Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

Rxke · 2016-07-25 02:12:23

Reading this nice interview with Worden and then I read this:

Avi: What made the Apollo program a success?
Al: Back in the late sixties and early seventies there was no bureaucracy at NASA. We had a goal of getting to and back from the Moon and everybody worked to it. Everybody was focused on the goal and nobody was trying to protect their job — they were all trying hard to get the job done even beyond the highest standards, no matter how “small” their role in the program. Most of the people working in the Apollo program were young, with a average age of 28, and that helped a lot in overcoming all sorts of engineering challenges, because they did not “know” that something was impossible.

Sounds familiar?

Last edited by Rxke (2016-07-25 02:12:46)

RobS · 2016-07-25 08:45:04

It sure does, Rxke! I suspect the average age at Space X is 28! Every time there's a launch you can watch the employees live behind the announcers. They're all 20-something men in t-shirts (no ties and white shirts at Space X).

SpaceNut · 2016-07-25 19:40:27

They are also doing things in a commercial market method not red taped double standard, so cost for the return is always on there mind... That does not mean they are building cheap they are just weighing the value of how to best do what needs to be done with the best methods possible....

GW Johnson · 2016-07-30 14:56:38

I can confirm that Spacex hires no one over about age 40 to 45. That's definitely true for the McGregor test operation, and it appears to be true corporation-wide, based on video images of people st the various sites.

As near as I can tell, they hire only young folks, because young folks are easier to convince to work 60+ hours a week. Us old folks simply cannot do that that.

GW

RobertDyck · 2016-07-30 15:30:49

I'm still single, I would.

SpaceNut · 2016-07-31 09:53:35

The issue with working overtime has more to making up of scheduel due to lack of skills, profiency of the one doing the work and man power hours not correctly estimated to get the work done on a timely scale. This tells me that the work force is still on the learning curve and will only get more costly over time as new replacements will take even longer to train.

GW Johnson · 2016-08-06 09:44:44

I have seen the chronic overtime thing from the inside in the industry (not just aerospace). It is sometimes abused as a management tool to get more productivity out of the workforce. That's code language for increasing the work output without increasing the pay. Only the young can tolerate the strain for extended periods.

Spacex reflects the characteristics of the man at the top (Musk), especially because it is not a public offering (no stockholders to please first). The pattern has been they do what they promise in terms of achievements, but the schedule estimates have been off by something near 50%. Trying to catch up to planned schedules requires chronic overtime, which in turn requires the younger workforce to withstand it.

Sometimes this gets to you in unexpected ways, because of the lack of older, experienced hands. That is because it ain't all science (learnable from a book). It's 40% science, 50% art, and 10% blind dumb luck, even in production work. The art is the stuff learned from the old hands one-on-one, because it's the part never written down. Very inconvenient for managerial types, but that's life.

Spacex got hit hard by this during its initial flights with Falcon-1, with collisions between first and second stages at staging. The failures ultimately traced not to rocket engine design, or to stage airframe design, but to inexperience flying supersonic vehicles in very close proximity in the extreme thin air where mass coupling dominates flight mechanics, with strong engine plumes disturbing the hell out of things. The cure was to temporarily pick the brains of some old retired folks for their art doing this.

Back to slipped schedules: training and using a bigger workforce to get it all done faster is one way to do it, but that's expensive. Doing chronic overtime is the other way, and it's cheaper, but you are generally restricted to younger workers. The downside is the art: no old hands on the staff when trouble bites. That's Spacex's vulnerability.

It bit them once before with staging, whether that played any role in the Falcon-9 failure from the weak tank strut I don't know. But it will arise again. There's two really big worries for that vulnerability to ignorance of needed art: getting Falcon-Heavy/Dragon-2 flying, and even riskier, getting the giant Mars rocket/spacecraft flying.

Odds are, they will trip over this art thing again. They certainly haven't learned the lesson about keeping some old experienced hands on the staff. They do not need an aged workforce, not at all, but there ought to be a few old codgers who have done similar things before, on their staff. And there's not.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-08-06 09:50:00)

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-04 13:42:53

Overall, a younger workforce will be a lot more innovative than one composed of older, experienced hands--those guys that would tell the young ones "that can't possibly work." Getting the workforce to put in the time necessary to do the job is definitely one strategy used in industry. I'd be unwilling to bet against SpaceX! On the other hand, NASA is now a highly institutionalized bureaucracy. Younger workers are more inclined to be better risk-takers. NASA has become TOO risk adverse.

SpaceNut · 2016-12-04 19:36:05

To much red taped in producing paperwork than actually bending metal so as to be able to prove a record of what was done. The other part is the ability to use computers for that documentational process which is not so easy with some of the older generation.

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-04 22:13:03

SpaceX isn't operating on the cost-plus accounting model, so there isn't an accountant hiding behind every drafting table or lathe in the machine shop to record the actions and add to the overhead. Robert Zubrin commented in his book "Entering Space," that the biggest product Lockheed-Martin had for sale was overhead. Since Elon is footing most of the bill with his own nickel--that makes a big difference.

JTriptych · 2016-12-06 09:28:00

A lot of risks have to be overcome, but SpaceX, or hopefully another private company could go to Mars.

GW Johnson · 2016-12-06 12:46:12

For the most part, Spacex's young workforce is more innovative. However it would behoove them to keep at least one old fart around in each discipline area for the hard knocks knowledge they have. As I am fond of saying, engineering isn't all science.

It's about 40% science (the part written down), about 50% art passed on one-on-one in the workplace from the old hand to the newbies (never written down because no one would pay for it), and 10% blind dumb luck. That's in production work. In development work, the art and luck factors are higher.

In commercial satellite launch work, Spacex need not deal with government micromanagement/accounting behaviors. They do have to deal with it when doing things for the government. Could be cost plus, could be fixed fee. For paid government development work, the trend was usually cost plus. For production work, it was usually fixed fee. In both cases, actual costs are reimbursed. But "actual" is why there is such overemphasis on accounting for absolutely everything.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-12-06 12:50:31)

SpaceNut · 2016-12-06 19:09:52

Hopefully space X is doing more thatn just build its current rocket as we need ones that can go further and lift heavier payloads to make it to anywhere at this point....I agree with that old fart thing as it takes alot to capture that knownledge onto paper.. Have some one with a recorder capturing these pieces of gold and put the thoughts into word for all to make use of.

GW Johnson · 2016-12-07 17:33:20

I don't know which company this tale associates with, but supposedly a solid propellant mix technician retired, and all of a sudden, mix after mix failed, costing boodles. The replacement technicians were verified to be following the written mix recipe exactly, but it didn't work. Ultimately, the difference was found to be the slug of chewing tobacco he spit into the mix bowl with the last ingredient addition.

Try formally documenting a thing like that! I dare you! Especially on a government contract. That tale is just outlandish enough to actually be true to one extent or another. I personally have seen outlandish things like that.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-08 12:18:42

I'm both impressed by, but dismayed by, the statements of Elon Musk at the big meeting in Mexico earlier this Fall. There need to be more of a stepwise development of the BFR, with several intermediate development vehicles.

My proposed development timeline would be building a new, larger diameter core replacing the Falcon 9 design with one using the liquid methane fueled Raptor engines, as a step forward with the Falcon Heavy after that particular bird flies. But first, the Falcon 9 could incorporate a vacuum version of the Raptor in the 2nd stage for an initial test flight version. I believe the Falcon 9 is 3.85 meters in diameter, so a slight upgrade there would be 4.88 meters. This would allow a larger capsule to be launched that Dragon II, if the 2nd stage is appropriately upscaled? Initially use the next Falcon Heavy boosters. I can see several versions being built in a progressive manner, each building on the previous models, until the whatever it's being called today is ready to fly. Just some progressive testing and development; Elon is an optimist if he believes the huge bird should be next.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-07-25 02:12:23

Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#2 2016-07-25 08:45:04

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#3 2016-07-25 19:40:27

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#4 2016-07-30 14:56:38

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#5 2016-07-30 15:30:49

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#6 2016-07-31 09:53:35

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#7 2016-08-06 09:44:44

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#8 2016-12-04 13:42:53

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#9 2016-12-04 19:36:05

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#10 2016-12-04 22:13:03

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#11 2016-12-06 09:28:00

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#12 2016-12-06 12:46:12

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#13 2016-12-06 19:09:52

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#14 2016-12-07 17:33:20

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

#15 2016-12-08 12:18:42

Re: Why SpaceX will probably succeed and NASA won't

Board footer