Hacker News Reader

Comment by trollerator23 | Hacker News Reader

Ayep. Well said. It could be but it isn't yet. However SpaceX does have a good track record in that regard.

SpaceX is an impressive accomplishment by any measure, no one should try to take that away. The Falcon 9 brought some much needed innovation to the industry and I'd argue established an accessible commercial industry in space. And while I'm quite optimistic that Starship will eventually be a success, I think it's healthy for people to take a step back and remember that Dragon was delayed for years (yes, so was Starliner but it's not relevant here), Falcon Heavy was delayed for years, and Starship is also delayed by years (and despite the other person's comment to my original, it's not the fault of the FAA). Falcon Heavy never actually achieved reuse/landing for the core stage, and has since abandoned even attempting it. I believe it was Shotwell herself who said Falcon Heavy was a mistake.

At least with Starship we have seen the booster land so there is the existence proof. It just needs to not catch fire afterwards :-)

No! We haven't! I'm nitpicking but we saw the upper stage prototype.

Besides, I believe their landing method is to catch the booster with the mechazilla which should be quite a show.

Fair enough, my rocket nomenclature is not very good. "The one Starship piece that flew, bellyflopped, and landed followed by catching fire." :-). SN-15 in May 2021. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9eoubnO-pE&ab_channel=Space...

I internally tend to contribute SpaceX's success to Shotwell. Sure, Elon challenges the status quo of space companies and prompts "radical new ideas", but I think she is the force that makes it an actually viable company that isn't just a billionaire dumping money down the drain.

If you don't like Musk, just ignore him, pick the next person in the hierarchy and assign the success to that person. SpaceX was successful before Shotwell was president.

Shotwell is great, but so are lots of other people that work for SpaceX.

How about it's the cumulative effort of talented people working at the company?

Absolutely, the organization as a whole is succesful, but the exact same people in a different organization might not quite be as succesful. There is something in the DNA of the organization that is just working and that is an effect of how it was set up.

Exactly I have seen, and been into, similar organizations with just as talented people, who just didn't go anywhere due to poor leadership.

Sure but an organisation doesn't just fall out of the sky.

They were once 7 people in a room. If Musk was new CEO that just came in 2 years ago of course he wouldn't get much credit.

But Musk has been leading SpaceX for literally 20+ years. So to just say he has nothing to do with it is stupid, and every single person that worked there and left tells a different story. The same for journalists and other who interact with SpaceX.

If anything people are continually surprised how involved Musk is, when anti-Musk people always stress how he is an absent boss. But then you hear about 5h meetings where Musk and engineering team sit together and go into minute detail and Musk makes decisions in those meetings.

Its really only people from outside who dislike Musk that push this story.

So yes, Shotwell was great. He increased her responsibility over time. And Musk reward that by promoting her. But so were other people that Musk recruited and put into positions, Hans Königsman, Tom Muller, Jim Buzza and so on. But dispite many of them leaving the overall organisation still continues to do well.

So at some point, leadership is something that matters.

No one is saying a company gets anywhere without good leadership, but this:

> every single person that worked there and left tells a different story.

Is just not true. It's okay if that's your experience talking to people that have worked there, but I have also talked to people working there. As much as you chastise people who dislike Musk, these kinds of absolute statements come from people that seem compelled to leap to his defense.

> Falcon Heavy never actually achieved reuse/landing for the core stage, and has since abandoned even attempting it.

That’s a weird thing to list as a criticism, the centre core ends up going way higher and faster than a normal booster, they know recovering it is a stretch. One did landed successfully, but was lost on the way to shore due to rough seas. On most flights they expend the core to get additional performance, doing so doubles GTO delivery capacity.

As for ‘delayed for years’ that’s relative to knowingly highly aggressive target timelines. Compared to space industry standards they were still completed at break neck speeds.

Both these criticisms are just attempts to use skewed optics to turn what are actually some of SpaceX’s bigest successes into apparent failures. SpaceX shoots and hits much higher than anyone else. The fact that they aim even higher than that is no sign of failure.

It actually blows my mind how any objective statement of fact which isn't 100% positive or complimentary of the company (sandwiched between me bending over backwards to compliment the company), is met with this kind of comments. I didn't levy any criticism. I stated objective facts and said it was healthy to take a step back sometimes and see the whole picture. I compliment the company multiple times in multiple posts. I did not criticize them and there's no attempt to skew optics. Sigh.

I do think Starship will eventually be a success but it's annoying to see people counting it as if it's already working. That said, SpaceX is burning money like a bonfire on that project, so they better hurry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com