4 ms·

I’m less worried about that with SpaceX than I am about most companies, because Elon has shown a willingness to just fire a large percentage of a company’s empl

I’m less worried about that with SpaceX than I am about most companies, because Elon has shown a willingness to just fire a large percentage of a company’s employees with the massive Twitter layoffs.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
On the other hand, Elon just fired Tesla’s entire Supercharger team for what appear to be stupid reasons (and is now trying to rebuild from that error.) The unique expertise at SpaceX will be much harder to rebuild if Musk makes a similar mistake in that company. If anything, a massive outpouring of talent is the most likely vector by which the competition quickly catches up and overtakes SpaceX.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > If anything, a massive outpouring of talent is the most likely vector by which the competition quickly catches up and overtakes SpaceX. I'm skeptical. Like Amazon, SpaceX is a fountain of ex-employees who have tired of the required workload. I don't see a few extra on top of the current constant exodus changing much.
- manquer 2y ago
  The talent and even many of the ideas came from NASA and old space, while SpaceX has both inspired and created a generation of it, there was always strong engineering talent in rocket science. The primary issue for other companies is culture and institutional ability to foster innovation and take risk. The old space organizations like ULA or Boeing et al and government funded are extremely risk averse and are also optimized for other priorities like having presence in as many states as possible or using old designs/ components to keep jobs funded and so on which limits them. The new space companies do not have the resources to be as aggressive or fast although they are trying, they do not have free cash flow of SpaceX or extremely wealth and committed sponsor. Blue Origin+Amazon(Kuiper is theirs not BO) have resources but are not fast or aggressive and most likely chance to compete if they can get their culture sorted. Private rocket companies were not successful businesses before SpaceX for a reason, its success has inspired capital inflows but problems are the same. --- Astra, Rocket Labs, Relativity and Firefly are the only ones with some track record of orbital launching vehicles, Astra went private at 99% down round for just 11M in March-24 and are probably going to be either acquired or shutdown. Firefly has no immediate reuse plans. Terran R and Neutron are the realistic contenders for reusable vehicles if successful(big IF) then will have Falcon 9 equivalent competitor commercially available by end of the decade (13 years after Falcon 9 landed regularly in 2017). Starship will be active well before 2030 and be a generation ahead again. SpaceX when Starship launches commercially say in 2025 are at least 20 years ahead of everyone else and currently 10 years ahead with Falcon 9. The last time space industry had this kind of disparity were the few years after Sputnik and other soviet first launches, to catch up the federal government spent multiple % of GDP and made it the national priority and employed 400,000 people to do it. SpaceX is not Soviet Russia it is a domestic company NASA and Space Force benefits from and Trump/Biden are not Kennedy so that is not going to repeat. Realistically next 40-50 years will be dominated by SpaceX in both satellites and rocket vehicles, even if they stop innovating soon.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    There seem to be a lot of things that cannot be explained if we take what you're saying as an assumption. For instance from 2011-2020 (when SpaceX started launching to the ISS) NASA had no way to get crew to the ISS, and relied exclusively on Russia. That can't be dismissed as just risk aversion. Similarly Blue Origin is filled with old space talent, was founded before SpaceX, is funded by Bezos Bucks, and yet can't even manage to achieve an orbital flight. Also SpaceX's early talent included people like Tom Mueller [1] who would go on to work as CTO. Notably he was picked up on SpaceX because of the rocket engines that he was literally building in his garage! I have no claim to knowing what SpaceX's secret sauce is, because the problem I think you run into immediately is that any sort of logical explanation then bumps into issues like the ones I'm mentioning here. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller
    - samegene321 2y ago
      The only person more important than Tom Mueller for SpaceX is Mike Griffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin
      - _Microft 2y ago
        And Gwynne Shotwell, COO of SpaceX.
      - mlindner 2y ago
        Mike Griffin has almost no relation to SpaceX. He's a footnote at best.
    - ghufran_syed 2y ago
      To be fair, Tom Mueller was also head of liquid engine propulsion at TRW as noted in the wikipedia link, he wasn't exactly an amateur. I had the same initial response to the gp, but I think they got it right: "The primary issue for other companies is culture and institutional ability to foster innovation and take risk." I think SpaceX went after people who knew what they were doing, but were frustrated by the bureaucracy. I get the sense that Blue Origin hired people with experience who were pretty happy with the way traditional aerospace worked, and kept doing exactly the same thing at Blue Origin.

matthewdgreen 2y ago

On the other hand, Elon just fired Tesla’s entire Supercharger team for what appear to be stupid reasons (and is now trying to rebuild from that error.) The unique expertise at SpaceX will be much harder to rebuild if Musk makes a similar mistake in that company. If anything, a massive outpouring of talent is the most likely vector by which the competition quickly catches up and overtakes SpaceX.

nordsieck 2y ago
> If anything, a massive outpouring of talent is the most likely vector by which the competition quickly catches up and overtakes SpaceX. I'm skeptical. Like Amazon, SpaceX is a fountain of ex-employees who have tired of the required workload. I don't see a few extra on top of the current constant exodus changing much.
manquer 2y ago
The talent and even many of the ideas came from NASA and old space, while SpaceX has both inspired and created a generation of it, there was always strong engineering talent in rocket science. The primary issue for other companies is culture and institutional ability to foster innovation and take risk. The old space organizations like ULA or Boeing et al and government funded are extremely risk averse and are also optimized for other priorities like having presence in as many states as possible or using old designs/ components to keep jobs funded and so on which limits them. The new space companies do not have the resources to be as aggressive or fast although they are trying, they do not have free cash flow of SpaceX or extremely wealth and committed sponsor. Blue Origin+Amazon(Kuiper is theirs not BO) have resources but are not fast or aggressive and most likely chance to compete if they can get their culture sorted. Private rocket companies were not successful businesses before SpaceX for a reason, its success has inspired capital inflows but problems are the same. --- Astra, Rocket Labs, Relativity and Firefly are the only ones with some track record of orbital launching vehicles, Astra went private at 99% down round for just 11M in March-24 and are probably going to be either acquired or shutdown. Firefly has no immediate reuse plans. Terran R and Neutron are the realistic contenders for reusable vehicles if successful(big IF) then will have Falcon 9 equivalent competitor commercially available by end of the decade (13 years after Falcon 9 landed regularly in 2017). Starship will be active well before 2030 and be a generation ahead again. SpaceX when Starship launches commercially say in 2025 are at least 20 years ahead of everyone else and currently 10 years ahead with Falcon 9. The last time space industry had this kind of disparity were the few years after Sputnik and other soviet first launches, to catch up the federal government spent multiple % of GDP and made it the national priority and employed 400,000 people to do it. SpaceX is not Soviet Russia it is a domestic company NASA and Space Force benefits from and Trump/Biden are not Kennedy so that is not going to repeat. Realistically next 40-50 years will be dominated by SpaceX in both satellites and rocket vehicles, even if they stop innovating soon.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  There seem to be a lot of things that cannot be explained if we take what you're saying as an assumption. For instance from 2011-2020 (when SpaceX started launching to the ISS) NASA had no way to get crew to the ISS, and relied exclusively on Russia. That can't be dismissed as just risk aversion. Similarly Blue Origin is filled with old space talent, was founded before SpaceX, is funded by Bezos Bucks, and yet can't even manage to achieve an orbital flight. Also SpaceX's early talent included people like Tom Mueller [1] who would go on to work as CTO. Notably he was picked up on SpaceX because of the rocket engines that he was literally building in his garage! I have no claim to knowing what SpaceX's secret sauce is, because the problem I think you run into immediately is that any sort of logical explanation then bumps into issues like the ones I'm mentioning here. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller
  - samegene321 2y ago
    The only person more important than Tom Mueller for SpaceX is Mike Griffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin
    - _Microft 2y ago
      And Gwynne Shotwell, COO of SpaceX.
    - mlindner 2y ago
      Mike Griffin has almost no relation to SpaceX. He's a footnote at best.
  - ghufran_syed 2y ago
    To be fair, Tom Mueller was also head of liquid engine propulsion at TRW as noted in the wikipedia link, he wasn't exactly an amateur. I had the same initial response to the gp, but I think they got it right: "The primary issue for other companies is culture and institutional ability to foster innovation and take risk." I think SpaceX went after people who knew what they were doing, but were frustrated by the bureaucracy. I get the sense that Blue Origin hired people with experience who were pretty happy with the way traditional aerospace worked, and kept doing exactly the same thing at Blue Origin.