over time, both in people where there's no other option, but also it becomes cost competitive around the fringes of cities and then slowly further in and further in, etcetera.

所有这些都在推动一个良性循环：让服务变得更便宜，从而更有理由发射更多卫星，进而促使我们加大对火箭的投资以降低发射成本，如此循环往复。

And all of this is funding into the flywheel of making it cheaper and cheaper for them or more of a reason to launch more satellites, which is a reason to invest more in rockets to make it cheaper to launch, etcetera, etcetera.

因此，他们真正思考过：增量回报是什么样的？如何在规模化时最大化这种回报。

And so they've really thought about that from what's the incremental return like and how can we maximize that at scale.

作为人类文明，我们现在发现，在太空中扩展某种服务，比在地面上更容易，这一点值得深思。

There's something to be said for us as a civilization now that scaling something is easier in space than on land.

我知道这背后还涉及太空能力的更多细节，但听到这些确实很有趣。

I know there's much more that goes into that in terms of the capabilities of space, but hearing it is quite interesting.

他们有没有公布过这个网络规模的相关数据？

Do they release any data points about the size of that network?

从用户的角度来看，有没有办法估算它今天的规模？比如通过一些粗略的收入分析之类的？

And from a user perspective, is there any way to gauge how big it is today just in terms of whether there's a way that you can do back of the envelope revenue analysis or anything along those lines?

在美国，每月的订阅费用大约为120美元。

It costs around about $120 per month for a subscription in The US.

将这个数字乘以12，每年大约就是1500美元。

Multiplying that by 12 gets you to roughly 1 and a half grand per year.

再乘以你想要的订阅用户数量，就能大致估算出星链的收入规模。

Multiply that by how many subscribers you want and you can roughly figure out what a revenue line might be for Starlink.

很难从这些数据中区分出哪些是B2C用户、哪些是B2B用户、哪些是B2G用户，而且它们的定价和销售方式很可能完全不同。

It's hard to parse out within that which are B2C users, which are B2B users, and which are B2G users, and they're likely priced and sold on a very different basis.

有些可能是按用量计费，有些则是按价值计费，等等。

Some might be on a volume basis, some might be on a value, etcetera.

SpaceX并未公开披露其商业模式以及不同业务领域的具体占比。

SpaceX doesn't publicly provide a breakdown of the business model and how that is split between different areas.

但互联网上有一些敏锐的观察者。

But there are some keen eyed observers on the internet.

如果你浏览几个Reddit论坛，或者查看一些主流媒体的报道，就会发现过去一两年里，普遍推测其用户规模大约在数百万级别。

If you go on a few Reddit forums or you look in some of the major press, etcetera, which is speculated on what it might look like, ballpark low number of million subscribers roughly has been quoted over the last year or two.

举个例子，想想美国有多少家庭没有互联网连接，目前美国就有1100万家庭无法获得完整的宽带服务。

So if you think about how many US households there are without internet connection, for example, there's 11,000,000 of those in The US today that don't have full broadband access.

即使在美国，针对农村和未覆盖人群的市场仍然非常庞大。

The market, even in The US for rural and unserved people, is really huge still.

但我认为，从全球范围来看，如果你看看潜在用户数量，就会发现潜在用户可能达到数亿，甚至数十亿。

But I think globally, if you look at how many potential users there are, you start getting into the hundreds of millions or maybe even the billions in terms of potential.

这还只是指该网络的个人用户，还没算上机器应用场景。

That's just for individual human users of that network, never mind machine use cases.

如果成本具有竞争力，那这确实是阻碍这些用户的主要因素。

If it's competitive on cost, that really is the only thing that's holding these users back.

现在已不再是可行性问题了。

It's not a feasibility issue anymore.

问题在于成本。

It's a cost thing.

因此，可以说星链的收入将大幅超越SpaceX目前从猎鹰九号获得的收入，这也是我们能够资助持续技术创新和公司更广泛使命的基本原则。

So I think it's fair to say that Starlink is going to significantly eclipse the revenue that SpaceX makes from Falcon nine at the moment, and that's the underlying principle of how we're gonna be able to fund this ongoing technology innovation and the wider mission that the company has.

星链及其带来的收入对此至关重要。

Starlink and the revenues it brings in is really important to that.

在低地球轨道上的卫星，长期以来一直是太空应用中具有现成经济基础的明显案例。

Satellites in lower Earth orbit, there is quite a bit of history in terms of that being the obvious space use case that having an existing economy.

我认为星链是这一趋势的延伸。

I think Starlink is an extension of that.

虽然有所不同，但确实是此前发展的延续。

Different, absolutely, but an extension of what was going on.

从太空经济的角度来看，有没有哪些全新的产业被解锁，或者有哪些显而易见的、具备直线视野的机会？你是否看到这些机会如今已经存在，或者在不远的未来——无论你认为多远都行——会逐渐显现？

Are there brand new industries being unlocked or obvious things with line of sight that open up from a space economy perspective that you see either today or when I say near future, you could extend that out however far you think is reasonable.

SpaceX必须开拓许多此前并不存在的新市场，而这一切最终都取决于成本曲线。

A lot of these options which SpaceX has to develop brand new markets that don't exist already are a function ultimately of the cost curve.

以地球上的半导体制造为例，目前我们每建一座晶圆厂就要花费数十亿美元，只为重现太空中唾手可得的环境。

Take semiconductor manufacturing on earth at the moment, we spend billions of dollars per fab to recreate the conditions which are readily accessible in space for free if you can get there.

因此，在建造晶圆厂的成本与将整座工厂或其设备发射到轨道并在那里运营的成本之间，存在一个交叉点。

And so there's some point on the cost curve intersecting between the cost of building a fab and the cost of launching a fab or the equipment of a fab into orbit and operating there instead.

制药研究也是如此。

Same can be said of pharmaceutical research.

在太空中能够形成的晶体结构，与在重力影响下形成的结构不同。

The crystallization structures which are able to happen in space are different to the ones which are able to happen under the influence of gravity.

因此，如果你考虑药品定价、延长专利期限等问题，如果能将前沿药品的制造或研发中心移到太空，就可以生产高价值、低产量的产品，这在太空中非常合理，且不需要巨大的技术突破。

So if you think about pricing on pharmaceuticals, extending patent lives, etcetera, if you can move the manufacturing or the research lab for cutting edge pharmaceuticals into space, you could make high value, low volume products, something which would really make sense to do there and don't require a huge technological innovation to happen.

这样的例子还有很多很多。

The list can go on and on.

比如人工器官，能够制造出完美的球形透镜。

Artificial organs, for example, being able to manufacture perfectly spherical lenses.

有很多很多东西都可以制造出来。

There's lots and lots of things which could be made.

也许可以这样想：太空制造如果成本能持续下降，可能会成为下一个大型市场。

Maybe the way to think about that is the space based manufacturing could be the next large market for this if the costs can continue to come down.

星舰的容积相当于一架A380或波音747，想象一下这相当于多大的工厂，如果每天都能发射并回收，每公斤成本仅10美元，这将是一种非常有吸引力的制造方式。

Starship having the volume of an A380, a seven forty seven, think of the equivalent size of factory that represents, and if that can be launched every single day and recovered every single day for $10 per kilogram, that could be a really compelling way to do quite a lot of manufacturing.

顺便提一下，杰夫·贝佐斯在其太空愿景中真正关注的并不是火星本身，而是如何将大量高污染产业移出地球，为什么不让地球成为一个完美的自然保护区，而把所有制造中的污染环节都放到轨道上？这同样极具吸引力，虽然实现轨道通信可能还需要更多创新，但我想说，如果成本能降到足够低，这或许是一种必然趋势。

Incidentally, that's something that Jeff Bezos really focuses on on his vision for space as opposed to Mars per se, is where we can move a lot of the heavy polluting industry off the planet and why don't we turn Earth into this perfect nature reserve and all these polluting aspects of manufacturing can go into orbit, which again is very compelling, probably needs a lot more innovation to deliver communications from orbit, but I'd say it's maybe an inevitability if the cost gets to a low enough point.

你想一想，没有大气衰减的情况下，太阳能有多少，比如全天候24小时不间断。

You think how much solar energy is available without the atmosphere attenuation, for example, you know, twenty four seven.

如果成本在某个时候足够低，这些事情不仅可能发生，而且很可能应该发生，理由非常充分。

There's lots of compelling reasons why if it's cheap enough at some point, a lot of these things probably should happen, not just could happen.

太阳能这一点，很好地说明了在太空中和在地球上完全是两种不同的情况。

The solar energy point, great example of something that is an entirely different dynamic in space than on Earth.

你提到半导体或制药时，除了这个，还有哪些其他例子呢？出于好奇想了解一下。

What would the other things be just out of curiosity when you mentioned semiconductors or pharmaceuticals?

仅仅是重力吗？

Is it just purely gravity?

除了重力，太空中存在而地球上不存在的其他因素，或者地球上存在而太空中不存在的因素，还有哪些会促成这种差异？

Are there other things that are happening in space or not happening in space that happen on Earth that would drive that difference?

还有真空环境，太空中没有大气，因此在像气相沉积设备中，你不需要应对那么严苛的真空要求来去除杂质。

There's the vacuum condition, so there isn't an atmosphere, so the level of impurities which you need to get rid of or a vapor deposition machine, for example, you don't have the same kind of challenges there of having to have this deep vacuum.

可以说，在太空中，由于没有重力，你可以建造比在地面上建造后再发射更大的结构。

There's arguably in space, because you don't have gravity, you could construct much larger structures there rather than construct them on the ground and then launch them.

所以，再次回到我们之前讨论的载荷体积限制问题，如果你能将足够多的物资送入太空并在太空中销售，就像国际空间站那样，那么借助星舰的货舱容量，我们可以实现比航天飞机大得多的规模。

So again, that volume constraint which we were talking about earlier in terms of how big your payload is, if you're able to get enough stuff up there and sell it in space as we did with the International Space Station, things can be much, much larger given the payload bay of Starship than we could with the space shuttle.

当你考虑近地轨道、地球同步轨道，以及像火星这样的目标——我认为这原本是埃隆和SpaceX的初衷时，随着距离的延伸，经济性会发生多大变化？

When you think about lower Earth orbit versus geospatial orbit versus something like Mars, which I think was the original vision with Elon and SpaceX, how much does that change the economics when you extend out?

成本是否会呈数量级增长，形成一条指数型上升的成本曲线？

Is it orders of magnitude where it's an exponential cost curve to go further out?

即使我们只聚焦于发射环节，并以卫星为例，先不深入讨论制造层面的动态。

Even just if we focus on the launch and use a satellite for an example before we get into all the manufacturing dynamics.

能否从成本角度对此进行一些说明？

Is there any way to contextualize that from a cost perspective?

真正

The really

好消息是，引力会随着距离的平方而减弱。

good news here is that gravitational force decreases with the square of distance.

因此，最大的挑战是脱离地表并进入轨道。

So the biggest challenge is getting off the surface and into orbit.

一旦你到达那里，从能量角度来看，前往太阳系其他任何地方都会容易得多。

Once you're there, from an energy point of view, it's a lot easier to go anywhere else in the solar system.

如果以猎鹰九号为例，同样的价格，它可以将20吨送入低地球轨道，或者将4吨送入火星轨道。

So if you were to take Falcon nine again as the example, for the same price, it can place 20 tons into low Earth orbit, or it can place four tons into Martian orbit.

尽管后者距离远了一百多万倍。

That's despite the latter being over a million times further away.

这引出了我认为关于SpaceX及其火星目标最大的误解。

Now this feeds into what I think is probably the biggest misconception about SpaceX and its Mars ambitions.

对大多数人来说，认为商业实体从事探索是天真的，但在我看来，长期投资者应该对SpaceX将此作为推动力而感到无比兴奋。

I'd say for most people the idea of a commercial entity pursuing exploration is naive at best, but I'd argue that long term investors should be absolutely ecstatic about SpaceX having this mission as a forcing function.

首先，这是吸引全球顶尖人才加入该组织的关键，使它能够以他人无法匹敌的方式和速度进行创新。

Firstly, it's the key to getting the best people in the world to come and work for the organization and allow it to innovate in a manner and speed that others simply can't match.

这是一个巨大的竞争优势。

That that's a huge competitive advantage.

其次，将更多货物送往火星的关键，在于弄清楚如何将更多货物送入地球轨道，因为成本都集中在这一环节。

Secondly, the way to get more cargo to Mars is actually about figuring out how to get more cargo into orbit around Earth because that's where the cost is all concentrated.

这一切都取决于首次离开地球表面的那一步。

It's all in that first initial leap off the surface of our planet.

因此，不要把星舰视为一种使人能够到达其他行星的系统，而应将其视为一种能极大提升地球轨道商业运营利润、并解锁全新商业应用场景的系统。

So rather than framing Starship as a system that makes it possible to get to other planets, think about it instead being a system that could make it enormously more profitable to operate a business in Earth orbit and unlock brand new commercial use cases there as well.

你知道，如果同一艘星舰有一天用于发射所有宇航员所需的燃料，其余三百六十四天则用于发射卫星或空间站，那将是一个巨大的能力优势。

You know, if the same Starship which launches fuel for all astronauts one day is gonna be launching satellites or space stations the other three hundred and sixty four days of the year, that's gonna be a huge capability advantage.

我认为这就是为什么格温妮·肖特维尔开始谈到，从长远来看，星舰对公司的价值甚至可能超过星链。

I think that's why Gwynne Shotwell has started to talk about longer term Starship potentially being even more valuable to the business than Starlink.

我们已经聊了这么多，却几乎没提到埃隆和格温妮·肖特维尔。

We've gotten so far into the conversation, and we barely referenced Elon and Gwynne Shotwell.

虽然提到了几次，但相比一般的SpaceX对话，这已经算是很少了。

There's been a couple references, but for your average SpaceX conversation, it's been quite low.

我想谈谈SpaceX的管理团队，以及他们的人才质量和水平。

I do wanna talk about the management team, the quality and caliber of people within SpaceX.

你在对话一开始提到，有一个明显的趋势：最优秀、最出色的人才都涌向那里。

You mentioned in the very beginning of the conversation, there was this noticeable trend of the best, most impressive people going there.

你能谈谈你在公司和企业文化中的亲身经历吗？

Can you just talk about your experience with the company and culture within the business?

外面有很多书可以读，但我想听听你第一手的经历，那是什么样的感受。

There's books out there that you can read, but your firsthand experience and what that's been like.

我们的客户最终是投资于这家企业及其所涵盖的一切。

Our clients are ultimately invested in the business and all that that comes with.

因此，这包括了车间里的工程师、创始人、技术、供应商等等，方方面面都同等重要。

So that's equal parts of the engineers on the shop floor, that's equal parts of the founder, the technologies, the suppliers, etcetera, etcetera.

所以它们都是更广泛整体中非常重要的组成部分。

And so they're all very important pieces of a much wider entity.

尽管如此，很难忽视马斯克的重要性，不仅对SpaceX，也对他创立的许多其他公司而言。

That said, it's hard to get away from how important Musk has been, not just to SpaceX but to many other companies which he's founded.

如果他没有凭借顽强的意志力，卖掉大量资产，推动猎鹰一号完成另一次发射，这家公司早就濒临破产了。

This company was on the brink of bankruptcy if he hadn't, through sheer force of will, selling lots of assets, got it to another launch of Falcon one.

我们今天也就不会在这里受益于这一切，因此很难将这一点，以及旅程中其他诸多因素，与‘使命才是最重要的’这一理念完全割裂开来。

We would not be here to benefit from it, and so it's hard to disentangle that point along with many others along the journey of having this vision to say that the mission is what's important.

我们之前谈到过，我们完全可以只做猎鹰九号，靠它的收入过活，但正是因为马斯克不断推动工程卓越、追求下一个目标等等，从纯粹的财务角度来说，这种持续的动力对许多企业而言都带来了极大的好处。

We were talking earlier about we could just do Falcon nine and just live off that revenue, but because you have Musk continually pushing for engineering excellence, reaching for the next goal, etcetera, taking it from a purely financially motivated point of view, that has been a very beneficial thing to have in a lot of these enterprises.

所以我认为他们在这方面做得非常好，努力弄清楚每个人擅长什么，并让每个人专注于自己的专长。

So I think they've done a really good job of trying to figure out what everyone's good at and let people specialize.

埃隆·马斯克对这家公司的所有细节都有非常深入的把握。

Elon Musk has got a really good grasp of all the detail in this company.

他脑子里装着这么多信息，简直让人有点害怕，但他不需要亲自处理太多日常运营事务，因为总裁兼首席运营官格温·肖特维尔承担了大部分这类负担。

It's quite sort of terrifying the amount of information we should get hold in his head, but he doesn't have to do an awful lot of the day to day operational side of things because Gwen Shotwell, who's the president and COO, is the one who takes a lot of that burden.

她更多地负责与客户、政府和员工互动，日常管理整个组织，她是一位极其重要的人物，已经在这里工作了十多年，是元老级人物。

She is much more of a person who's interacting with customers, interacting with government, interacting with employees, running the organization day to day, which is absolutely a really important person, how she's been there for over a decade, a long standing person.

在埃隆·马斯克之下，有着非常出色的管理团队。

So there's a really good layer of management just below Elon Musk.

还有首席财务官布雷特·约翰逊，他也在这里工作了很长时间。

CFO Brett Johnson as well, who's been there for an awful long time.

这种职责分配非常合理，让你能够聚焦组织、实现专业化分工，而无需事必躬亲，否则几万名员工的事务会彻底淹没你的日常。

It's a really good delegation of responsibilities that you can focus the organization and specialize within the organization without having to run everything, which tens of thousands of employees would end up dwarfing your day.

很多人都好奇埃隆·马斯克是怎么做到这么多事情的。

Lots of people wonder how Elon Musk can do a lot of these things.

我认为这是因为他在背后有一支极其出色的团队，让他能够发挥出最佳状态，完成那些他广为人知的成就。

I think it's because he's got a really excellent team behind him that enables him to function at his peak and do these things that he's well known for.

他对于这类人才来说也是一个非凡的磁石。

He's an incredible magnet for that type too.

当你想到SpaceX和美国政府的重要性时，结合你之前提到的卫星业务，政府在今天的业务中占多大比重？

When you think about SpaceX and the importance of the US government, how important are they to the business today when you factor in what you mentioned around satellites?

我知道在空间站维护方面，他们一直协助一些重要的侦察任务之类的。

I know with space station maintenance, they've been helping out with some important recon missions, things like that.

这在业务中占了相当大的比例吗？

Is it a substantial concentrated percentage of the business?

从财务角度来看，星链项目仍然是SpaceX的主要重点。

Starlink is still the main focus of SpaceX from a financial point of view.

最终，消费市场和商业市场将远大于政府市场，因此从长远来看，情况肯定会如此。

Ultimately, the consumer and the business market is going to be far larger than the government market, and so longer term, that is definitely going to be the case.

随着时间的推移，这些比例会发生变化。

The proportions will move around over time, etcetera.

一开始，政府业务会占更大比重。

At the start, it'll be more government.

随着成本曲线下降，商业业务会增多。

As the cost curve comes down, it'll be more business.

随着成本进一步下降，消费者业务会占据主导。

As the cost curve comes down again, it'll be more consumer.

因此，它将随着时间显著演变。

And so it's going to evolve significantly over time.

它最具意义的地方，是能更贴近商业和消费者市场。

Where it's going be most significant is the closer it can get to business and consumers.

那里的市场规模将极其庞大。

The volumes there are just going to be enormous.

我认为一个例子就是星链网络，明年可能就会推出，或者在某些地区已经启动，它将能够直接连接到你的手机或物联网设备，而无需对任何硬件进行修改。

I think one example of that would be the Starlink network, think it's next year or it might have started in some locations already, is going to be able to directly connect to your cell phone or directly connect to an IoT device without any changes to any of the hardware.