Inside SpaceX – Unfiltered
Top SpaceX employee throws shade at just about all of his competitors, Ars Technica
“About 10 days ago, a founding employee of SpaceX, Tom Mueller, made a Skype call to a group of “fans” of the company with the New York University Astronomy Society. The call was recorded and posted to Twitch.tv. It garnered little attention until Saturday, when a user on the SpaceX subreddit called attention to it. Although the provenance of the 54-minute call is not entirely clear, there is no question it is Mueller speaking, and he is doing so in a rare, unfiltered way. … This call is reminiscent of remarks made a little more than a year ago by a senior-level employee of SpaceX’s competitor, United Launch Alliance. During candid remarks at a University of Colorado-Boulder seminar, which Brett Tobey did not know were being recorded, the vice president of engineering said United Launch Alliance could not compete with SpaceX on price. He was terminated almost immediately by the company.”
They seemed to me fair observations, except that the Senate, not NASA, is to blame for SLS.
Imagine what might happen if people started wondering whether every cost-plus defense contract is similarly bloated.
NASA with Michael Griffin as administrator and thumb on the scale selected the Ares-1/Ares-5 launch architecture. Without which can the Senate “design” the current SLS configurations? I think not, since the SLS is basically the Ares-IV design.
Mr. Schumacher wonders if the SLS experience is broadly applicable to other contracts. I’ve wondered the same thing many times. And I find my usually-biased liberal mind divided on this issue.
I know just about enough about SLS/ SpaceX to make the semi-educated statement that, were equalization possible, SLS is taking the taxpayer for a ride when compared to SX. While there are no ‘equal apples’ in this equation, conceding that SX provides the same services at a lower price is an inaccurate over-simplification.
More specifically: I also wonder how much of the SLS cost burden is the result of government-required financial safeguards, and/or a result of using so many sub-contractors. Moreover, recall that SX began with a clean sheet. Not so at SLS, where the desire to retain employees, and to leverage the STS experience, were high and costly priorities.
Taking just one of these additional cost burdens – retaining a learned workforce – is a cost burden not shared by SX.
And while some disagree, I do think that retaining the workforce is an important and defensible part of SLS, a part that must be excised when comparing costs with SX.
So, too, the inefficiencies inherent in using so many subcontractors. But those subcontractors provide political, not technical cover – partly to gain support in Congress, and in part at least an egalitarian nod. Again, extra and defensible costs not shared by SX.
Strip away these burdens (and others) and what do you have? In all likelihood a bloated contract, but not as much as it currently seems; and while there are exigencies in all Federal contracts, particularly large ones, applying wider conclusions is a tricky enterprise.
(You also have a very cool rocket).
“Not so at SLS, where the desire to retain employees, and to leverage the STS experience, were high and costly priorities.”
I keep thinking about Shuttle-C illustration in a 1970s publication. I always wondered why that concept that’s been around for decades never got beyond commentary stage.
I read on reddit someone said reason for SLS is to maintain solid rocket technology and ATK as per SALT treaties can no longer build MinutemanIII missiles.
Wow I never read that SLS is around because of solid rocket tech… but do I believe it? Yep.
https://forums.theregister….
Seemed kinda relevant.
Your link’s broken. Try this one:
https://www.inverse.com/art…
This interview is a big deal. full interview sub reddit spacex
More so than Ashley Vance or a good Gwynne presentation /Q&A
On a very micro level it lays out a very different approach and worldview of how to move technology, science and business forward
Watch over time as this interview and its insight into the mindset and worldview of Elon sinks in and the reaction to it.
Maybe behind the scenes the key establishment players were aware of this (ULA, Congress, NASA) – – for sure the Auto Industry isn’t. – – they can’t believe / don’t understand the Tesla market value proposition.
Most people in tech space want to be on a winning team – – doing great things – – –
Wonder when the Establishment will provide them with a future and legacy they can be proud of – – versus wasting there time on pointless projects.
I don’t see anything wrong with the comments. If the top employees aren’t drunk on the company kool-aid, who’s going to follow them? Besides, the comments were mostly reasonable. Tobey said a lot worse.
Here’s the Reddit thread, which includes the interview video and more info on Falcon 9 Block 5, Raptor, Merlin 1D, ITS and Tesla.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sp…
“NASA has protocols for that which we’re following—initially.”
I don’t think this is a surprise to anyone. The onus is now on the Exobioligists from NASA or any other organization to gather up any remaining experiments that they might have and send them on Red Dragon…or any other Mars-Bound flight launching that same year…and get the job of finding life or not finding it over and done. It might be their last chance for uncorrupted biology studies of Mars.
Full transcript: https://www.reddit.com/r/sp…