SpaceX (general discussion)

NeilChapman said:
You can't make this bureaucratic bullshit up.
Click to expand...

You'd think it reads like fiction until you've had to do an environmental impact study for even a minor project.

A company I worked for wanted a place to safely test things (relatively small things) that go boom in the desert, not terribly far off a major interstate. Proximity to humans and traffic was adjudged no problem.

One of the requirements initially asked to satisfy was about the possible disruptions to coyotes. Coyotes are classified by the state as a predatory animal that enjoys no protection from hunting in open areas and can be taken anytime year-round with permission of the landowner with no limit. They are also (in-?)famously tolerant of human activity and noise. The owner (I am told by people present in the meeting) told them he was a licensed hunter and that they could agree to waive that requirement or he would give a personal guarantee that there would be no coyotes to disrupt on his land.

Killing them was fine and legal. Disturbing them enough to make them think about relocating was for some reason verbotten.

It, too, was eventually ironed out to the satisfaction of both parties without a paid study. I think half of the requested studies were just to pad the coffers of people in the field (and universities). About 20% of the requirements actually made logical sense. The rest were bureaucratic box-checking. And that was for little more than a pit and some trailers and conex boxes in a rather barren parcel of desert. Can't imagine what they come up with for oceans and waterways.
 
_Del_ said:
You'd think it reads like fiction until you've had to do an environmental impact study for even a minor project.

A company I worked for wanted a place to safely test things (relatively small things) that go boom in the desert, not terribly far off a major interstate. Proximity to humans and traffic was adjudged no problem.

One of the requirements initially asked to satisfy was about the possible disruptions to coyotes. Coyotes are classified by the state as a predatory animal that enjoys no protection from hunting in open areas and can be taken anytime year-round with permission of the landowner with no limit. They are also (in-?)famously tolerant of human activity and noise. The owner (I am told by people present in the meeting) told them he was a licensed hunter and that they could agree to waive that requirement or he would give a personal guarantee that there would be no coyotes to disrupt on his land.

Killing them was fine and legal. Disturbing them enough to make them think about relocating was for some reason verbotten.

It, too, was eventually ironed out to the satisfaction of both parties without a paid study. I think half of the requested studies were just to pad the coffers of people in the field (and universities). About 20% of the requirements actually made logical sense. The rest were bureaucratic box-checking. And that was for little more than a pit and some trailers and conex boxes in a rather barren parcel of desert. Can't imagine what they come up with for oceans and waterways.
Click to expand...

The paperwork is ass-covering in case somebody whines. American property rights are very strong ('e.g. California's right to be un-shadowed in your single family home in SF), with an immense amount of veto points.

The main problem is that the environmental statement has to be forwarded so far up the federal government food chain in order to get somebody who can take the risk of saying yes. Otherwise some local NIMBYs can and will band together and to block all construction in some area, which Ted Kennedy famously did so his friends' waterfront property wouldn't have to look at windmills. New York City spent something like two years and fifty million dollars writing up an environmental impact statement on car tolls in NYC to find 'no impact' (duh!). In didn't matter, because New Jersey's senators still tried to block it.

My program did around nine months of paperwork to determine that the maximum risk was something like "up to one crab, three mollusks and 1sqft of coral". We were using an established range.

SpaceX, blew up a rocket on a new range next to a wild life preserve, got a lot of deserved whining. Don't blame wildlife folks - blame Americans, its what we keep voting for.
 
Musk apparently said they'll get approval in time for a Friday launch.
 
sferrin said:
Oh my god, let me get a tissue to wipe away the tears.

Let's hear about the SpaceX subsidies. Go!
Click to expand...
Elon's cult of innovative space implodes if he stops designing new launch vehicles - hence delays/FAA approvals is a near fatal risk. Once that happens he won't be able to sustain the business with low cost motivated new grads. Then the office gets older, wants to spend time with their families, and they eventually become a legacy player.

Space funding is super political in America. SpaceX gets those early launch contracts (a very good idea!) when Obama/Reid/Pelosi take the space money from a (boondoggle) program in Alabama and move it to California. Space money in america is pork first and capability second. E.g. Trump putting space command in Alabama, and then the Republicans teaming up with Biden to transfer it to Colorado as a way of punishing Tuberville for stalling all the nominees.
 
The workers were able to catch a breather...but they want Starship to launch too...and here, the delay-of-game is caused by refs throwing the flag. F&W doesn't care about the plight of workers either--and wouldn't mind putting them out of a job.

They just need to be treated better.

They are in the same fix as coal miners caught between union busters on one side and Greens on the other.

Ideologs war--but it is the common man that gets hurt.
 
Last edited:
Wallmart Republic said:
I would be loath to disturb the course of this thread with digressions, however I will say that all Musky's ventures are about as private as G.I. Joe or the institutions bailed out in 2008.
Click to expand...
So you got nothin'. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you. Pro Tip: Getting paid for a service is not a "subsidy". Difficult concept, I know.
 
Interesting that now a series of article are publish about safety issue at SpaceX, Tesla, Boring, X (twitter).
and about the moral consequence of first human test subject at NeuroLink.
Seem the the Media are enough of Musk and start bashing him.

Ignoring, the serious irregularities at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Amazon.
safety issue at factories of General Motor, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota, special the ones in foreign countries.
or the inhuman experiments of US/EU Pharma industry on human subjects in foreign countries.
or the Murder and mayhem provided by SHELL, EXXON, Saudi Aramco to secure there oil-wells in foreign countries.
 
Michel Van said:
Interesting that now a series of article are publish about safety issue at SpaceX, Tesla, Boring, X (twitter).
and about the moral consequence of first human test subject at NeuroLink.
Seem the the Media are enough of Musk and start bashing him.

Ignoring, the serious irregularities at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Amazon.
safety issue at factories of General Motor, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota, special the ones in foreign countries.
or the inhuman experiments of US/EU Pharma industry on human subjects in foreign countries.
or the Murder and mayhem provided by SHELL, EXXON, Saudi Aramco to secure there oil-wells in foreign countries.
Click to expand...
The machine HATES Elon Musk. He took their favorite toy and broke it, in their eyes.
 
Michel Van said:
Interesting that now a series of article are publish about safety issue at SpaceX, Tesla, Boring, X (twitter).
and about the moral consequence of first human test subject at NeuroLink.
Seem the the Media are enough of Musk and start bashing him.

Ignoring, the serious irregularities at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Amazon.
safety issue at factories of General Motor, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota, special the ones in foreign countries.
or the inhuman experiments of US/EU Pharma industry on human subjects in foreign countries.
or the Murder and mayhem provided by SHELL, EXXON, Saudi Aramco to secure there oil-wells in foreign countries.
Click to expand...
It seems these news waves come back to common agendas.

I'm looking forward to an exciting Friday!
 
NeilChapman said:
For launching out of Vandenberg there was concern about sonic booms changing the mating habits of seals. SpaceX was forced to kidnap a seal, strap it to a board, put headphones on the seal and play sonic booms to the seal and measure its stress levels. They were forced to do this twice. Keep in mind other providers have been launching rockets from the West coast for years.
Click to expand...
First get the issue right.
The problem is for the returning boosters that the others don't have.

the shuttle was going through the same problem for the first Vandenberg launch.
The planned first launch had morale patch with seals on it.
 
NeilChapman said:
Interesting podcast w EM and Lex Friedman. EM talks about the FWS reservations.

One of the FWS concerns was about hitting a shark. SpaceX asked how are we to calculate the probability of hitting a shark. FWS stated, that's a secret. If we tell you then shark fin poachers will know. But, FWS then stated there is a group within FWS that can do the calculations. SpaceX said Great! Let's get the data to them. FWS refused, because they don't trust that other group. Eventually they were able to work through it.

For launching out of Vandenberg there was concern about sonic booms changing the mating habits of seals. SpaceX was forced to kidnap a seal, strap it to a board, put headphones on the seal and play sonic booms to the seal and measure its stress levels. They were forced to do this twice. Keep in mind other providers have been launching rockets from the West coast for years.

Discussion starts at 1hr 18 min in.

You can't make this bureaucratic bullshit up.
Click to expand...
Got a link to the Vandenberg report/study? Just because EM mentions it in a podcast with Lex Fridman doesn't make it true. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/vandenberg_2019loa_app2_opr1.pdf is the only thing I could find and it makes no mention of SpaceX doing a study in the manner you described.
 
zevets said:
Elon's cult of innovative space implodes if he stops designing new launch vehicles - hence delays/FAA approvals is a near fatal risk. Once that happens he won't be able to sustain the business with low cost motivated new grads. Then the office gets older, wants to spend time with their families, and they eventually become a legacy player.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if there are many low cost grads in Elon's sweatshops. Salary are generally high. Long term job safety is the acknowledged handshake bargain in this business, that's it.
 
TomcatViP said:
Well, let me say that if you had that experience, you weren't probably the smartest...
Click to expand...
It wasn't my "experience". I know of many low cost grads at SpaceX, low salaries for others, and no long term job safety is not even a handshake, it isn't even acknowledged
 
sferrin said:
There are a lot of places that are a young person's job and will burn you out. Software development and entertainment come to mind. Don't like it, don't work there. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. The problem will solve itself if SpaceX can't keep the talent it needs. Keep the government as far away as possible.
Click to expand...
The problem is complex, because SpaceX launches National Security assets. In fact people in this thread and elsewhere have argued that SpaceX is so vital to national security that agencies like the FAA should back off to not step on the company's toes so much. So the issue of SpaceX workforce retention, and the long-term health of its workforce in general, isn't something the government can ignore. The shipbuilding and aviation industries have both seen massive issues result when critical companies got pennywise and pound foolish with their workforces, NASA and DoD space launch/access folks doesn't want to have a front-row seat for the same.
 
sferrin said:
Someone straight out of Uni is going to be low-cost. No way around it.
Click to expand...
Yup. That's what I intended to say.

Job stability is definitely not there - people are either full cult-of-elon types or go into it fully aware that its a gig you do a for a few years. I hear its getting better as the products mature and Elon's interests shift elsewhere.
 
Did Elon ever make any overtures to Gary Hudson? He had been pushing for VTOVL for so long that SpaceX should have taken him under their wing.

I remember the old Documentary THE WING WILL FLY where I think Jack Northrop at least got to hold a B-2 model in his hands...the equivalent of a grandpa seeing an ultrasound of his grandbaby before passing.

I'm just a sentimental fool that way.
 
zevets said:
Yup. That's what I intended to say.

Job stability is definitely not there - people are either full cult-of-elon types or go into it fully aware that its a gig you do a for a few years. I hear its getting better as the products mature and Elon's interests shift elsewhere.
Click to expand...
What is a "cult-of-Elon" type?
 
Moose said:
The problem is complex, because SpaceX launches National Security assets. In fact people in this thread and elsewhere have argued that SpaceX is so vital to national security that agencies like the FAA should back off to not step on the company's toes so much. So the issue of SpaceX workforce retention, and the long-term health of its workforce in general, isn't something the government can ignore. The shipbuilding and aviation industries have both seen massive issues result when critical companies got pennywise and pound foolish with their workforces, NASA and DoD space launch/access folks doesn't want to have a front-row seat for the same.
Click to expand...
Not quite the same. Ship building became lethargic, and dependent on government gravy. Many big aerospace contractors are the same. I don't see that happening with SpaceX. SpaceX would be doing its thing if it never got another contract from Uncle Sugar.
 
publiusr said:
Did Elon ever make any overtures to Gary Hudson? He had been pushing for VTOVL for so long that SpaceX should have taken him under their wing.
Click to expand...
I remember that in the fledgling years of SpaceX Musk briefly consulted with one of my then colleagues, who at the time was an expert on rocket propulsion for one of the major aerospace companies, but I believe that Hudson thoroughly disqualified himself from any serious consideration by his involvement in the Rotary Rocket Company and their Roton concept. SpaceX is many things, but it's not a charity for old times sake.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Not quite the same. Ship building became lethargic, and dependent on government gravy. Many big aerospace contractors are the same. I don't see that happening with SpaceX. SpaceX would be doing its thing if it never got another contract from Uncle Sugar.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Moose said:
In fact people in this thread and elsewhere have argued that SpaceX is so vital to national security that agencies like the FAA should back off to not step on the company's toes so much. So the issue of SpaceX workforce retention, and the long-term health of its workforce in general, isn't something the government can ignore.
Click to expand...

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.

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.


Moose said:
The shipbuilding and aviation industries have both seen massive issues result when critical companies got pennywise and pound foolish with their workforces, NASA and DoD space launch/access folks doesn't want to have a front-row seat for the same.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom