Jon Goff has a long, but interesting description of Masten activities at last weekend's X-Prize Cup. And rocket geeks may want to chime in the comments section with John Carmack about the theoretical and practical Isp of the Masten engines.

Jon's post reminds me that I forgot to mention this past weekend the tragic news that he notes about Ed Wright's company, which lost five personnel in the crash of a camera chase plane. My condolences to him and his coworkers. It's ironic, of course, because while we may expect to lose people in the development of new vehicles, an accident like that is always completely unexpected, and a shock.

One thing that strikes me is the behind-the-scenes look at the confusion of the operations people on the field, which was also apparent (but less so) from the press tent. Hopefully, they'll get better at this in future years, and be able to offer a better show.

Another is the continued and heart-warming camaraderie of the industry, with cooperation and well wishes between all the players. A sign of maturation may be when they start to feel more competitive, because there are real businesses going, with real fortunes to be won or lost.

Cooperation -- along with some competition -- may signal the rise of a new way of doing business. We're even seeing calls for collaboration within the old aerospace sector. No, this is not a call for the development of hierarchical monopolies, but the growing realization that the old ways of doing business are becoming less and less effective. Look at all the failures of the currently dominant organizational model in the past few years: Ford, GM, Katrina, Columbia, 9/11, to cite just a few. Even the military is embracing change because of the rise of netcentric warfare.

Chuck,

Cooperation and collaboration is nice when you can get it, but it also brings in problems. For example, if you depend on a third party for something critical and they fail to deliver, then you in turn fail to deliver to your customers. At least, if that service is in your company, then the company has control over that source of failure.

Having said that, I fail to see what the "new way" of doing business is. After all, all the major car companies in the world depend on supply chains outside the company. Cooperation is natural to those businesses.

Hmmm, I just noticed the mention of "hierarchal monopolies". I gather then that a significant part of the "new way" is a flatter bureaucracy?

Both Ford & GM would be doing fine _IF_ they had been started in the era of 401(k)'s, as opposed to the era of pensions.

Uh

Both Ford and GM would be doing fine if they QUIT MAKING CRAPPY CARS.

I quit buying Fords and now only buy Toyota's because of the vast difference in quality. Even my last VW was a piece of crap.

Dennis

Al: Auto maker pension obligations are only one element of the mess that Detroit has been in. Ford & GM's union contracts with the UAW, IUE-CWA, etc. have ludicrous work rules that prevent the companies from being nimble and reinvesting net income properly. Absurdities like the tens of thousands of union members sitting around collecting pay checks in the 'Job Bank' instead of trying to apply for a new job are another element of the structural problems.

Karl,

Cooperation, even within companies, can be a sometimes thing. What are popularly called control freaks tend to think all problems can be solved by the correct application of rules. That isn't even remotely true. Control freaks even cause problems.

Flatter, more democratically led organizations could be the wave of the future. There is evidence to suggest that, over the long term, freedom and democracy are rising because they in fact do better at solving problems in the long run. In the short term, of course, tyranny can work.