4 ms·

> Software is hard Traditional engineering companies don't respect software. You can tell by the fact that they pay well below market rates.

rbanffy 7y ago
So, I guess we should start calling it the Starliner MAX...
jillesvangurp 7y ago
I think maybe the difference here is the fact that SpaceX probably treats software as a first class citizen; just like Tesla does, and is likely to have a modern view on how to build and evolve software. Additionally, software is a key component for them that is very much determining the abilities of the hardware. Tesla even ships pure software features that they charge money for. That's unheard off in the car market. And I would expect, Elon Musk to drive a similar strategy in SpaceX. I suspect Boeing maybe treats software the same way as they've always done, just one of many boxes that need to be ticked in a long waterfall like process. They just throw more people at it hoping it gets done on whatever time line they imagine it needs to be done. They are likely to be very conservative with respect to tools, technologies, and practices (i.e. not much has changed there in decades). The fact that SpaceX is able to come up with a new design for Starship and can then get it and the software working for several successful hovers & hops in around 9 months, tells me they are able to iterate quickly and adapt to quite major design changes. They launch a lot of rockets and they seem to be learning a lot every time they do this. I don't see how they'd be able to do this without very solid software development practices. I'd expect lots of CI & test harnasses, probably lots of emulators and other tools, and I have a hunch they probably use a lot of static code analysis etc. to prevent preventable bugs from happening.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  It also helps that there is no union stopping SpaceX from driving it's engineers and technicians to tens of hours of unpaid overtime.
  - madamelic 7y ago
    I really don't understand this line of thinking. Any engineer or tech at SpaceX is likely worth their weight in gold at any other company due to the company's perceived high bar. Additionally, I don't hear complaints about their pay either, which is likely extremely good. No one is locking them into cages and telling them they can't leave. I would bet most everyone who is there strongly believes in the mission. EDIT: Eh. They aren't paid fantastically but not slave wages either. Additionally this is spread out over three very different cities. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/SpaceX-Engineering-Salaries-EI_IE40371.0,6_DEPT1007_IP3.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/SpaceX-Engineering-Salaries...
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      > No one is locking them into cages and telling them they can't leave. I would bet most everyone who is there strongly believes in the mission. That's true for a lot of other companies where people here have advocated the employees would benefit from unionization. For the record, I am conflicted on engineer unionization, and my original statement was intended to be neutral. As to this specific example, on one hand I understand the drive that comes from having a real mission (as opposed to an MBA-concocted "mission") and how a team who share that drive can execute with amazing speed; conversely, I have seen how poorly teams of clock-punchers putting in the bare minimum can perform. On the other hand, I have also seen "the mission" used as a means to guilt trip people into overwork or accepting substandard compensation. Of the two, I lean towards the SpaceX approach being the better one. In the absolute I don't particularly like either of them. > EDIT: Eh. They aren't paid fantastically but not slave wages either. Additionally this is spread out over three very different cities. > https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/SpaceX-Engineering-Salaries.. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/SpaceX-Engineering-Salaries.... Those salaries look to be in line with what equivalent engineers at Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing are making in those same locations, maybe a bit higher. Thus, if the WLB reports from SpaceX are to be believed, their per-hour pay is much lower. It's hard to tell, though, without a proper breakdown by years of experience. Also, there are certainly teams within those companies where the engineers put in just as much time and effort as SpaceX engineers. Boeing is the only one I am aware of that has unionized engineers, though.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
chroem- 7y ago
Everything is hard, but software is a lot more vocal about it because it facilitates the modes in which we communicate
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Engineering companies have capital expenses that eclipse what a software shop has to deal with. The rock stars can't demand such a large chunk of revenue.
- rbanffy 7y ago
  Rock stars are neither scalable nor repeatable. Engineering is about repeatability and predictability. Aerospace is that, squared. I don't want a rock star anywhere near the software that operates a complex machine where a malfunction can kill people.

rbanffy 7y ago

So, I guess we should start calling it the Starliner MAX...

jillesvangurp 7y ago

I think maybe the difference here is the fact that SpaceX probably treats software as a first class citizen; just like Tesla does, and is likely to have a modern view on how to build and evolve software. Additionally, software is a key component for them that is very much determining the abilities of the hardware. Tesla even ships pure software features that they charge money for. That's unheard off in the car market. And I would expect, Elon Musk to drive a similar strategy in SpaceX. I suspect Boeing maybe treats software the same way as they've always done, just one of many boxes that need to be ticked in a long waterfall like process. They just throw more people at it hoping it gets done on whatever time line they imagine it needs to be done. They are likely to be very conservative with respect to tools, technologies, and practices (i.e. not much has changed there in decades). The fact that SpaceX is able to come up with a new design for Starship and can then get it and the software working for several successful hovers & hops in around 9 months, tells me they are able to iterate quickly and adapt to quite major design changes. They launch a lot of rockets and they seem to be learning a lot every time they do this. I don't see how they'd be able to do this without very solid software development practices. I'd expect lots of CI & test harnasses, probably lots of emulators and other tools, and I have a hunch they probably use a lot of static code analysis etc. to prevent preventable bugs from happening.

vonmoltke 7y ago
It also helps that there is no union stopping SpaceX from driving it's engineers and technicians to tens of hours of unpaid overtime.
- madamelic 7y ago
  I really don't understand this line of thinking. Any engineer or tech at SpaceX is likely worth their weight in gold at any other company due to the company's perceived high bar. Additionally, I don't hear complaints about their pay either, which is likely extremely good. No one is locking them into cages and telling them they can't leave. I would bet most everyone who is there strongly believes in the mission. EDIT: Eh. They aren't paid fantastically but not slave wages either. Additionally this is spread out over three very different cities. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/SpaceX-Engineering-Salaries-EI_IE40371.0,6_DEPT1007_IP3.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/SpaceX-Engineering-Salaries...
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > No one is locking them into cages and telling them they can't leave. I would bet most everyone who is there strongly believes in the mission. That's true for a lot of other companies where people here have advocated the employees would benefit from unionization. For the record, I am conflicted on engineer unionization, and my original statement was intended to be neutral. As to this specific example, on one hand I understand the drive that comes from having a real mission (as opposed to an MBA-concocted "mission") and how a team who share that drive can execute with amazing speed; conversely, I have seen how poorly teams of clock-punchers putting in the bare minimum can perform. On the other hand, I have also seen "the mission" used as a means to guilt trip people into overwork or accepting substandard compensation. Of the two, I lean towards the SpaceX approach being the better one. In the absolute I don't particularly like either of them. > EDIT: Eh. They aren't paid fantastically but not slave wages either. Additionally this is spread out over three very different cities. > https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/SpaceX-Engineering-Salaries.. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/SpaceX-Engineering-Salaries.... Those salaries look to be in line with what equivalent engineers at Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing are making in those same locations, maybe a bit higher. Thus, if the WLB reports from SpaceX are to be believed, their per-hour pay is much lower. It's hard to tell, though, without a proper breakdown by years of experience. Also, there are certainly teams within those companies where the engineers put in just as much time and effort as SpaceX engineers. Boeing is the only one I am aware of that has unionized engineers, though.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

chroem- 7y ago

Everything is hard, but software is a lot more vocal about it because it facilitates the modes in which we communicate

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Engineering companies have capital expenses that eclipse what a software shop has to deal with. The rock stars can't demand such a large chunk of revenue.

rbanffy 7y ago
Rock stars are neither scalable nor repeatable. Engineering is about repeatability and predictability. Aerospace is that, squared. I don't want a rock star anywhere near the software that operates a complex machine where a malfunction can kill people.