5 ms·

They've proven that they can make reusable rocket. In the early days they had around 6 launches per year requiring six separate rockets. Now they're hitting 20-

by awake 8y ago

They've proven that they can make reusable rocket. In the early days they had around 6 launches per year requiring six separate rockets. Now they're hitting 20-25 launches per year and can carry an even larger payload on each launch. But they claim to be able to fly each rocket ten times before needing to make a new one. So you're going from 6 new rockets per year to 2 new rockets per year. Also rockets are not like your software programs that get rewritten every time a manager feels like it. You stick with what works. I think this is entirely expected.

ajmurmann 8y ago
While everything you say is true they are also building the BFR. Maybe that's different staff though?
whatshisface 8y ago
>So you're going from 6 new rockets per year to 2 new rockets per year. Also rockets are not like your software programs that get rewritten every time a manager feels like it. You stick with what works. Last year, SpaceX had big plans for new rocket designs, a satellite constellation, and more. Unlike a ravioli canning plant, SpaceX has an option other than cutting down to maintnence staff once cash flow positive. If the worst possible interpretation of this news turns out to be true, they will end up managed like a ravioli canning plant and the hockey stick growth projections will go out the window.
- jcims 8y ago
  Why the doom and gloom posts making rather wild assumptions about who is getting laid off or what it signals?
- awake 8y ago
  Unless they're cutting the satellite constellation I think this fits in with what people expected for SpaceX's growth. The problem is even as costs for rocket launches go down we aren't seeking hockey stick growth in the demand for rocket launches. The number of rocket launches per year has remained steady since 2015. SpaceX is getting an increasing number of those launches but even if they got all of them they would only have 40 launches. I'm not sure what else they've publicly advertised which would assume hockey stick growth.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    What about the point to point BFR/Starship launches? That could potentially compete with any long haul airline route which would have a huge growth potential. Admittedly it probably requires a different kind of staff.
  - FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
    There have been plenty of satellite price flexibility studies that show there is a marked lag between supply and demand. This is because high launch costs demand extraordinary levels of design and Q&A: there may never be a second chance. Unfortunately, these supply chains have flexibility baked out for some time, perhaps predating the Apollo era. Lowered launch costs and increased launch opportunities offer increasing failure tolerance to an increasing number of projects which can now afford second chances and backup plans. However, these corporate cultures take time to adapt, they've been built around single-shot opportunities for decades. TLDR: satellite markets are anything but nimble at this point, due to historical reasons. This will change, given time.
    - shaklee3 8y ago
      I don't think it has anything to do with launch costs. Satellites take a very long time to develop, and they're hundreds of millions of dollars. You have one shot to get it right, and lowering launch costs doesn't really make a big dent in that.
      - vidarh 8y ago
        Satellites are that expensive in large part because if you're spending hundreds of millions on a launch anyway, you can't afford to launch ten cheaper satellites. To be a bit hyperbolic: if launches were cheap enough you'd have amateurs launching stuff hacked together in the garage, knowing if they fail it doesn't matter - they can just try again.
        shaklee3 8y ago
        I would agree with this if the launch cost was a substantial portion of the satellite. There are a lot more things that play though, especially for Geo satellites. Things like orbital slots are finite, so you really want to make as large of a satellite as possible, which also translates to more expensive. Even if SpaceX gets the launch costs cut in half, that's still not a large portion of the total costs. I believe after all is said and done, the launch cost is still between 5 to 10% of the total costs.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  So, they have a team of people who is skilled at ramping up production of a (relatively) traditional rocket to volume. So you've got, say, 3000 people on that team. That project basically ends, and now you have A) a satellite design and production project, and B) a green field rocket design project. What you're saying is that you know for sure that all 3000 of those people could have an immediate role on one of those two projects?
CalChris 8y ago
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design: 39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles. I'll admit it does say human space program but it doesn't specify where the humans are. https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
- colordrops 8y ago
  Sounds to be as much of a fundamental law of the universe as Moore's law.

by awake 8y ago

ajmurmann 8y ago

While everything you say is true they are also building the BFR. Maybe that's different staff though?

whatshisface 8y ago

>So you're going from 6 new rockets per year to 2 new rockets per year. Also rockets are not like your software programs that get rewritten every time a manager feels like it. You stick with what works. Last year, SpaceX had big plans for new rocket designs, a satellite constellation, and more. Unlike a ravioli canning plant, SpaceX has an option other than cutting down to maintnence staff once cash flow positive. If the worst possible interpretation of this news turns out to be true, they will end up managed like a ravioli canning plant and the hockey stick growth projections will go out the window.

jcims 8y ago
Why the doom and gloom posts making rather wild assumptions about who is getting laid off or what it signals?
awake 8y ago
Unless they're cutting the satellite constellation I think this fits in with what people expected for SpaceX's growth. The problem is even as costs for rocket launches go down we aren't seeking hockey stick growth in the demand for rocket launches. The number of rocket launches per year has remained steady since 2015. SpaceX is getting an increasing number of those launches but even if they got all of them they would only have 40 launches. I'm not sure what else they've publicly advertised which would assume hockey stick growth.
- mulmen 8y ago
  What about the point to point BFR/Starship launches? That could potentially compete with any long haul airline route which would have a huge growth potential. Admittedly it probably requires a different kind of staff.
- FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
  There have been plenty of satellite price flexibility studies that show there is a marked lag between supply and demand. This is because high launch costs demand extraordinary levels of design and Q&A: there may never be a second chance. Unfortunately, these supply chains have flexibility baked out for some time, perhaps predating the Apollo era. Lowered launch costs and increased launch opportunities offer increasing failure tolerance to an increasing number of projects which can now afford second chances and backup plans. However, these corporate cultures take time to adapt, they've been built around single-shot opportunities for decades. TLDR: satellite markets are anything but nimble at this point, due to historical reasons. This will change, given time.
  - shaklee3 8y ago
    I don't think it has anything to do with launch costs. Satellites take a very long time to develop, and they're hundreds of millions of dollars. You have one shot to get it right, and lowering launch costs doesn't really make a big dent in that.
    - vidarh 8y ago
      Satellites are that expensive in large part because if you're spending hundreds of millions on a launch anyway, you can't afford to launch ten cheaper satellites. To be a bit hyperbolic: if launches were cheap enough you'd have amateurs launching stuff hacked together in the garage, knowing if they fail it doesn't matter - they can just try again.
      - shaklee3 8y ago
        I would agree with this if the launch cost was a substantial portion of the satellite. There are a lot more things that play though, especially for Geo satellites. Things like orbital slots are finite, so you really want to make as large of a satellite as possible, which also translates to more expensive. Even if SpaceX gets the launch costs cut in half, that's still not a large portion of the total costs. I believe after all is said and done, the launch cost is still between 5 to 10% of the total costs.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
So, they have a team of people who is skilled at ramping up production of a (relatively) traditional rocket to volume. So you've got, say, 3000 people on that team. That project basically ends, and now you have A) a satellite design and production project, and B) a green field rocket design project. What you're saying is that you know for sure that all 3000 of those people could have an immediate role on one of those two projects?

CalChris 8y ago

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design: 39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles. I'll admit it does say human space program but it doesn't specify where the humans are. https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

colordrops 8y ago
Sounds to be as much of a fundamental law of the universe as Moore's law.