34 thoughts on “SpaceX”

  1. I’ve already noticed the criticism of SpaceX becoming steadily quieter this year.

    If SpaceX keeps delivering, I expect that to continue. Imagine if they can launch Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 in the next 9 months.

    One hopes in the meanwhile that conservative critics of SpaceX and Musk, inside the Beltway and beyond, start shedding their aversion to both (based mostly, I think, on Musk’s personal political stances and renewable energy subsidies for SolarCity and Tesla), and better appreciate that this really does represent what free market is capable of at its best.

    1. I still see a lot of criticism of Elon Musk on conservative sites, more because of Tesla and Solar City than SpaceX. I argue that ULA is much more firmly attached to the government teat than SpaceX, and that SpaceX has actually brought commercial satellite launches back to the U.S.

      With Tesla, I point out that government subsidies for electric cars apply to all of them, not just Tesla. The federal rebate is $7500, and some states offer additional incentives of their own. Who is more likely to be swayed by a $7500 rebate, the buyer of a $100,000 Tesla Model S or the buyer of a $40,000 Chevy Volt?

      I also like to mention that Tesla is still a small player among carmakers in terms of units sold. I’ve never seen any numbers, but I have a strong suspicion that giants like GM and Toyota are benefiting more from the subsidies than Tesla.

      I’ve also made the point that when a person is paying income tax, he can take all the deductions that the law allows, and it would be foolish not to. Likewise, it would be foolish for consumers and businesses not to take advantage of the rebates and subsidies that are available. The problems are the overly complex tax code and the existence of subsidies which distort the market, not that people take advantage of them.

      I don’t know whether my arguments have swayed anybody. I still regularly see comments that Obama changed NASA’s primary mission to “Muslim outreach”.

      1. I think it’s a tribal thing – a narrative gets established and more and more partisans (on either side) are harder to shake free of it.

        Musk is identified by many righties as an Obama pal and accomplice – worse, so much of what he does seems tied to the climate change juggernaut – so they simply assume the worst of him and his other enterprise, with no real examination.

        And yet the NASA program of record and its procurement model – like that of DoD, alas – represents all the things conservatives hate most about government bureaucracy – bloated, cronyistic, massively inefficient. SpaceX, and most of New Space, represents what they ought to hope for: a breaking down of that statist bloat by market forces.

        I still regularly see comments that Obama changed NASA’s primary mission to “Muslim outreach”.

        It’s the meme that just won’t die.

        1. SpaceX, and most of New Space, represents what they ought to hope for: a breaking down of that statist bloat by market forces.

          The trick is to point this out and get people to ignore Musk’s political views. It is much easier to do if you are already a space cadet because getting good space policy is more important than other partisan issues.

        2. Indeed, sir.

          A lot of conservatives can’t seem to get past that tour of Kennedy and Canaveral Musk conducted for Obama back in 2010. Or the pittance he contributed to each of Obama’s campaigns. From this, quite a number of people have constructed an alternate reality in which Musk is Obama’s golf buddy and major donor – neither of which is true.

          Then there’s also the largely unexamined belief that government subsidy played a crucial role in both Tesla’s and Solar City’s rises and that the existence of such subsidies is somehow due to Musk.

          Electric car subsidies have been around a lot longer than Tesla. Rooftop solar installation subsidies have been around a lot longer than Solar City. Musk and his cousins were simply the first to actually make a real go of businesses that also happened to take advantage of same.

          Both before, during, and since Tesla/Solar City’s rise there have been many others who have failed badly to make a go of things with businesses established primarily to profit from said subsidy programs. Musk took advantage of what programs existed, but these were never “must-haves” anent his business plans.

          I regard Musk, in fact, as possibly the most truly apolitical person of consequence in the entire country. He looks at the econo-socio-political landscape and plans businesses based on what he finds. If there are subsidies available, he uses them. If there aren’t, he doesn’t. If there are tax abatements to be had in return for building facilities in particular places, he avails himself of them. If not, he doesn’t. But, in all cases, he proceeds. He neither does nor avoids doing things for reasons of political ideology.

          That also applies to political contributions. Musk understands that such things are customary from someone in his position. He also appreciates that, if sprinkling around a modest amount of money buys him some goodwill from politicians, he will do so. But he funds no billion-dollar super-PAC’s and buys no 30-second spots.

          Republicans have been in power in Congress more than Democrats these past 15 years. Musk’s modest political contributions have roughly followed the partisan composition of Congress – i.e., the Republicans have gotten more money from him than the Democrats. But neither party, nor any individual candidate, is the recipient of large donations.

          The only “political” opinion I’ve ever heard Musk express, in fact, is a firm belief in the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). And I don’t think he sees this as a political position. I think he’s quite wrong about both matters, but what he’s doing with Tesla is not injurious to either conservatism or climate skepticism.

          Musk, in fact, stands in stark contrast to most “Climate Change” activists. Musk is not an ideological totalitarian. He looks at climate change as an engineering problem. He is well along in developing what he sees as solutions to the problem – again, as he sees it – of excessive reliance on carbon-combustion-based energy sources as the basis of industrial civilization. He is, at bottom, quite a fan of industrial civilization and wishes to insure its posterity as best he can manage. That’s also why he wants to transplant said civilization to Mars.

          That puts him at considerable odds with the hard-core tree-huggers who all loathe and despise industrial civilization and seek to end it, not mend it. It also puts him at considerable odds with totalitarian power freaks like Tom Steyer and the Left Plutocracy in general who wish to freeze progress so that:

          (1) They can run things as they seem to feel is their right, and,

          (2) They can keep the problem that is the basis of their power alive (AGW) so as to provide a continuing excuse for their totalitarian social engineering. The totalitarian Left really hates problem-solvers – they deprive the Left of issues upon which to ride into power.

          Right now, Tesla is like early Apple – very cool, but not a very major player in the totality of its field. Musk, of course, is not aiming to be the cool 1% – or even 5% or 10% – of the vehicle market. He’s quite serious about supplanting carbon-based transportation systems with all deliberate speed. He’d like the rest of the vehicle industry to get on-board, but is quite prepared to go it alone if necessary.

          If Musk becomes as successful with Tesla as it appears quite possible he will, he will find himself on a consequential collision course with the totalitarian Green Left and the neo-primitivist “Deep Ecology” types.

          At that point, Mr. Musk will be forced to put aside his basically apolitical nature and stand for free civilization against the Leftist hordes gathering to either pull it down entirely, or simply to saddle and ride it in perpetuity. The fact that he is still, it seems, on very good terms with Peter Thiel should be of some consequence in this – it seems to me – inevitable process.

      2. I still regularly see comments that Obama changed NASA’s primary mission to “Muslim outreach”.

        A self inflicted wound by the Obama administration that fits the larger picture of appeasement, retreat, and incompetence of Obama’s foreign policy. It was just some PR thing but so was the #JourneyToMars.

    2. Yes, the nattering nabobs of negativism do seem a lot thinner on the ground of late. On another forum I likened the rout of the SpaceX detractors to Napoleon’s and Hitler’s ignominious winter retreats from Russia 130 years apart. It will take SpaceX another year or so to complete its victorious march, but the ranks of the “enemy” will be down to a corporal’s guard of half-mad die-hards by the end of next year.

  2. You can keep up the drumbeat of criticism…just do it the way the media does Trump. Trump recently tweets that if there was Russian collusion during the last election cycle and if the Obama administration knew about it why didn’t they do something about it? Was he (Obama)negligent/incompetent corroborating in not doing so? All valid legitimate points; the mainstream media decides instead the story is, “aha” you (Trump) are finally admitting there was Russian interference during the last election therefore reversing your previous position; gotcha”. They (the media) decides everything else (Obama administration incompetence/inaction/complicity) are irrelevant; the gods of the media can frame a story any way they want. You can do the same thing to Musk; who for whatever reason seem to have earned the ire of the political/media left. Simply slant the way you choose to cover the story. I suppose it (the hatred) is just a general animosity the left has for all successful capitalist; the idea that Musk might beat the government to Mars (even though they hate the idea of people in space anyway) just infuriates them.

    1. I suppose it (the hatred) is just a general animosity the left has for all successful capitalist; the idea that Musk might beat the government to Mars (even though they hate the idea of people in space anyway) just infuriates them.

      Richard M notes above that the dislike of Musk from the right comes from his other businesses. I think this is true because Tesla and Solar City get a lot of press on political sites. Many of the commenters on these stories are not very aware of SpaceX.

      How much dislike does Musk get from the left? Not much. The only instances of it I have seen have been from types who don’t want humans to poison space with their human stuff, think we need to solve all of Earth’s problems before leaving, and think that space is an escape plan for the rich. Lots of crossover among those issues and there are often many in the scientific community that hold them. Even though these views are popular on the left, Musk and SpaceX largely get a pass.

      The main opposition to SpaceX has always been their competitors.

        1. Okay good. Maybe I just am reading too much into this:

          It’s a view that’s been going around but how popular is it?

          I hope it doesn’t gain wide acceptance among the “sciency” left. But when it is framed as going to Mars means Earth dies in a carbon apocalypse, there will be many to the left who fall for the poor argument. It isn’t an either or choice. The small amount of money spent on space isn’t going to stop the climate from changing or feed everyone on the planet.

          Maybe this will be like gamergate and the people who want to engage in space based activities will wake up to what is going on on the left.

          The best way to deal with the problem is to not rely on government funding. Everyone has a say when it comes to the federal budget but not as much when it comes to a company’s budget.

  3. The top comment over there gets it right. Look at the progress over the last two years in making improvements and dealing with setbacks. Rather than looking at a lower than advertised flight rate, look at what they actually did, which is pretty amazing.

    All the blocks are falling into place. Just because it took a little longer than advertised, but still much much faster than what NASA can do, doesn’t mean SpaceX is poorly run. This industry is famous for delays. But still, looking at all of the things SpaceX has been doing, you can’t say they haven’t been making significant advances.

    They are working on many different projects while also furiously improving their core product. None of their competitors match that in scale or pace.

  4. Oh the critiques will come. The workplace is perpetual start-up mode. You can’t run than long and hard and not burn people out. If SpaceX makes itself successful as a commercial launch company, then will come the poachers. Then the lawsuits, then the patent brawls. If courts start issuing injunctions for launches, then maybe someone will step in as a neutral third party and start adjudicating / mediating disputes so that folks aren’t left stranded in orbit. Hm? Wonder who that would be? Anyone? Hints? Starts with the letter ‘N’ and ends with the letter ‘A’. But it’s not NASA. Google “Wright brothers and Glenn Curtiss”.

    1. SpaceX already are the target of lawsuits because of the working conditions there. I think the worker lawsuits will get a lot worse once they have two pads on Florida and the Heavy is launched. The gap between what they have and the proposed gargantuan MCT is enough to drive to despair basically anyone. Plus it would be such a long death march to it *no one* can withstand this. Either Elon descopes his MCT plans into something achievable with smaller, more measured, steps and cuts the workers some slack or they’ll leave in droves. There already are a couple of startups with ex-SpaceX employees. But if he continues putting the screws on further it will lead to much more heavy hitters in the company leaving for good.

      1. Either Elon descopes his MCT plans into something achievable with smaller, more measured, steps

        It would be nice to see a vehicle that can launch on a FH and is Mars optimized for just going up and down. Have a passenger and cargo version. Tug it to Mars if that is the only way to get it there. And make something similar for Earth.

  5. If enough CS-100’s launch on ULA Vulcan rockets that have reusable engine modules that allow us to populate Bigelow modules with crew in orbit. Then, at last, I am willing to give credit where credit is due and say we are finally getting some Elbon room in space.

  6. The only thing I find disconcerting about Space X is how he treats his employees. He only hires young energetic people then works them for 50 + hours a week. That isn’t a good idea over the long term. Engineers will get burnt out and will walk away from the company with all their corporate knowledge. I figure they will have quality issues in a few years. Or not… who knows maybe he has a plan for that too. I just hope he keeps up the good work.

    1. Elon is a workaholic and just naturally assumes that everyone is. That’s my take on it.

      I do worry about this. Not only employees burning out and leaving, but sloppiness caused by overwork and fatigue.

    2. It will and does burn people out.

      But for every one that walks away, we all know (or should know) that there will be five new aerospace engineer graduates who would gladly line up to replace them and work 80 hours a week for the next few years. At which point, they’ll have a nice entry on their resume, and disproportionate amounts of hands-on design work,

      Eventually even SpaceX won’t be able to keep up that pace; nothing lasts forever. But for now, there’s plenty of potential workforce to keep up that startup mentality.

      1. I wouldn’t bet on it. It’s one thing to develop things which are incremental on the known state of the art. It’s quite another to go beyond the state of the art. SpaceX is teetering too close to that side of things right now. Some things only can be solved with time. No amount of pressure or warm bodies will solve it any faster.
        At least the reuse should take some pressure out of their manufacturing shops so they can focus on the next gen hardware.
        As for working 80 hours a week no one can do it unless you sleep on the office.

        1. In the USA physicians typically work 80 hours a week during their residencies. For neurosurgeons, that’s seven years.

          During the Industrial Revolution factory workers typically put in about 60 hours a week for nearly their entire adult lives.

          1. Hospitals quite often have rooms for resident doctors. Industrial Revolution factory towns had worker homes close to the factory. I don’t see how any of this contradicts any of what I said. Try having a schedule like that, with a two hour commute both ways and see how long you can do it.

          2. My younger daughter just got her M.D. and is now in her residency at Barnes-Jewish (Wash U.) in St. Louis. They do keep them busy. Her place is about 10 minutes away, but at certain times they have to be available with 20 minutes notice even if they are not at the hospital.

        2. At least the reuse should take some pressure out of their manufacturing shops so they can focus on the next gen hardware.

          With a high flight rate, the pressure will be on the people who do the post-flight refurbishment. As rickl points out above, it isn’t just career burn out but fatigue leading to poor quality control.

          Design work is critical now because they still haven’t polished their core product. Maybe that pressure will keep up but those other projects have long time frames to catch problems in. A design engineer leaving the company because they are overworked isn’t good but messing something up on the refurb because someone is overworked could be a huge loss to the company if a rocket splodes.

          Who knows, maybe workforce issues will limit the launch rate rather than technical issues.

  7. SpaceX has been good for the entire industry but the danger is he will cause the shakeout of all shakeouts with nobody else standing. I don’t think others understand the momentum he’s building (partly because of such long lead times.) That would not be good for the future.

    Bezos would survive such a shakeup because they aren’t yet an actual business.

    1. Creative destruction. Underperforming structures are swept away, and what’s left is the basis for new growth. It’s important for failed ways of thinking to die, and the firms wedded to them.

      1. Yes, however, creative destruction also requires healthy competition. It’s not certain that will be the case if SpaceX’S momentum becomes too great. Smallsat and suborbital launchers are not competition. All those that currently are competition don’t seem to be responding well to the threat.

        Healthy competition is essential.

  8. Many comments here point out the 80 hour weeks and intensity of the work. I’m remembering that during Apollo the place with the highest divorce rate in the US was Cocoa Beach, Florida, with Clear Water, Texas, not far behind. People doing the work simply had no time for anything else in their lives.

    At some point, that is not sustainable. The question is, …when does that break point come along? 15 years? 20? 25? Will the more measured pace of Blue Origin be more sustainable? Will it lead to more long-term profit?

    I would submit that it is highly likely that taking as long as BO will, to build what Bezos wants, will give the politicians time to rein in any industry soley using his slower development model. The Space Race of the 21st Century may not be between nation states, nor even between companies, but between the growing power of the State to constrain Civil Society, and the New Space capacity to move beyond those constraints.

    I am unwilling to criticize management demanding a pace I myself could not sustain, when I see what is building to constrain slower development alone, from EPA to a whole list of alphabet soup regulatory agencies. If SpaceX is already out in the Solar System, with a working ITS, then it becomes much harder to rope in BO to be good serfs of the congressional lords of cost+, without killing its competitiveness with companies like SpaceX.

    Falcon Heavy is not enough, simply put, to uncork the bottle Congress may yet solidify in “more progressive” political times. So, as much as I feel for those married folks hired by SpaceX, it may well be better, for all of us, for SpaceX to hire Space Monks, for about the next 15 years. Once spaceships are mostly built, and launched *in*Space*, this problem will recede. Until then, I would vote for Elon being encouraged to scurry out from under the regulatory State just as fast as he can!

      1. Thank You for the Correction. I’ve got to learn *not* to post at a blood sugar of 55!

    1. That is an awesome picture. I would have thought they would realize aluminum was a bad choice a lot earlier.

      1. I’m guessing they were operating the stage outside the initially intended design envelope. The titanium fins will be a bit heavier.

Comments are closed.