3 ms·
It's a shame SpaceX has so many employees. They're offering a 4x saving on a rocket trip, but I think it could be 10x by cutting out dead wood from mission cont
by zandorg 18y ago
It's a shame SpaceX has so many employees. They're offering a 4x saving on a rocket trip, but I think it could be 10x by cutting out dead wood from mission control (eg, more automation) while it's still possible.
- randallsquared 18y agoIf they continue to be a private company, they can add automation as they scale up without adding so many employees, and achieve the same. Reducing (the percentage of) employees in favor of automation seems like something to do after launches are so routine that all the decisions have been made multiple times.
- zandorg 18y agoI agree, especially about the 'private' part. Going public (I think) tends to have value by having a lot of employees. Staying private won't affect the market cap if they lay people off. I'm not saying slash and burn, just that the lowest launch cost is made possible.
- randallsquared 18y agoHm. I actually was referring to not becoming bound too tightly to the government (that is, "public sector"), when I said "private". I do agree that not becoming a publicly-traded company may help them stay small and lean, but I'm not sure that's a major risk anytime soon anyway.