A benefit calculator estimates my total compensation is 28.7% higher than my simple salary. FWIW.
Suffice to say, SpaceX's financials are rather foggy. But then, they are a private company.I'd add that Elon stated they were cash flow positive several years ago. This doesn't mean they are currently, or have been for successive fiscal years. 250K burdened per head has got to be high for SpaceX. I'd be surprised if it's under 100, but also surprised if it was over 150. That would be salaries, benefits, payroll taxes, workers comp (not insignificant in CA), but not facilities or equipment costs. Still, just for payroll, SpaceX's monthly burn rate is probably in the $7-10m range at this point.
A benefit calculator estimates my total compensation is 28.7% higher than my simple salary. FWIW.I know younger folks at SpaceX making in the 70s and 80s (consider the cost of living in Southern California when you compare) but accumulating options. Some work packages have incentive/bonus structures too.
Regardless of how we are trying to define a burdened employee rate, I stand by an estimate that between salary, taxes, benefits and insurance, SpaceX is probably now in the range of $7m to $10m a month. California is not a cheap place to have employees and Southern California is not a cheap place to live.No, they aren't all aerospace engineers, but how much does an experienced machinist go for in Southern California? What exactly do you think are the low paying jobs at SpaceX and how many of them are there?They seem to run about as light as possible on the admin side, I'd be curious to see what you're estimation of their personnel cost numbers are.
Quote from: William Barton on 10/27/2009 01:11 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/27/2009 01:01 pmQuote from: William Barton on 10/27/2009 11:27 amWhat's the factual basis for these engine-out and under-performing Merlin predictions? Factual? None at all. It is merely a coming together of basic statistics and gut feeling. Nine engines having to work together seems to be asking for trouble. Either one will not work entirely correctly or some unforseen interaction between the nine will have affects on them or the vehicle as a wholeI just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. My gut feeling is, the Cluster's Last Stand theory is wrong and that it's based on some unproven statistical assumptions. Saturn I was at the dawn of the space age, and seemed to work okay despite eight engines having to work together. Can't exactly say the same for N-1, of course, but it's not a fully comparable case, either. To the best of my knowledge, those NK's had never flown successfully before, and still haven't. Theoretically, you'd have to apply that set of statistics to Taurus II when estimating it's chances of success. But only theoretically.Here's a related question: At the time of Saturn I development, had any US team successfully developed a rocket with more than 2 engines in its first stage? All I can think of is Atlas and Titan I (two engines each [if my understanding the two outboard "engines" on Atlas were one engine with two chambers is correct]). Viking, Vanguard, Redstone, Thor, Jupiter are the big single-engine rockets I can think of. Anything else?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/27/2009 01:01 pmQuote from: William Barton on 10/27/2009 11:27 amWhat's the factual basis for these engine-out and under-performing Merlin predictions? Factual? None at all. It is merely a coming together of basic statistics and gut feeling. Nine engines having to work together seems to be asking for trouble. Either one will not work entirely correctly or some unforseen interaction between the nine will have affects on them or the vehicle as a wholeI just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. My gut feeling is, the Cluster's Last Stand theory is wrong and that it's based on some unproven statistical assumptions. Saturn I was at the dawn of the space age, and seemed to work okay despite eight engines having to work together. Can't exactly say the same for N-1, of course, but it's not a fully comparable case, either. To the best of my knowledge, those NK's had never flown successfully before, and still haven't. Theoretically, you'd have to apply that set of statistics to Taurus II when estimating it's chances of success. But only theoretically.
Quote from: William Barton on 10/27/2009 11:27 amWhat's the factual basis for these engine-out and under-performing Merlin predictions? Factual? None at all. It is merely a coming together of basic statistics and gut feeling. Nine engines having to work together seems to be asking for trouble. Either one will not work entirely correctly or some unforseen interaction between the nine will have affects on them or the vehicle as a whole
What's the factual basis for these engine-out and under-performing Merlin predictions?
Not quite. in the Atlas 1, there were 3 separate engines: 2 booster units of a nominal 150,000 lbs each: which were then jettisoned after a two-minute plus burn and a third "sustainer" engine of some 60,000lbs which ran until burnout.
Well, that's partially why I tried to move to discussion by salary ranges, versus engineers/not-engineers. While not paying six-figures by any stretch of the imagination I doubt the assembly jobs are minimum wage either. Even with a headcount of 900 and 3 facilities, there aren't necessarily that many office/facilities staff who would fall into a 'low-paid' category. I could be grossly wrong, but I'd be surprised if more than ~10% of their workforce had salaries under $50k/year.
There is a video.
Quote from: Kitspacer on 02/18/2010 08:58 pmNot quite. in the Atlas 1, there were 3 separate engines: 2 booster units of a nominal 150,000 lbs each: which were then jettisoned after a two-minute plus burn and a third "sustainer" engine of some 60,000lbs which ran until burnout. Not quite true. For the Atlas B, C, D, SLV-3 variants, G, H, and Atlas I & II vehicles , the booster package was one engine with two nozzles. Only the Atlas E&F had complete separate booster engines.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/18/2010 12:27 pmQuote from: William Barton on 02/18/2010 12:22 pmI'm curious where the $250K "average salary" figure bandied about here comes from. Salary.com gives $81,828, which seems a whole lot more reasonable. Many doctors (GPs) don't make $250K a year.http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_EN04100017.htmlThe $250k is not just pay and pensions it will include raw materials, rent of buildings and property taxes.Lampyridae's post said, "Multiply the average aerospace engineer's annual salary by 900." That's simply not the way business accounting is done. Raw materials, rent, and property taxes come off your corporate income tax, for example. We have a "bean counter" around here somewhere could probably do a better job talking about this stuff than I can (my corporate wouldview is rather backplane-driven). See my reply to Jim for some additional thoughts. In any case, I think we've established the average aerospace engineer's annual salary is a bit lower than has been bandied about here.
Quote from: William Barton on 02/18/2010 12:22 pmI'm curious where the $250K "average salary" figure bandied about here comes from. Salary.com gives $81,828, which seems a whole lot more reasonable. Many doctors (GPs) don't make $250K a year.http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_EN04100017.htmlThe $250k is not just pay and pensions it will include raw materials, rent of buildings and property taxes.
I'm curious where the $250K "average salary" figure bandied about here comes from. Salary.com gives $81,828, which seems a whole lot more reasonable. Many doctors (GPs) don't make $250K a year.http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_EN04100017.html
{snip}How likely would a deal between Orbital and SpaceX for LAS be considering they are competing for future cargo contracts for ISS?
If the the spaceflight now article about orbital offer the Orion LAS on the market is true:http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/18orionlas/Then I have 2 questions.If Orbital offered a resized LAS for Dragon, would the R&D and production techniques they have developed for Orion be applicable to a Dragon LAS, meaning less than a 2-3 year development time?How likely would a deal between Orbital and SpaceX for LAS be considering they are competing for future cargo contracts for ISS?