Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwablePie | Hacker News Reader

From his about page: "I studied music production in college, and after seeing the ambition of SpaceX, and the excitement in the new space industry, I was hooked. I wanted to work in aerospace... "

At first, I wondered what SpaceX role would suit him best and why SpaceX hadn't hired him. Then it occurred to me that humanity might be better off with passionate polymaths such as him working outside as opposed to inside the establishment. After all, Elon Musk started his aerospace career outside the establishment. And SpaceX is now establishment?

Polymaths have been quite productive in crypto and other low-startup-cost environments. But, apparently, not so much in autonomous vehicles, etc. This could be a function of the learnings required for physical world projects, to wit: quaternions, telematics, aerodynamics, etc.

So, would we/he be better off inside or outside the Borg? Thoughts?

View on HN

What he's done is super impressive and cool, but has he acquired the necessary base knowledge to work on an avionics, propulsion, etc team at SpaceX?

I'm not in any of those fields, but I'd have to imagine there's a large amount of background knowledge that someone with an aero or mechanical engineering degree has, that he hasn't picked up with model rockets.

Majority of engineers with a degree are useless right after graduation. Its a ton of random math that (most) of which you don't use again since you use modeling software.

Source: Did Aero

Someone doing this as a Amateur can damn well pick up whatever they need to.

Even at space X level of innovation ?

I was under that impression that maths could still be useful when working at the very bleeding edge of an engineering field.

Bear in mind that companies at the scale of Space X doing safety critical work tend to parcel up tasks fairly minutely. Everything is compartmentalised, tested separately and there are whole teams devoted to the large scale architecture and integration. There's a joke that back in the space race days, an engineer might be responsible for a single screw on the Saturn V (and you'd be damn sure if the thing blew up, it wasn't your screw that did it). Same thing happens with ESA and NASA contractors.

There are lots of engineers who are basically building things to a spec and aren't what you might call innovating.

I think someone who builds rockets to this level would be absolutely fine in an entry position. They just might need to get some of the theory first. Saying that, he clearly understands mechanical design and control theory.

Didn't one of the chief engineers at SpaceX start out with model rockets?

This doesn’t seem to be SpaceX philosophy. See from about 3:25 where Elon discusses the problems caused by departmental structure, not questioning constraints, and ‘optimising something that shouldn’t exist’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDUOaqyup5s

> Its a ton of random math that (most) of which you don't use again since you use modeling software.

You absolutely need that math because you need to know when the modeling software is giving the wrong answer. You’re supposed to do quick and dirty calc by hand (ok fine I use mathematica) in a simplified system, then you refine with numerical software and compare the two. It’s shockingly easy to get the wrong answer with numerical CAD.

Not a mech eng but I've taken several eng classes and do a lot of DIY stuff. I've been designing a swing set/exercise rig for myself in Inventor and using FEA to sanity check my beam sizes for the given loads, just cause why not. Since I already had it parameterized, I wanted to see what load it would take with legs made out of 1.25x5.5 boards, just cause. The sim showed it would take several hundred pounds with almost no lateral deflection. Hmmm.

Anyone who's worked with decking boards knows they are pretty wobbly by themselves. I'm staring at the results, intuitively knowing they're dead wrong. So I model a plain column of one of these boards 16' long and 2000lbs, straight down. Zero side deflection.

Ah, I realized, it doesn't model buckling.

Map != territory.

It's always important to have multiple perspective of inference on a problem.

Might be true, but SpaceX is only hiring mechanical/aerospace engineering degree holders for the relevant positions: https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4740817002?gh_jid=4...

> BASIC QUALIFICATIONS:

> Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or aerospace engineering

> 1+ years of experience designing and analyzing mechanical systems via professional work experience, project/research-based student experience, or a combination of both

which OP doesn't have. They're not just hiring randos who can do math, they're looking for people with specific backgrounds in this domain.

There are of course other jobs, like PR, graphic designers, accounting, HR, benefits, facilities, that require zero engineering background, that all big companies must have to just keep the lights on.

Dam I was 20ish and doing now what I did back then I might well stay in mech eng.

I did the specialised mech eng A1 BTEC in the UK that had been set up to service speclised industries - all but of my class worked in bleeding edge RnD.

I did identify in one class that a lump of wreckage was an A4 fuel pump (that is the Agerat 4 aka the V2)

I agree that a fresh-grad engineer will need some hand-holding in order to get them up to speed, but I disagree they are equivalent to an amateur in the similar field. The mathematical/engineering education obtained through their degree teaches them the thinking and underlying scientific principles that justifies concepts/design, which is knowledge often lacked in amateur community.

Using a modeling software still requires validation from an engineer and the "random math" is useful for that. Often times we have to do redundant calculations to confirm that the computer solution is logical. Beyond that, the "random math" is often key to the development of an innovative method that is superior to existing solutions.

In general, amateur's goal is to make something work. Engineer's goal is to make something work, prove it works, and show why the solution was chosen.

He buys the rocket motors. From his FAQ:

> Do you make your own motors?

> Nope, I use commercially available propellants. Usually black powder motors from Estes or APCP motors from Aerotech. For custom or more complicated builds, BPS.space outsources propellant work to other manufacturers, who can often achieve higher precision and predictability than any consumer setup. I learn best by experimentation, which works very well for software and electronics, less so for explosives and propellants.

> I also got a C+ in chemistry during high school - designing and making rocket propellant is not a good idea for me :)

It sounds like he makes the rocket housings then tweaks some parameters to make them fly.

As someone with experience on the model rocket side, the electronics part of the project is highly impressive, especially using thrust vectoring to get most of the way to landing.

Still, there's a huge gap, IMO, between that and building SpaceX level avionics

Watch one of his videos explaining how his flight computers work. If you still think he's just "making rocket housings" afterwards, thats fine. But watch a video first: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCILl8ozWuxnFYXIe2svjHhg

I'd hire this guy in an instant over a rando with a degree and no experience. Engineering degrees are by themselves not very useful, but they are an indicator that you can learn and to an extent teach yourself you need to know to solve problems. This guy has demonstrated that he would probably be extremely successful in most any engineering role I can imagine having a need for, with the possible exception of needing consultation on some really bleeding edge theoretical stuff that would normally be best served by a PhD.

In some vid he says he had the chance to go to spacex, but than wanted to continue what he's doing.

Autonomous vehicles is maybe not the best example, with geohot, of all people, founding a self-driving car startup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com