SpaceX (general discussion)

Elon is not about making money. He is about making things, and he is very good at that. He is a combination of Howard Hughes, Henry Ford and Tony Stark (all of them eccentric geniuses).
Great Men, (and Elon is both an ass and a great man), attract passionate adoration and passionate hatred. I can't figure out how he even sleeps at night while balancing Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company, Optimus, Power Wall, Starlink, and who knows what else.
All this while procreating at a furious rate and inserting himself into national and international politics. And I believe I read that he is autistic.
I've said before, I think he is an alien.
 
Titus said:
Elon is not about making money. He is about making things, and he is very good at that. He is a combination of Howard Hughes, Henry Ford and Tony Stark (all of them eccentric geniuses).
Click to expand...
Henry Ford & Thomas Edison & George Stephenson, I think. The old, classic type of "inventive industrialist".
 
Titus said:
I've said before, I think he is an alien.
Click to expand...
He is Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, and he knows about it
Korolev died on January 14, 1966
Musk was born on June 28, 1971

1ab1cdbedc622e30e852ccf8b51105c4.jpg
scale_1200
 

Attachments

  • ctJoLAWA3LA.jpg
    ctJoLAWA3LA.jpg
    400.2 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Titus said:
Elon is not about making money. He is about making things, and he is very good at that. He is a combination of Howard Hughes, Henry Ford and Tony Stark (all of them eccentric geniuses).
Great Men, (and Elon is both an ass and a great man), attract passionate adoration and passionate hatred. I can't figure out how he even sleeps at night while balancing Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company, Optimus, Power Wall, Starlink, and who knows what else.
All this while procreating at a furious rate and inserting himself into national and international politics. And I believe I read that he is autistic.
I've said before, I think he is an alien.
Click to expand...
Boldening mine.
Musk revealed during his stint as host of Saturday Night Live that he has Asperger's Syndrome, a mild form of autism.
 
Titus said:
Elon is not about making money. He is about making things, and he is very good at that. He is a combination of Howard Hughes, Henry Ford and Tony Stark (all of them eccentric geniuses).
Great Men, (and Elon is both an ass and a great man), attract passionate adoration and passionate hatred. I can't figure out how he even sleeps at night while balancing Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company, Optimus, Power Wall, Starlink, and who knows what else.
All this while procreating at a furious rate and inserting himself into national and international politics. And I believe I read that he is autistic.
I've said before, I think he is an alien.
Click to expand...
Or, 'The Man Who Fell To Earth'
 
Byeman said:
No, you don't understand the industry
a. it is not bleeding money. It is a state owned and run facility. The costs are the same whether they are launching or not.
b. Having another customer isn't going do any for them. An outside customer (not Arianespace or another European entity) is going to bring in their own people and own infrastructure. Like the Russian launched Soyuz at Kourou (actual Russians do the hands-on and not ESA or Arianspace). Another customer will keep some launch "range" people busy but that is very few compared to who does the work on the actual launch vehicles.
c. Arainespace already deals with high turnover. People come from Europe on 3-5 year contracts. They heavily document all the processes and past them on. This works great with comsats because they minimize requirements (to save cost) and hence changes to operations. This is not the case with science spacecraft and why it was so difficult launching JWST on Ariane. It required atypical operations (like extra cleanliness and more preparation time). It didn't follow the cookbook.
d. Just like shuttle and its stand downs, Arianespace will have to find ways to keep its launch teams busy and trained.
E. Money isn't the issue. Europe will always keep an indigenous launch capability. It might not attract commercial payloads like the past but it will be used to launch EU and ESA payloads. It really burns their balls to have to use Falcon 9 for ESA and EC payloads right now during Ariane 6 teething issues and the Russian embargo.


FYI, Arianespace launches Ariane and Vega, Russia launches the Soyuz. CNES owns and manages the launch site and ESA owns the launch pads.
Click to expand...

Money is all the problem in the world. Justifying prestige expenses don´t last long when your taxpayer see similar or better products churned out from the guy in front that cost considerably less.
Ford killed most of the crafted Automobile market to make automobile an industry. Musk is Ford. He has, astonishingly, simply extended chain production with chain design (everyone do a little very specialized thing where they excel).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sferrin said:
His deal was based on company performance. Way better than CEOs getting the golden parachute no matter how much the company tanks, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
But if he's not into making money, why demand the largest pay deal in history? ($56Bn for those who don't recall the details).
 
TomcatViP said:
Money is all the problem in the world. Justifying prestige expenses don´t last long when your taxpayer see similar or better products churned out from the guy in front that cost considerably less.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Europeans don't want to see Euro tax money go to American companies (See A400, EuroFighter, A380, Concorde, Ariane, etc). Europeans (especially the French) always look for homegrown national prestige products no matter what the cost.
TomcatViP said:
He has, astonishingly, simply replaced chain production by chain design (everyone do a little very specialized thing where they excel).
Click to expand...
Nope, SpaceX workers are not specialized. Most don't have traditional trade designations (mechanical, electrical, fluid, etc). Their techs can mate electrical connectors, turn bolts, connect fluid lines, etc

@TomcatViP :

You were still wrong on how orbit changes were performed.
The X-37 as designed could not operate very long with the payload bay doors closed (no power, no cooling). They may have added additional batteries and expendable coolant for extended ops with doors closed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regarding SpaceX, it is blatant that the Fordism I use as an example, is dynamic. Once you have designed something, apart from the process of iterate it, your task is done. SpaceX Engineers are dynamically allocated by their preferences and the rapid schedule in that means that they are confined to a specialty, by this and by the large staff number with the inherent redundancies. Classic EMD generally see professionals in low number go through the entire design (if they have the competencies), inherently making late major modifications lengthy and costly as you advance farther down the project line. Fordism à la Musk allows for rapid and successful iterations. It´s a winning combination that parts from small startups that are often glorified SME and large corporations that have sometimes turned Soviet (see the saga of Silicon valley giants and their large offload of redundant staffs).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DWG said:
But if he's not into making money, why demand the largest pay deal in history? ($56Bn for those who don't recall the details).
Click to expand...
Which part of, "if the company does good, I do good and if the company does poorly so do I" equates to "demanding the largest pay deal in history?
 
sferrin said:
Which part of, "if the company does good, I do good and if the company does poorly so do I" equates to "demanding the largest pay deal in history?
Click to expand...
He could have had the same deal for a lower sum. But no, he wanted $56Bn. Which is factually the largest pay deal in history.
 
DWG said:
He could have had the same deal for a lower sum. But no, he wanted $56Bn. Which is factually the largest pay deal in history.
Click to expand...
When he made the deal it was pegged to the company's success. If the company did well, so would he. If the company did poorly, so would he. You're just butthurt because Tesla did well so he did too. If Tesla had gone bankrupt would you be here whining that he should have demanded a golden parachute? Somehow I doubt it.
 
Out of curiosity (and due diligence), @Byeman and @TomcatViP, what are your sources for your insights into how touch labor and engineering are organized and how tasks are delegated at SpaceX? (I am making the wild assumption that the HR types are not dual qualified to be checking torques on Raptor engine B-nuts.)

I'm not being snarky (for a change)on this question, I am curious.
 
aim9xray said:
Out of curiosity (and due diligence), @Byeman and @TomcatViP, what are your sources for your insights into how touch labor and engineering are organized and how tasks are delegated at SpaceX? (I am making the wild assumption that the HR types are not dual qualified to be checking torques on Raptor engine B-nuts.)

I'm not being snarky (for a change)on this question, I am curious.
Click to expand...
I honestly think asking about the SpaceX organization of touch labor and engineering as well as task delegation is missing the forest for the trees. From personal experience I have learned long ago to not trust any aerospace org chart and associated assertions ever at all.
 
DWG said:
But if he's not into making money, why demand the largest pay deal in history? ($56Bn for those who don't recall the details).
Click to expand...
DWG said:
He could have had the same deal for a lower sum. But no, he wanted $56Bn. Which is factually the largest pay deal in history.
Click to expand...
The Tesla board agreed to an incentivized deal in 2018 that gave no guaranteed money to Musk. The company was worth ~$50 billion at the time.

To hit the first milestone (1% of stock) he had to double the value share-holders holdings and raise the value (market cap) to $100 billion. He did. For every extra $50 billion of value he created (reflected in market cap) he would get awarded another 1℅ worth of holdings up to 12%.

Shareholders at the time in 2018 voted over 70% to give him the deal that gave him no base or guaranteed pay and to reward him for doubling their holdings value in tranches.

He got no salary, no holdings vested based on time served, no cash bonuses.

Turns out, he hit all the tranches early raising the total value of common shares from $50 billion to now over $700 billion. The shareholders recently voted again over 70% in favour of honouring that deal. The vast majority of complaining is coming from people with no skin in the game. The people who saw their holdings increase 1400% in six years are by and large quite happy with the deal.
 
_Del_ said:
The Tesla board agreed to an incentivized deal in 2018 that gave no guaranteed money to Musk. The company was worth ~$50 billion at the time.

To hit the first milestone (1% of stock) he had to double the value share-holders holdings and raise the value (market cap) to $100 billion. He did. For every extra $50 billion of value he created (reflected in market cap) he would get awarded another 1℅ worth of holdings up to 12%.

Shareholders at the time in 2018 voted over 70% to give him the deal that gave him no base or guaranteed pay and to reward him for doubling their holdings value in tranches.

He got no salary, no holdings vested based on time served, no cash bonuses.

Turns out, he hit all the tranches early raising the total value of common shares from $50 billion to now over $700 billion. The shareholders recently voted again over 70% in favour of honouring that deal. The vast majority of complaining is coming from people with no skin in the game. The people who saw their holdings increase 1400% in six years are by and large quite happy with the deal.
Click to expand...
Honest question expecting an honest answer: How independent do you truly believe are any and all of the Tesla board members from Musk in any way, shape, or form, be it family, friendship, acquaintance, business, investment, ideological, political, nationality, religious, race, gender, age, romantic, platonic, sycophantic, or any other strictly legal purely identity or personality related aspect approval seeking related ties?
 
Last edited:
@aim9xray : mainly reports, videos on the theme and linkedIn profiles study. Plus my own experience with US and non-US startups truthfully or not associated with Musk (more not ;) *).

*Often the legitimacy revolves around that assert: I have worked at Musk's XY company {...] I am the new Musk!
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Honest question expecting an honest answer: How independent do you truly believe are any and all of the Tesla board members from Musk in any way, shape, or form, be it family, friendship, business, ideological, political, nationality, race, gender, or any other identity aspect related ties?
Click to expand...
The deal was endorsed overwhelmingly by shareholders when it was enacted in 2018 and again this June. How independent do I think investors are? Very.
And over 70% of them were happy to give him obscene money if he could make them obscene returns. Any of your other investments make 1400% return since 2018?
 
_Del_ said:
The deal was endorsed overwhelmingly by shareholders when it was enacted in 2018 and again this June. How independent do I think investors are? Very.
And over 70% of them were happy to give him obscene money if he could make them obscene returns. Any of your other investments make 1400% return since 2018?
Click to expand...
Depending on company branding, shareholders can be true cultists, but if it works out well for them, god bless their precious little hearts :). At its very heart (but no soul whatsoever), capitalism is a casino game after all ;).
 
Last edited:
shin_getter said:
Is there some resources you can read to get an idea of how organizational structure influence engineering output?
Click to expand...
Look at employee career profiles. You´ll find a lot a description of roles and achievements that shows (somewhat) an encapsulated set of responsibilities, often the same from low entrants to managers. (and the blooming of managers is the sign of a startup organizations for the worst and the better). Employee enters and make their career up within a narrow set of adverted expertise, often with only the very lower end of academic credentials for the position, as the cost aspect is always present when staff are brought in.
Take a 1980's company, SME or large industry, and you'll see career profiles encompassing next to everything an industrial in the domain could do and one single manager by academics field.
Again, it doesn´t reflects on the true professional knowhow of an individual, only the way SpaceX structures their career path.
People see SpaceX as a startup but it is somewhat not (often they are the one using this erroneous assert to justify something else). I don´t know when this transition did happen but, originally, a startup use their employee crossfield, freely, to make the most out of their potentials and the low number of staff (well, that´s the idea), betting on them to tackle problem on an innovative way that outmatch the rest of the industry.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
SpaceX Engineers are dynamically allocated by their preferences and the rapid schedule in that means that they are confined to a specialty, by this and by the large staff number with the inherent redundancies.
Click to expand...
No, they are not. SpaceX engineers change jobs and move around within the company
 
aim9xray said:
Out of curiosity (and due diligence), @Byeman and @TomcatViP, what are your sources for your insights into how touch labor and engineering are organized and how tasks are delegated at SpaceX? (I am making the wild assumption that the HR types are not dual qualified to be checking torques on Raptor engine B-nuts.)

I'm not being snarky (for a change)on this question, I am curious.
Click to expand...
I was on the source selection team when SpaceX got added to the NASA NLS contract. I have worked several Falcon missions.
 
martinbayer said:
Honest question expecting an honest answer: How independent do you truly believe are any and all of the Tesla board members from Musk in any way, shape, or form, be it family, friendship, acquaintance, business, investment, ideological, political, nationality, religious, race, gender, age, romantic, platonic, sycophantic, or any other strictly legal purely identity or personality related aspect approval seeking related ties?
Click to expand...
Just rhetorically: Honest question expecting an honest answer: How independent do you truly believe are any and all of the Tesla Boeing board members from Musk Dave Calhoun in any way, shape, or form, be it family, friendship, acquaintance, business, investment, ideological, political, nationality, religious, race, gender, age, romantic, platonic, sycophantic, or any other strictly legal purely identity or personality related aspect approval seeking related ties?
 
aim9xray said:
Just rhetorically: Honest question expecting an honest answer: How independent do you truly believe are any and all of the Tesla Boeing board members from Musk Dave Calhoun in any way, shape, or form, be it family, friendship, acquaintance, business, investment, ideological, political, nationality, religious, race, gender, age, romantic, platonic, sycophantic, or any other strictly legal purely identity or personality related aspect approval seeking related ties?
Click to expand...
Slight correction - Calhoun is sooo yesterday, and the current Boeing President and CEO is actually Robert Kelly Ortberg, who currently has a few bigger issues to focus on, but in principle your point is extremely well taken. I'm not a company man, and I have no illusions in that respect - that's just how capitalism rolls.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom