SpaceX (general discussion)

NeilChapman said:
You're so right Scott.Therein lies the difference.

For almost 50 years we celebrated mediocrity. Industry pitched ideas to government and did nothing risky unless it was funded by the taxpayer. The US taxpayer funneled billions to tired old ideas and solutions - conventional wisdom. We raced to the bottom and ended up with basically an industry on life support from the feds, requiring rocket motors from the Russians lit with wooden sticks to get our astronauts to the Space Station in the 21st century.

Along comes a company with an idea, a method, an ethos. Think it, engineer it, build it, fly it, blow it up, repeat as fast as possible. They were successful and now "own" the lift market while slashing costs to orbit. What great bourgeoisie sin have they committed now that they've achieved such success?

1. Build a global satellite infrastructure to provide high speed low latency Internet throughput the world.

2. Build a larger rocket, with an exponentially lower cost to orbit, with the aim to save consciousness.

And yes, they work fast. They are concerned that the window to become multi-planetary may only be open a short while.

Is the petty criticism of SpaceX jealousy and self loathing at not accomplishing more? Who can say. SpaceX's traditional competitors have made themselves irrelevant by not providing a competitive product. I also know that "everyone" wants to work there and at Tesla. Every young engineer I've spoken to has applied.

I wish them every success!
Click to expand...
But you're a "cultist" if you think that's a better way than government inefficiency.
 
NeilChapman said:
Not. It is not the governments job to look out for me. It is my job to look out for me. I don't see any issues with SpaceX having recruiting problems. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Recruiting is not the sole measure of workforce health, retention is an important component and overall stability is as often effected by the latter as the former. Part of the deal when you win mission-critical contracts is that you agree to oversight, and workforce stability is an oversight issue. Repeating myself, workforce disruption which threatens government missions is absolutely a government concern.
NeilChapman said:
My issue was not with the FAA, it was with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Who, which have since learned, was at least somewhat dubious on the merits of their concerns.
Click to expand...
Have we learned this? Sure, Elon's said some things, I'm not entirely sure what level of seriousness one should ascribe to them. I do remember people bemoaning FWS having a say, and insisting that they were simply a beard for a "vengeful" administration determined to kill a company they keep giving contracts to. Instead it appears the team worked as fast as they could and now SpaceX will get a greenlight within days.

NeilChapman said:
But that's the point. SpaceX doesn't outsource work to critical companies. SpaceX is remarkably vertically integrated. They do not drive down costs by arm-twisting vendors. They engineer better solutions. Your criticism is without merit in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I said noting about outsourcing, shipbuilders and aerospace made plenty of silly mistakes with their workforces before even getting into an outsourcing discussion. I'm talking about retention, not just of people but of knowledge, skills, and practices. Skippy with a shiny, new 4-year degree may be enthusiastic as all get out about getting hired by SpaceX. might agree to whatever pay, benefit, and hours are presented just for the chance. But Skippy will need people who actually know what they're doing to provide the training and institutional know-how to get up to speed. If those people aren't around because SpaceY comes along offering space work with less BS, the company's going to struggle to get people like Skippy to the point where they can keep things moving.
 
Moose said:
Recruiting is not the sole measure of workforce health, retention is an important component and overall stability is as often effected by the latter as the former. Part of the deal when you win mission-critical contracts is that you agree to oversight, and workforce stability is an oversight issue. Repeating myself, workforce disruption which threatens government missions is absolutely a government concern.

Have we learned this? Sure, Elon's said some things, I'm not entirely sure what level of seriousness one should ascribe to them. I do remember people bemoaning FWS having a say, and insisting that they were simply a beard for a "vengeful" administration determined to kill a company they keep giving contracts to. Instead it appears the team worked as fast as they could and now SpaceX will get a greenlight within days.


I said noting about outsourcing, shipbuilders and aerospace made plenty of silly mistakes with their workforces before even getting into an outsourcing discussion. I'm talking about retention, not just of people but of knowledge, skills, and practices. Skippy with a shiny, new 4-year degree may be enthusiastic as all get out about getting hired by SpaceX. might agree to whatever pay, benefit, and hours are presented just for the chance. But Skippy will need people who actually know what they're doing to provide the training and institutional know-how to get up to speed. If those people aren't around because SpaceY comes along offering space work with less BS, the company's going to struggle to get people like Skippy to the point where they can keep things moving.
Click to expand...
In this case "Space Y" would be Blue Origin. I don't see SpaceX in danger of everybody jumping ship to go there. It would have happened already. It's not like SpaceX just started working hard a year or two ago.
 
NeilChapman said:
It is not the governments job to look out for me. It is my job to look out for me.
Click to expand...
A system also known as taxation without representation.
I also know that "everyone" wants to work there and at Tesla. Every young engineer I've spoken to has applied.
Click to expand...
I despise the way everything is run like a burger joint these days in America, and to add insult to injury the unremitting chorus praise of this management credo, usually delivered with bloodshot eyes and a frozen plastic smile.
They may be able to beguile unsuspecting applicants who, upon further acquaintance, realize they're on a slave ship and become keenly aware of the need to escape lest they be driven into an early grave. I hope for SpaceX's own sake that they at least adopt the Magna Carta if they wish to retain talent that can count past ten.
 
Last edited:
Moose said:
Skippy with a shiny, new 4-year degree may be enthusiastic as all get out about getting hired by SpaceX. might agree to whatever pay, benefit, and hours are presented just for the chance. But Skippy will need people who actually know what they're doing to provide the training and institutional know-how to get up to speed.
Click to expand...
Precisely. long term retention is of the essence if an engineering firm is to found a design school and philosophy where knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next.
 
sferrin said:
What is a "cult-of-Elon" type?
Click to expand...
new grad kids who have one dream "work at spacex" get used like a condom (or can't cut it), grow disillusioned and are fired not so-long there after (w/ a massive and crushing NDA).

they are a small minority, but spacex is a hungry place unafraid of turnover. another big class of burnouts that are people who get promoted into management and implode under the pressure. i loosely know a guy who lost his hair working there, and watched it return as he's "coasted" as a sr manager at boeing.

but above all there's a world class core of people there who keep the place running. if you're brilliant spacex lets you _do_ stuff that no goverment program would ever let you consider.

there's a great interview with Tom Mueller employee #1 at spacex:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1c5WZswuAw
that seems to summarize everything I've ever heard: "culture of fear" and "i'd do it all over again"
 
zevets said:
new grad kids who have one dream "work at spacex" get used like a condom (or can't cut it), grow disillusioned and are fired not so-long there after (w/ a massive and crushing NDA).

they are a small minority, but spacex is a hungry place unafraid of turnover. another big class of burnouts that are people who get promoted into management and implode under the pressure. i loosely know a guy who lost his hair working there, and watched it return as he's "coasted" as a sr manager at boeing.
Click to expand...
All I'm seeing is people wanting to work for the world leader (by far) in rockets. Do you call people who want to work for Intel cultists? Disney? Just how shitty does a company have to be before the people who want to work there are no longer "cultists" in your eyes?
 
Boeing could have made Falcon had they wanted to.

I heard it said there was a woman at Boeing that said that the company didn't need engineers anymore.

Like Hughes, Elon led a project he believed in---where the profit motive alone just makes most firms risk averse.
 
Moose said:
Recruiting is not the sole measure of workforce health, retention is an important component and overall stability is as often effected by the latter as the former. Part of the deal when you win mission-critical contracts is that you agree to oversight, and workforce stability is an oversight issue. Repeating myself, workforce disruption which threatens government missions is absolutely a government concern.
Click to expand...

No again. Performance is what's critical. SpaceX is nearing 100 successful launches this year. Can you name any legacy providers that have matched that?

Moose said:
Have we learned this? Sure, Elon's said some things, I'm not entirely sure what level of seriousness one should ascribe to them. I do remember people bemoaning FWS having a say, and insisting that they were simply a beard for a "vengeful" administration determined to kill a company they keep giving contracts to. Instead it appears the team worked as fast as they could and now SpaceX will get a greenlight within days.
Click to expand...

Yep, among other things, we now all know that SpaceX is not likely to hit a shark with their rocket. Between that and an understanding that jelly will not make a sandwich soggy if peanut butter is applied to both slices of bread I feel the US government has done us a great service.

Moose said:
I said noting about outsourcing, shipbuilders and aerospace made plenty of silly mistakes with their workforces before even getting into an outsourcing discussion. I'm talking about retention, not just of people but of knowledge, skills, and practices. Skippy with a shiny, new 4-year degree may be enthusiastic as all get out about getting hired by SpaceX. might agree to whatever pay, benefit, and hours are presented just for the chance. But Skippy will need people who actually know what they're doing to provide the training and institutional know-how to get up to speed.
Click to expand...

You don't get experience by making proposals and wishing for funding. You get experience by building, breaking, and redesigning shit. That's what these exceptional young engineers want to be a part of. The "institutional know-how" of complacency is what they're rejecting. The processes of bureaucracy are what they're rejecting.

One earns the respect of young engineers. Referring to them as Skippy would have a deleterious effect on that result in my opinion. But you stick with what works for you.

Moose said:
If those people aren't around because SpaceY comes along offering space work with less BS, the company's going to struggle to get people like Skippy to the point where they can keep things moving.
Click to expand...

Yes siree Bob. Now you're making my point for me. Most young engineers would rather work for the guy that runs SpaceX, Tesla, xAI, X, The Boring Co, and NeuroLink. Lots of opportunities there. These EM companies have demonstrated that ability to keep things moving.

But that's my opinion, with supporting data.

Hey, let's see what happens Friday. Excitement guaranteed!
 
sferrin said:
In this case "Space Y" would be Blue Origin. I don't see SpaceX in danger of everybody jumping ship to go there. It would have happened already. It's not like SpaceX just started working hard a year or two ago.
Click to expand...
They have. automatic 30% raise.
 
publiusr said:
Boeing could have made Falcon had they wanted to.
Click to expand...
Anybody could have, just nobody took that path.
The issue was most LV producers would have had to start a second line so as to not interrupt their customers.
publiusr said:
I heard it said there was a woman at Boeing that said that the company didn't need engineers anymore.
Click to expand...

Stop it.
Where do you get that nonsense?
Darleen Druyun was there less than a year and didn't do anything that mattered as a Boeing employee.
 
Byeman said:
Stop it.
Where do you get that nonsense?
Darleen Druyun was there less than a year and didn't do anything that mattered as a Boeing employee.
Click to expand...
That wasn't Darleen...a Boeing employee who calls himself Trebuchet at Cosmoquest talked about this years ago.

I believe him.
 
Last edited:
Problem with Saturday is the launch window is apparently only twenty minutes compared to the two hours they would have had with Friday.
 
sferrin said:
All I'm seeing is people wanting to work for the world leader (by far) in rockets. Do you call people who want to work for Intel cultists? Disney? Just how shitty does a company have to be before the people who want to work there are no longer "cultists" in your eyes?
Click to expand...
If your sense of self worth is tied to your job, you risk for health for it, and the pay isnt competitive, it is a cult. And I have in fact, called people who worked at Disney as members of a cult. Intel folks aren't cultists, as they don't worship a leader/the holy texts - it's some sort of weird ego play in my experience.

And the internet fanbois aren't in the cult - they're less than that - especially after Elon's most recent comments.
 
sferrin said:
Knew it was too good to be true. :( Slightly mind-boggling that they're not more reliable.
Click to expand...
cmon spacex hitting schedule on the first launch? rushing to launch is a bad idea, and they made that mistake once when they blew up their own launch pad.
 
Wallmart Republic said:
Precisely. long term retention is of the essence if an engineering firm is to found a design school and philosophy where knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next.
Click to expand...
No, well _written_ documentation is how knowledge is transmitted. SpaceX pays people to document, and they pay technical writers well.

As far as I'm aware - they're the only company in the space game to take this tack. My understanding is that Blue doesn't do this either, despite the emphasis on written documentation at Amazon.

Everybody is pretending to be a software company with a pile of Jira tickets (or god forbid an excel sheet), while also doing the DOD thing of 8000 powerpoints.
 
zevets said:
If your sense of self worth is tied to your job, you risk for health for it, and the pay isnt competitive, it is a cult.
Click to expand...
You're making all kinds of assumptions to support your bias. I thought you were a serious person. Ah well.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom