Who will compete with SpaceX? The last two and next two years.

[ChaoticFlounder]

This is a problem I believe not many are taking seriously / not able to see, if the people that learned the lessons of CRS-7 and what was it JCSAT-16 leave, what happens to that knowledge when they go?

It's called documentation and training. Also known as modern engineering culture. No rockstars required.

I've been hitting F5 waiting on that answer ...

Over documentation is one of the easiest sources of waste to cut out in a company, I mean hell, it's one of the biggest reasons the government likes contracting things like this out.  They pay for a product, and that's it.

Now, the details of it is they have to provide a good bit of info to the government to make sure they have "fair and equal pricing, small business incorporation, etc."

I guarantee you SpaceX is doing the bare minimum documentation required for the government and this is one of the significant sources of their cost reduction over their competitors.  All of their eyes are looking forward, putting in writing every change that they made to a bolt length or paint thickness or material spec and why does not help them compete.

[QuantumG]

Do you even engineer bro?

[ChaoticFlounder]

Do you even engineer bro?

The fact that you find my statement hard to believe makes me think you don't.

P.S. Your question above, yes.

[MechE31]

This is a problem I believe not many are taking seriously / not able to see, if the people that learned the lessons of CRS-7 and what was it JCSAT-16 leave, what happens to that knowledge when they go?

It's called documentation and training. Also known as modern engineering culture. No rockstars required.

I've been hitting F5 waiting on that answer ...

Over documentation is one of the easiest sources of waste to cut out in a company, I mean hell, it's one of the biggest reasons the government likes contracting things like this out.  They pay for a product, and that's it.

Now, the details of it is they have to provide a good bit of info to the government to make sure they have "fair and equal pricing, small business incorporation, etc."

I guarantee you SpaceX is doing the bare minimum documentation required for the government and this is one of the significant sources of their cost reduction over their competitors.  All of their eyes are looking forward, putting in writing every change that they made to a bolt length or paint thickness or material spec and why does not help them compete.

The bare minimum in aerospace is very different than in other industries. I've worked traditional aerospace, including the areo and space sides, defense and small business. I've seen various levels of paperwork and understand what's involved.

[ChaoticFlounder]

The bare minimum in aerospace is very different than in other industries. I've worked traditional aerospace, including the areo and space sides, defense and small business. I've seen various levels of paperwork and understand what's involved.

You are 100% correct MechE31, my background is agricultural / construction equipment and I appreciate the fact this is not near as highly regulated as aerospace is.  What I was simply trying to impress upon the readers is that it is a very wide gray scale of what is "appropriate" and what is not.  This will have a real impact on how quickly projects develop vs. resource input.  To put it in Gran Turismo terms, my guess is SpaceX has ABS, TCS, and ASM strengths all set to 1 out of 10.

[Coastal Ron]

I guarantee you SpaceX is doing the bare minimum documentation required for the government...

Maybe you took his comment to be about documentation for the government, but as someone that has worked in the manufacturing world I took his comment to be about internal documentation - and I agree with him. Once you are operational there should be no more "tribal knowledge", meaning there are processes and procedures that everyone should be following.

That doesn't mean that things don't change, but once you are operational there are also processes and procedures to follow for making changes.

As for the development phase, yes that could be an area where someone leaving does leave a hole in their forward progress, because they may not have fully documented everything about what they were doing - and certainly some of the inherent knowledge would reside in the person who left, which is quite understandable.

...and this is one of the significant sources of their cost reduction over their competitors.

I see this as a misnomer about why SpaceX is able to do things "better". They wouldn't have the launch and recovery success they have today if they were sloppy about their processes and procedures.

All of their eyes are looking forward, putting in writing every change that they made to a bolt length or paint thickness or material spec and why does not help them compete.

If you have a system that helps to capture changes, then it's not a burden - it's a help. And from what I've heard SpaceX has a modern engineering and manufacturing software system that they use, so I would think change documentation is not a burden.

[SpacedX]

... I guarantee you SpaceX is doing the bare minimum documentation required ...

Wow. Scary thought.

Surely you can't build rockets without having thoroughly understood the advantages of thorough documentation. And not just to meet contractual requirements.

Edit/Lar: Fixed quotes. Use the preview button, people! I LEFT the selective quoting (which changes the sense of what was said) on purpose, because it's a bad practice.

[su27k]

I think Gwynne Shotwell mentioned on the Space Show that they have a lot of technical writers on staff.

[rpapo]

I think Gwynne Shotwell mentioned on the Space Show that they have a lot of technical writers on staff.

All that means is that the "bare minimum" is not a little.

As an aside, I have to agree that the bean counters seem to consider technical documentation as low hanging fruit for cutbacks.  My group has been unable to update our customer facing documentation for FIVE YEARS now, since when they took away our writer, they took his tools (software licenses) as well.  We can't even update the documents for ourselves.  We have to rely on readme files.

[DJPledger]

Looks like BO are taking away much of the FH market with their NG. The heavy comsat market is where BO is effectively competing with SpaceX.

[racerx]

Fyi, ULA still pays a pension. 

No, not really.  In January 2016, for those grandfathered in, ULA changed from a defined benefit plan (What most people think of when they hear "pension") to a defined contribution plan.  If I recall correctly, the defined contribution was around $5,000 a year deposited into the employee's 401K.  I can only speak for myself, but the switch certainly made it much easier for me to accept a voluntary layoff from ULA last year.

[envy887]

Looks like BO are taking away much of the FH market with their NG. The heavy comsat market is where BO is effectively competing with SpaceX.

Blue only has 2(?) GTO commsats booked, and I haven't seen any indication that they are too heavy to ride on F9.

They also have 5 OneWeb LEO launches booked. With larger fairing volume New Glenn is better suited to compete for constellation launches, as FH is typically volume limited.

[Jim]

Fyi, ULA still pays a pension. 

No, not really.  In January 2016, for those grandfathered in, ULA changed from a defined benefit plan (What most people think of when they hear "pension") to a defined contribution plan.  If I recall correctly, the defined contribution was around $5,000 a year deposited into the employee's 401K.  I can only speak for myself, but the switch certainly made it much easier for me to accept a voluntary layoff from ULA last year.

they are still paying pensions for time up to 2016

[Jim]

Which company is better for those young workers to have on their resume?

It really doesn't matter as far as resume.  there is no real difference.

[matthewkantar]

Which company is better for those young workers to have on their resume?

It really doesn't matter as far as resume.  there is no real difference.

Unsubstantiated

[Jim]

Which company is better for those young workers to have on their resume?

It really doesn't matter as far as resume.  there is no real difference.

Unsubstantiated

Correct, that is true for his claim

The fact people thinks so is just another case of Spacex cult following

[Coastal Ron]

Which company is better for those young workers to have on their resume?

It really doesn't matter as far as resume.  there is no real difference.

I disagree. Having worked for companies that were perceived to be "The Hot Place To Work", and having been a manager having to hire while at those companies and reviewing lots of resumes, where someone has previously worked does affect the perception of whether they would be a desirable candidate.

As an example not in aerospace, if a company is hiring for a position in accounting or finance, and your resume shows you worked at one of the "Big Four" accounting firms, you will be noticed and given more attention than everyone who has not worked for a "Big Four". Even in casual conversations the distinction comes up, so it is a perception thing.

I'm not in the aerospace industry, but if I had to describe SpaceX and ULA from a work environment perspective:

- SpaceX, a company that is doing lots of new things, and people are given lots of responsibility

- ULA, a company that has a mature product line, and you'd be supporting mature products

Nothing right or wrong about either of those, and some people prefer one over the other. But there is a clear difference.

[Lar]

... I guarantee you SpaceX is doing the bare minimum documentation required ...

Wow. Scary thought.

Surely you can't build rockets without having thoroughly understood the advantages of thorough documentation. And not just to meet contractual requirements.

Edit/Lar: Fixed quotes. Use the preview button, people! I LEFT the selective quoting (which changes the sense of what was said) on purpose, because it's a bad practice.

(mod)

SpacedX: you have selective quoted to amplify the original poster's concern trolling and make it even more concern-trollish in appearance.  Don't selective quote.

If you have actual knowledge, that's interesting and you should bring it up. But posts that read like concern trolling aren't that helpful.

[meberbs]

Fyi, ULA still pays a pension. 

No, not really.  In January 2016, for those grandfathered in, ULA changed from a defined benefit plan (What most people think of when they hear "pension") to a defined contribution plan.  If I recall correctly, the defined contribution was around $5,000 a year deposited into the employee's 401K.  I can only speak for myself, but the switch certainly made it much easier for me to accept a voluntary layoff from ULA last year.

they are still paying pensions for time up to 2016

That means they aren't backing out on their prior obligations. Based on what the others have said any time worked there, by anyone, at this point does not include pension benefits as part of the compensation. That is what matters for the purpose of this thread to the extent that salaries and benefits are relevant at all.

[Jim]

I'm not in the aerospace industry, but if I had to describe SpaceX and ULA from a work environment perspective:

- SpaceX, a company that is doing lots of new things, and people are given lots of responsibility

- ULA, a company that has a mature product line, and you'd be supporting mature products

Nothing right or wrong about either of those, and some people prefer one over the other. But there is a clear difference.

and you would be wrong.  the responsibility portion is not true

Edit/Lar: fix quotes.