Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    585 points mocko | 12 comments | | HN request time: 1.105s | source | bottom
    1. savrajsingh ◴[] No.4024488[source]
    What's amazing is SpaceX beat companies like Boeing to the punch. That's pretty remarkable!
    replies(4): >>4024543 #>>4024561 #>>4024572 #>>4024946 #
    2. khuey ◴[] No.4024543[source]
    To what punch? Boeing built parts of the Saturn V rocket that launched the Apollo missions 45 years ago.
    replies(1): >>4025273 #
    3. fidotron ◴[] No.4024561[source]
    Not at all. It's classic innovator's dilemma where Boeing, Lockheed etc. simply can't face the implications of competing with someone coming in from outside.

    SpaceX just won't have the same baggage that bigger outfits do.

    replies(2): >>4024623 #>>4025451 #
    4. codeonfire ◴[] No.4024572[source]
    Maybe all the Boeing people quit and went to SpaceX. I really want to know the profiles of every person working at SpaceX, where they came from, and did they build their knowledge in the last four years or last thirty. Its a great story that a company can do this in just a few years, but we need to be honest about what effort and time it truly took from all participants. Personally, I would be thrilled to learn that a new company with greenhorn engineers could do this in a short amount of time. If the enabling factor is a group of aerospace veterans, that's great also.
    replies(1): >>4026100 #
    5. ippisl ◴[] No.4024623[source]
    The innovator's dillema mainly talks about the lack of motivation of established entities to offer a lower cost service so they won't hurt current profits. this doesn't seem the case.
    replies(1): >>4024676 #
    6. fidotron ◴[] No.4024676{3}[source]
    It's not necessarily about current profits, but future ones for sure. They will have people internally capable of doing it, but their structure will prevent them being cost-competitive, so they resist entering the whole area at all.
    7. philwelch ◴[] No.4024946[source]
    Is it? Knowing people who have worked at Boeing and hearing their stories, and following how much Boeing has struggled in recent years, it's not surprising at all. If there was ever a hidebound company rapidly outliving its usefulness, it was Boeing. And the company is struggling. In airliners, they keep getting beat by Airbus, and time after time comes up second, third, fourth best in defense bids. Once, when they lost a defense bid to Airbus for a tanker, they lobbied to have the military run the selection over again.

    The entire aerospace industry has been bureaucratic and hidebound for decades. The story of Lockheed's Skunk Works almost belies the point--they were certainly innovative, but even in the 1960's, the only way they could accomplish it was to get all the best engineers and hide from the bureaucrats long enough to just build shit. Up until the first stealth fighter or so (the F-117) it worked, but it doesn't seem to anymore, considering all the problems, delays, crashes, and other mishaps the F-22 has had.

    (Though, to be fair, the F-22 is a much more difficult undertaking. The F-117 had exactly one thing different from any other airplane from the 70's: it was shaped funny. It also had fly-by-wire because it was aerodynamically poor, but the engineering was far more conservative. The F-22 has lots of innovations at once--stealth, supercruise, improved avionics, the whole works--which entails far much more risk. Also, the 117 was a black project, which means there were a couple smart people in the Pentagon approving it and working as their clients, as opposed to the 22 where there were hundreds of Congressmen and thousands of federal bureaucrats to worry about as clients.)

    8. jlgreco ◴[] No.4025273[source]
    Built parts.

    As wikipedia puts it: "Each section was designed by von Braun in Huntsville and built by outside contractors such as Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft, and IBM."

    The extreme vertical integration (and pricing model) SpaceX has is what makes it special.

    replies(1): >>4025988 #
    9. tsotha ◴[] No.4025451[source]
    It's classic innovator's dilemma where Boeing, Lockheed etc. simply can't face the implications of competing with someone coming in from outside.

    Absolutely. SpaceX is already the cheapest $/kg to orbit. If things play out like Musk intends, they'll cut that number to a tenth of what it is today. There's no way Boeing can compete without a complete restructuring of its space business.

    They certainly weren't going to put money into bringing this situation about.

    10. khuey ◴[] No.4025988{3}[source]
    I think the pricing model is far more interesting than the vertical integration here. Boeing has been building Delta rockets for a long time too.
    replies(1): >>4026321 #
    11. mturmon ◴[] No.4026100[source]
    There are a lot of aerospace veterans at SpaceX.

    I know one senior JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab -- NASA) engineer who went there early on, and another one who went later to work on docking. Making reliable space launches is a practical skill, and there are a lot of procedures that have been learned over decades that are definitely not textbook material. It has to be picked up in apprenticeship fashion.

    In their promotional materials on their www site, they used to say that they were located in Southern CA to take advantage of the large pool of aerospace talent here.

    12. jlgreco ◴[] No.4026321{4}[source]
    It's the combination of the two I think. (Not to mention the comparative capabilities of the two systems.. there is a reason the Delta's are not servicing the ISS right now)