Umm.. Doug doesn’t seem to understand where the money comes from. Hint: every payload needs a payload adapter. SpaceX doesn’t build those for free.
I don’t run a large company, but it sure doesn’t sound sustainable to me. 70 work weeks I am familiar with – did it for three years out of law school. Never again.
And you simply don’t make good decisions working hours like that. Mistakes will be made because someone is overworked; bet on it.
It can be sustainable. If you screen out those who cannot operate under those conditions, it works. Otherwise, you are right, spectacular failures will occur. I’m sure all of QA are regular employees.
I am surprised SpaceX is cash-flow positive.
They must pay their people poorly.
I’d heard about the long hours from an acquaintance who works for SpaceX in McGregor, but the temps don’t do much for the ‘good guy’ image. Of course, the idea of the sweat equity in a startup is the big payoff when the stock goes public. I believe it was ‘In the Shadow of the Moon’ that interviewed NASA controllers who worked those same sort of hours during Apollo, the government start-up.
Elon’s case all along is that most of their money savings comes from tooling re-use (same diameter stages and same propellants minimizes differences) and the fact that they build most of their prime components in house rather than relying on the chain of subcontractors. Has anyone seen an analysis on how this helps their bottom line?
Based on the pictures of the employees crowded around the mission control monitors on launch days, SpaceX has a generally young-looking work force. I worked long hours for years on end without notable injury or blunder in my 20’s also. It is noteworthy that SpaceX has now achieved seven consecutive successful launches of its flagship booster from a standing start. Arianespace, whose component firms presumably work to the much mellower tempo of Western Europe, had two complete failures among its first seven Ariane 5 missions and two more among the next seven. Since then, of course, they’ve had 57 straight successes, but they made a ragged start of things.
The only other booster with an early reliability history comparable to the Falcon 9 is the Atlas III/V. For vehicles priced at four or more times the Falcon 9 rate this would seem the least one might expect.
SpaceX has had niggling problems, to be sure. But it seems they engineer their product to flag all such problems in time to keep them from causing mission losses. The Falcon 9 was also deliberately designed to be hot test fired in advance of mission launch and/or aborted post ignition, then quickly recycled to flight readiness. If SpaceX’s diagnostics and quick repair/recycle engineering are the keys to their success then more people with a software background probably ought to be essaying careers as steely-eyed rocket entrepreneurs.
Right now, I’d have to give SpaceX very favorable odds of matching or exceeding the reliability records of Atlas III/V or post-flight-14 Ariane 5 over the next few years.
I like their odds of making good rockets, but not retaining good people. Those 20-somethings will eventually become 30-somethings, with marriages, kids, etc. 70 hour weeks really aren’t sustainable for most people. There are some lawyers and doctors who do it, but they also have high rates of drinking problems, divorce, and suicide.
If they want a Silicon Valley culture, they eventually need to mature into something more like Microsoft or Google. They work hard when they need to, but also have a sustainable lifestyle on average.
Oh god i hope not. Microsoft has the most destructive, political infighting and career climbing work culture, where people make sure to manage upwards and give appearance of working, and take absolutely no risks – no risks that would damage their career. Google is not much better, except that they have the extra layer of young brats immaturity at all levels which makes the politics even worse. I work very close to both of their Mountain View offices ..
It’s a weeding process for the right people. Those who discover that the environment is not right for them are unlikely to transition from ‘temp’ to ‘regular’. On the other hand, if you look at something like the petroleum industry where offshore rig operations are 12-on/12-off for six to eight weeks followed by a week off or the commercial nuclear industry where you don’t need NRC approval until you exceed 72 hours/week, you can certainly build a technical industry with youngsters and old timers. It’s not for everyone, but if Mr. Musk is looking to lead that kind of workforce I believe he can find thousands who are qualified, capable, and willing to work for SpaceX.
Umm.. Doug doesn’t seem to understand where the money comes from. Hint: every payload needs a payload adapter. SpaceX doesn’t build those for free.
I don’t run a large company, but it sure doesn’t sound sustainable to me. 70 work weeks I am familiar with – did it for three years out of law school. Never again.
And you simply don’t make good decisions working hours like that. Mistakes will be made because someone is overworked; bet on it.
It can be sustainable. If you screen out those who cannot operate under those conditions, it works. Otherwise, you are right, spectacular failures will occur. I’m sure all of QA are regular employees.
I am surprised SpaceX is cash-flow positive.
They must pay their people poorly.
I’d heard about the long hours from an acquaintance who works for SpaceX in McGregor, but the temps don’t do much for the ‘good guy’ image. Of course, the idea of the sweat equity in a startup is the big payoff when the stock goes public. I believe it was ‘In the Shadow of the Moon’ that interviewed NASA controllers who worked those same sort of hours during Apollo, the government start-up.
Elon’s case all along is that most of their money savings comes from tooling re-use (same diameter stages and same propellants minimizes differences) and the fact that they build most of their prime components in house rather than relying on the chain of subcontractors. Has anyone seen an analysis on how this helps their bottom line?
Based on the pictures of the employees crowded around the mission control monitors on launch days, SpaceX has a generally young-looking work force. I worked long hours for years on end without notable injury or blunder in my 20’s also. It is noteworthy that SpaceX has now achieved seven consecutive successful launches of its flagship booster from a standing start. Arianespace, whose component firms presumably work to the much mellower tempo of Western Europe, had two complete failures among its first seven Ariane 5 missions and two more among the next seven. Since then, of course, they’ve had 57 straight successes, but they made a ragged start of things.
The only other booster with an early reliability history comparable to the Falcon 9 is the Atlas III/V. For vehicles priced at four or more times the Falcon 9 rate this would seem the least one might expect.
SpaceX has had niggling problems, to be sure. But it seems they engineer their product to flag all such problems in time to keep them from causing mission losses. The Falcon 9 was also deliberately designed to be hot test fired in advance of mission launch and/or aborted post ignition, then quickly recycled to flight readiness. If SpaceX’s diagnostics and quick repair/recycle engineering are the keys to their success then more people with a software background probably ought to be essaying careers as steely-eyed rocket entrepreneurs.
Right now, I’d have to give SpaceX very favorable odds of matching or exceeding the reliability records of Atlas III/V or post-flight-14 Ariane 5 over the next few years.
I like their odds of making good rockets, but not retaining good people. Those 20-somethings will eventually become 30-somethings, with marriages, kids, etc. 70 hour weeks really aren’t sustainable for most people. There are some lawyers and doctors who do it, but they also have high rates of drinking problems, divorce, and suicide.
If they want a Silicon Valley culture, they eventually need to mature into something more like Microsoft or Google. They work hard when they need to, but also have a sustainable lifestyle on average.
Oh god i hope not. Microsoft has the most destructive, political infighting and career climbing work culture, where people make sure to manage upwards and give appearance of working, and take absolutely no risks – no risks that would damage their career. Google is not much better, except that they have the extra layer of young brats immaturity at all levels which makes the politics even worse. I work very close to both of their Mountain View offices ..
It’s a weeding process for the right people. Those who discover that the environment is not right for them are unlikely to transition from ‘temp’ to ‘regular’. On the other hand, if you look at something like the petroleum industry where offshore rig operations are 12-on/12-off for six to eight weeks followed by a week off or the commercial nuclear industry where you don’t need NRC approval until you exceed 72 hours/week, you can certainly build a technical industry with youngsters and old timers. It’s not for everyone, but if Mr. Musk is looking to lead that kind of workforce I believe he can find thousands who are qualified, capable, and willing to work for SpaceX.