7 ms·

Blue Origin was founded two years before SpaceX. Knowing only what was public around that time, would it be possible to predict which company would flourish? Sp

Blue Origin was founded two years before SpaceX. Knowing only what was public around that time, would it be possible to predict which company would flourish? SpaceX seemed riskier, Musk was all-in and he had a string of spectacular launch failures. BO had the Amazon warchest at its disposal, SpaceX just Musk's personal funds. Both looked like jokes at the time to my aerospace colleagues.

avmich 7y ago
> would it be possible to predict which company would flourish? I'd say both have good chances. I'm actually surprised BO doesn't have better achievements by now. > Both looked like jokes at the time to my aerospace colleagues. I assume some aerospace professionals still consider them jokes, which weights on definition of professional. But SpaceX really does things differently - the pioneers of space era (like von Braun, Korolev) could, I'm sure, understand Musk, but aerospace professionals of 1990-2000 were trained in rather different world.
- starpilot 7y ago
  One thing stands out is how hands-on Musk has been. He's got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. From his public statements, he shows an understanding of mechanical engineering WAY beyond most executives'. Bezos has been hands-off with BO and is not technical. Similar with Vern Raburn (Microsoftie pilot) trying to run Eclipse Aviation (nearly into the ground, as it was). The problem is finding someone who understands the science enough, but is not embedded in the old school culture that has been so limiting.
  - nickik 7y ago
    People are still slipping on Elon and how brilliant he is. He is legit the chief designer of the Falcon 9 rocket and of Starship not just the chief executive. That is not just some honorary title. He made every important choice on every important technical decision. He knows every detail of these rockets, he knows them inside and out. Nobody knows more about any of these rockets then Elon. People sometimes want to portray him about a guy that highers smart people and that it, but it is far from true.
    - nikofeyn 7y ago
      would you mind pointing out some resources that back up your claims? they read like fiction.
      - Diederich 7y ago
        One example: an interview with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Reisman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Reisman https://youtu.be/GNG6ZzDh9C8?t=383 https://youtu.be/GNG6ZzDh9C8?t=383 I'm a fan of Musk's work, but there's plenty to criticize about the man. However, there's little doubt that he's an extremely smart person.
      - nickik 7y ago
        I mean its a fact that is has the title. They don't have two chief engineers. Every single interview with him or anybody else that works at the company takes it for granted that he makes all the engineering decisions. If you listen to press conference you will see that he answers any and all questions, sometimes in insane amount of detail. This should really not be surprising to anybody who follows SpaceX in any detail. I would argue the burden of prove is on people who deny what he does. What evidence do you have that he is not the chief engineer. Is there a 'hidden' chief engineer working on the project? Who makes the important engineering decisions if its not Elon?
        nikofeyn 7y ago
        that's not how burden of proof works. you're the one making claims and assertions, not me. titles are not sufficient proof, and marketing is a thing.
        nickik 7y ago
        I'm not making assertions, I'm point out a plain fact that is undenyable. Elon Musk is right now the Chief Engineer of SpaceX. If you are saying 'that title is a total sham' and 'the title does not accuratly represent Musk role' then you need to provide evidence. And yes, that is how burdon of proove works. As I said before, ever single high level engineer that worked with him has repeated over and over again what a genius he is. I don't know what more evidence you could want. Of course you can just continue to repeat and cast dought because you don't like him. But please show me a single piece of evidence that Elon Musk is not a capable rocket sientists and engineer.
  - nikofeyn 7y ago
    > He's [Musk] got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. musk was nearly laughed out of early meetings because he basically knew nothing about aerospace engineering and was viewed as just a guy with a lot of money, enthusiasm, and naivety. i have never seen any indication that he understands as much as people freely give him credit for. > Bezos ... is not technical. bezos has a degree in electrical engineering and computer science from princeton. not sure what you consider technical.
    - cowmix 7y ago
      Well, I'm not sure what part of the SpaceX timeline you are talking about but his "money, enthusiasm, and naivety" certainly has brought the company very, very far in the past 17+ years.
      - xkjkls 7y ago
        It's still not a profitable company with alot of debt to payoff and a valuation to justify. I don't know if we can consider 17 years without any profitable sustainability a success.
        avmich 7y ago
        Amazon roughly fits this profile, with their habit of investing money in expanding markets instead of keeping profits. SpaceX is the only company which returns first stage after flight, in workable condition. In today's launch industry it's like a license to print money. It's really hard not to consider them profitable, even if they are private and don't show financial results.
        xkjkls 7y ago
        Amazon has only been unprofitable one year since 2001, and cash flow positive every single year. They are the exact opposite of Tesla because they didn't require returning to the capital markets every two quarters. > In today's launch industry it's like a license to print money. It's really hard not to consider them profitable, even if they are private and don't show financial results. Every report on their financial results says they are unprofitable, and they continue to want to raise more and more money.
  - jobu 7y ago
    The big difference I see is vision and timelines. Elon Musk wants to live on Mars and he's been very public about it. Everything he's done has been to further technology to make that possible within his lifetime. He's working hard and betting everything to make it happen. Jeff Bezos is working to build a "road to space", but he doesn't see the technology for space or planetary colonization being viable for a few generations.
  - xkjkls 7y ago
    Bezos has an Electrical Engineering degree, which I would argue is more important to running an engineering company than a Physics degree, though bachelors degrees are pretty much irrelevant regardless. And there's no one who works for Bezos who would ever claim him to be hands-off.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  > I assume some aerospace professionals still consider them jokes, which weights on definition of professional. But SpaceX really does things differently - the pioneers of space era (like von Braun, Korolev) could, I'm sure, understand Musk, but aerospace professionals of 1990-2000 were trained in rather different world. My dad recently retired as an aerospace professional. There was an event which he said removed any doubt from the entire industry that SpaceX was real; I don't remember when exactly it was, but SpaceX had a launch, aborted the launch fairly late in the countdown, and then re-prepped and launched in time to make the launch window. He said any other orbital rocket would require a minimum of several hours turnaround when aborting that late. Fixing this in a legacy rocket was just not going to happen, and SpaceX made it look easy.

avmich 7y ago

> would it be possible to predict which company would flourish? I'd say both have good chances. I'm actually surprised BO doesn't have better achievements by now. > Both looked like jokes at the time to my aerospace colleagues. I assume some aerospace professionals still consider them jokes, which weights on definition of professional. But SpaceX really does things differently - the pioneers of space era (like von Braun, Korolev) could, I'm sure, understand Musk, but aerospace professionals of 1990-2000 were trained in rather different world.

starpilot 7y ago
One thing stands out is how hands-on Musk has been. He's got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. From his public statements, he shows an understanding of mechanical engineering WAY beyond most executives'. Bezos has been hands-off with BO and is not technical. Similar with Vern Raburn (Microsoftie pilot) trying to run Eclipse Aviation (nearly into the ground, as it was). The problem is finding someone who understands the science enough, but is not embedded in the old school culture that has been so limiting.
- nickik 7y ago
  People are still slipping on Elon and how brilliant he is. He is legit the chief designer of the Falcon 9 rocket and of Starship not just the chief executive. That is not just some honorary title. He made every important choice on every important technical decision. He knows every detail of these rockets, he knows them inside and out. Nobody knows more about any of these rockets then Elon. People sometimes want to portray him about a guy that highers smart people and that it, but it is far from true.
  - nikofeyn 7y ago
    would you mind pointing out some resources that back up your claims? they read like fiction.
    - Diederich 7y ago
      One example: an interview with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Reisman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Reisman https://youtu.be/GNG6ZzDh9C8?t=383 https://youtu.be/GNG6ZzDh9C8?t=383 I'm a fan of Musk's work, but there's plenty to criticize about the man. However, there's little doubt that he's an extremely smart person.
    - nickik 7y ago
      I mean its a fact that is has the title. They don't have two chief engineers. Every single interview with him or anybody else that works at the company takes it for granted that he makes all the engineering decisions. If you listen to press conference you will see that he answers any and all questions, sometimes in insane amount of detail. This should really not be surprising to anybody who follows SpaceX in any detail. I would argue the burden of prove is on people who deny what he does. What evidence do you have that he is not the chief engineer. Is there a 'hidden' chief engineer working on the project? Who makes the important engineering decisions if its not Elon?
      - nikofeyn 7y ago
        that's not how burden of proof works. you're the one making claims and assertions, not me. titles are not sufficient proof, and marketing is a thing.
        nickik 7y ago
        I'm not making assertions, I'm point out a plain fact that is undenyable. Elon Musk is right now the Chief Engineer of SpaceX. If you are saying 'that title is a total sham' and 'the title does not accuratly represent Musk role' then you need to provide evidence. And yes, that is how burdon of proove works. As I said before, ever single high level engineer that worked with him has repeated over and over again what a genius he is. I don't know what more evidence you could want. Of course you can just continue to repeat and cast dought because you don't like him. But please show me a single piece of evidence that Elon Musk is not a capable rocket sientists and engineer.
- nikofeyn 7y ago
  > He's [Musk] got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. musk was nearly laughed out of early meetings because he basically knew nothing about aerospace engineering and was viewed as just a guy with a lot of money, enthusiasm, and naivety. i have never seen any indication that he understands as much as people freely give him credit for. > Bezos ... is not technical. bezos has a degree in electrical engineering and computer science from princeton. not sure what you consider technical.
  - cowmix 7y ago
    Well, I'm not sure what part of the SpaceX timeline you are talking about but his "money, enthusiasm, and naivety" certainly has brought the company very, very far in the past 17+ years.
    - xkjkls 7y ago
      It's still not a profitable company with alot of debt to payoff and a valuation to justify. I don't know if we can consider 17 years without any profitable sustainability a success.
      - avmich 7y ago
        Amazon roughly fits this profile, with their habit of investing money in expanding markets instead of keeping profits. SpaceX is the only company which returns first stage after flight, in workable condition. In today's launch industry it's like a license to print money. It's really hard not to consider them profitable, even if they are private and don't show financial results.
        xkjkls 7y ago
        Amazon has only been unprofitable one year since 2001, and cash flow positive every single year. They are the exact opposite of Tesla because they didn't require returning to the capital markets every two quarters. > In today's launch industry it's like a license to print money. It's really hard not to consider them profitable, even if they are private and don't show financial results. Every report on their financial results says they are unprofitable, and they continue to want to raise more and more money.
- jobu 7y ago
  The big difference I see is vision and timelines. Elon Musk wants to live on Mars and he's been very public about it. Everything he's done has been to further technology to make that possible within his lifetime. He's working hard and betting everything to make it happen. Jeff Bezos is working to build a "road to space", but he doesn't see the technology for space or planetary colonization being viable for a few generations.
- xkjkls 7y ago
  Bezos has an Electrical Engineering degree, which I would argue is more important to running an engineering company than a Physics degree, though bachelors degrees are pretty much irrelevant regardless. And there's no one who works for Bezos who would ever claim him to be hands-off.
aidenn0 7y ago
> I assume some aerospace professionals still consider them jokes, which weights on definition of professional. But SpaceX really does things differently - the pioneers of space era (like von Braun, Korolev) could, I'm sure, understand Musk, but aerospace professionals of 1990-2000 were trained in rather different world. My dad recently retired as an aerospace professional. There was an event which he said removed any doubt from the entire industry that SpaceX was real; I don't remember when exactly it was, but SpaceX had a launch, aborted the launch fairly late in the countdown, and then re-prepped and launched in time to make the launch window. He said any other orbital rocket would require a minimum of several hours turnaround when aborting that late. Fixing this in a legacy rocket was just not going to happen, and SpaceX made it look easy.