There is a strong Aerospace worker base already near the facility
Quote from: Brovane on 06/01/2017 12:58 pm There is a strong Aerospace worker base already near the facilityThese aren't the workers you're looking for.Matthew
In a related industry (heavy machinery manufacture)I have seen "old school" workers rehired that bring their "old school" habits and work ethic back with them and it can be disruptive...Sometimes it's better to go to a green field site and just train a new work force...The key is the training methods used... and hiring people who can learn and remember...Just my 2 cents...
Most of Hawthrone's tech force is over 40
I seem to recall that SpaceX built McGregor specifically to avoid the use of the very-expensive Stennis test site. Something about how SpaceX managed to do tests with under a dozen workers at McGregor which took a staff of forty at Stennis. My memory is fuzzy here, maybe someone can dig up the exact citation.
In my previous career, when we were at TRW, we ran an engine; it was a big engine, a 650,000 lb engine, but it was very simple. And we ran it at a government test site; NASA’s test site at Stennis. And they had a crew of 100 people, basically. They had two shifts of about a hundred people. And we ran an equivalent complexity engine, maybe not that size, but a 40,000 lb engine at our site, and we could run it with like between 5 and 10 people. So that’s what I was looking for; even running a large pump-fed engine like the Merlin engine, it doesn’t take an army of people to run an engine like that. And I think the government contractors have convinced themselves it does.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 05/31/2017 06:21 pmLooks like SpaceX will need folks in some numbers who are experienced in working with carbon composites. Does Brownsville have this skilled workforce?Right, but how many workers are skilled in manufacturing huge carbon composite structures in L.A.? Remember, SpaceX is famous for home growing manufacturing expertise from essentially nothing.
Looks like SpaceX will need folks in some numbers who are experienced in working with carbon composites. Does Brownsville have this skilled workforce?
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 05/31/2017 06:21 pmI assume that Musk would go to some lengths to assemble the Mars rocket in LA. For instance, Long Beach Airport has some nice property, what with Boeing wrapping up C-17 manufacturing there. But I don't see how he could get it to port.Musk is on record saying BFR/ ITS it will be built near the launch site, or in a seaport where it can be shipped to a launch site. Note that the Brownsville sea channel satisfies both of these requirements at once.In L.A., acquiring huge amounts of real estate on a port would be very costly.
I assume that Musk would go to some lengths to assemble the Mars rocket in LA. For instance, Long Beach Airport has some nice property, what with Boeing wrapping up C-17 manufacturing there. But I don't see how he could get it to port.
Quote from: Dave G on 05/31/2017 10:14 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 05/31/2017 06:21 pmLooks like SpaceX will need folks in some numbers who are experienced in working with carbon composites. Does Brownsville have this skilled workforce?Right, but how many workers are skilled in manufacturing huge carbon composite structures in L.A.? Remember, SpaceX is famous for home growing manufacturing expertise from essentially nothing.Well, they just showed a huge carbon composite structure yesterday nearby (Stratolaunch). You are right in that some companies have taken a greenfield approach when doing large composites -- e.g., Airbus in Mobile. SpaceX could do the same in Brownsville or some other community like Houston. Or it could take space in a facility that has already been constructed, such as Michoud.SpaceX has several options, and I expect there will be some development negotiations.QuoteQuote from: RedLineTrain on 05/31/2017 06:21 pmI assume that Musk would go to some lengths to assemble the Mars rocket in LA. For instance, Long Beach Airport has some nice property, what with Boeing wrapping up C-17 manufacturing there. But I don't see how he could get it to port.Musk is on record saying BFR/ ITS it will be built near the launch site, or in a seaport where it can be shipped to a launch site. Note that the Brownsville sea channel satisfies both of these requirements at once.In L.A., acquiring huge amounts of real estate on a port would be very costly.Musk is on record as saying that BFR/ITS will be built near the launch site, but he has been known to change his mind when presented with a deal that's too good to pass up. For instance, Tesla buying the NUMMI plant even after it had committed to building a plant in Arizona. Musk wasn't scared away by perhaps the most expensive labor in the United States.You never know, perhaps Los Angeles would facilitate some infrastructure changes to accommodate SpaceX in some fashion. There are just some huge unused facilities and a ready workforce. That's why he was in El Segundo and then in Hawthorne.In my fanciful musings, I half expect Musk to invest in Sergey Brin's airship to move BFR stages around.
Well, they just showed a huge carbon composite structure yesterday nearby (Stratolaunch).
You are right in that some companies have taken a greenfield approach when doing large composites -- e.g., Airbus in Mobile. SpaceX could do the same in Brownsville or some other community like Houston. Or it could take space in a facility that has already been constructed, such as Michoud.
For instance, Tesla buying the NUMMI plant even after it had committed to building a plant in Arizona. Musk wasn't scared away by perhaps the most expensive labor in the United States.
You never know, perhaps Los Angeles would facilitate some infrastructure changes to accommodate SpaceX in some fashion. There are just some huge unused facilities and a ready workforce. That's why he was in El Segundo and then in Hawthorne.
In my fanciful musings, I half expect Musk to invest in Sergey Brin's airship to move BFR stages around.
Quote from: cscott on 06/01/2017 02:15 pmI seem to recall that SpaceX built McGregor specifically to avoid the use of the very-expensive Stennis test site. Something about how SpaceX managed to do tests with under a dozen workers at McGregor which took a staff of forty at Stennis. My memory is fuzzy here, maybe someone can dig up the exact citation.See this transcript..https://zlsadesign.com/post/tom-mueller-interview-2017-05-02-transcription/Related thread here...https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42923.0Related quote... from transcript...QuoteIn my previous career, when we were at TRW, we ran an engine; it was a big engine, a 650,000 lb engine, but it was very simple. And we ran it at a government test site; NASA’s test site at Stennis. And they had a crew of 100 people, basically. They had two shifts of about a hundred people. And we ran an equivalent complexity engine, maybe not that size, but a 40,000 lb engine at our site, and we could run it with like between 5 and 10 people. So that’s what I was looking for; even running a large pump-fed engine like the Merlin engine, it doesn’t take an army of people to run an engine like that. And I think the government contractors have convinced themselves it does.
Quote from: John Alan on 06/01/2017 02:22 pmQuote from: cscott on 06/01/2017 02:15 pmI seem to recall that SpaceX built McGregor specifically to avoid the use of the very-expensive Stennis test site. Something about how SpaceX managed to do tests with under a dozen workers at McGregor which took a staff of forty at Stennis. My memory is fuzzy here, maybe someone can dig up the exact citation.See this transcript..https://zlsadesign.com/post/tom-mueller-interview-2017-05-02-transcription/Related thread here...https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42923.0Related quote... from transcript...QuoteIn my previous career, when we were at TRW, we ran an engine; it was a big engine, a 650,000 lb engine, but it was very simple. And we ran it at a government test site; NASA’s test site at Stennis. And they had a crew of 100 people, basically. They had two shifts of about a hundred people. And we ran an equivalent complexity engine, maybe not that size, but a 40,000 lb engine at our site, and we could run it with like between 5 and 10 people. So that’s what I was looking for; even running a large pump-fed engine like the Merlin engine, it doesn’t take an army of people to run an engine like that. And I think the government contractors have convinced themselves it does.If we're wagering, I'll wager it won't be Stennis either. I don't have a good guess where it will be. We don't even know where ITS will be built.
Are you saying that median age of SpaceX workers at Hawthorne is 40? That is difficult to believe if you just walk in front of their building, further corroborated by visiting the actual complex.I have found at least a website that mentions a median age of 29, but that might be the whole SpaceX and not Hawthorne in particular
Or make the composite structures whereever (even hawthorne) and transport by helicopter or plane to the seaside assembly plant. The individual tanks shouldn't weigh too much? I am assuming that there is individual tanks?
If you read the quote carefully, the decision to have the number of people present was a TRW decision as part of a government contract. It wasn't a requirement by Stennis. Already SpaceX has used Stennis for Raptor testing. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/10/its-propulsion-evolution-raptor-engine/ So you think SpaceX will go through the cost of building from scratch a test facility to support full duration burns of a ITS 1st stage when a government facility already exists that can support this testing?