I'm glad employees can be fired at will, in this country, and I'm glad he takes that part of SpaceX so seriously.
On the other hand, hiring managers from Microsoft and Google does not seem to be a good match for the type and pace of innovation Musk wants. Based on my work experience with ex-managers from those companies (not meant to exclude management from other elephantine companies).
Sure, it's a good thing that the option exists that employees can be fired at will. but, that doesn't mean that firing is a good thing. If someone is fired or laid off, it means the company has failed in some way. Either they hired the wrong person, or had unrealistic expectations or in some way mismanaged their resources (hiring too many people for a project, etc). Not something that should be proudly celebrated.
People make mistakes in all avenues of life, including hiring. It's important to be able to make amends, or change paths, without being blocked by (inimical) others or by (excessive) regulation. In some parts of the world, firing is near impossible.
Not OP, but I'd agree fully as long as we're talking about management (well-compensated staff). Musk has been operating under the motto the end justifies the means and he’s getting a ton of flack for this from the left. Personally, I am slightly more ambivalent, after all both Tesla and SpaceX are not renown for their good work-life balance, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone who wants to work there. (Just to be clear, I do sympathise with the low-paid staff in the Tesla factories, and think they should be given better working conditions; some of the stories coming out of there are appalling).
They were fired because Musk himself is an incompetent manager. He hired and managed these managers so the failure of not being able to get the Org running is on him.
> SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second, with latencies between 25ms and 35ms. Those latencies would make SpaceX's service comparable to cable and fiber.
> The FCC proposal would require SpaceX to launch 50 percent of these satellites within six years and the rest within an additional three years.
>Do you believe nobody at SpaceX, or their direct competitors, has thought about it?
It doesn't matter if they've thought about it. You can think all you want about something but ole Private Murphy operates in the real world not on paper when he sets about mucking stuff up. They're talking about launching 11,925 satellites. That's nearly 10 times the current number of orbiting satellites.
This is not a rational fear. There are at any time an average of 10,000 planes in the sky, carrying 1m+ passengers. These 12,000 satellites will each have more space available and very regular trajectories, without ever converging on major nodes.
One should note that your opening statement is that "It doesn't matter if they've thought about it." This is not how innovation, manufacturing, maintenance, and risk management work.
>This is not a rational fear. There are at any time an average of 10,000 planes in the sky
Planes don't have flecks of paint, screws, etc flying by them at 28,000 kilometers per hour with the ability for one impact to send debris going dozens of directions.
These are low orbits that degrade quickly without maintenance. Kessler Syndrome will not be a problem because the atmosphere will slowly eat everything. That's how they get the low 50ms ping. Geostationary orbit where Kessler may theoretically become a problem in the future is 240ms round trip for light.
>These are low orbits that degrade quickly without maintenance
With, if I'm not mistaken, other satellites already in that general area.
The Kessler effect doesn't have to persist for years or centuries, a single failure can easily cascade and take out most, if not all, satellites occupying that general space before the debris deorbits.
Unless he's changed the figure, he intends to put 11,925 satellites into orbit for the network in low earth orbit, there are currently about 15,000 cataloged objects in that orbit (including debris).
Does anybody understands the technical limitations with that low orbit? I assume it has to be powered somehow to stay in that extremely low orbit, and therefore has limited lifetime. You cannot just shoot rockets up there to fill them up.
But since the technology will also have short lifetime (5 year I assume) Musk might be right to make it cheap and fast.
This doesn't sound like the problems are hiring ex-Microsoft and ex-Google people per se. It sounds more like a typical problem with managing a remote office, where the remote office isn't operating the way the home office wants. The telling part to me is:
Musk quickly brought in new managers from SpaceX headquarters in California to replace a number of the managers he fired.
This seems like a good sign to me. It's hard to convince people with experience at your company to move cities to start up a new remote office, but it's an important part of getting the culture right.
not surprised on the progress. i know someone there, in security. spaceX/starlink think very highly of themselves, in that annoying way. my contact is indeed quite a skilled engineer, so you know, if everyone else is like him then their self-opinion may be valid. doesn't make the arrogance any more pleasant though.
i understand it's stupid hard to get a job there. the kind of interview that is often discussed with disdain, rightly so, here on HN.
23 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 69.3 ms ] threadOn the other hand, hiring managers from Microsoft and Google does not seem to be a good match for the type and pace of innovation Musk wants. Based on my work experience with ex-managers from those companies (not meant to exclude management from other elephantine companies).
> The FCC proposal would require SpaceX to launch 50 percent of these satellites within six years and the rest within an additional three years.
Well, the long term future looks promising.
Unless of course Kessler effect.
It doesn't matter if they've thought about it. You can think all you want about something but ole Private Murphy operates in the real world not on paper when he sets about mucking stuff up. They're talking about launching 11,925 satellites. That's nearly 10 times the current number of orbiting satellites.
One should note that your opening statement is that "It doesn't matter if they've thought about it." This is not how innovation, manufacturing, maintenance, and risk management work.
Planes don't have flecks of paint, screws, etc flying by them at 28,000 kilometers per hour with the ability for one impact to send debris going dozens of directions.
With, if I'm not mistaken, other satellites already in that general area.
The Kessler effect doesn't have to persist for years or centuries, a single failure can easily cascade and take out most, if not all, satellites occupying that general space before the debris deorbits.
Unless he's changed the figure, he intends to put 11,925 satellites into orbit for the network in low earth orbit, there are currently about 15,000 cataloged objects in that orbit (including debris).
It isn't a certainty but it's still a risk.
But since the technology will also have short lifetime (5 year I assume) Musk might be right to make it cheap and fast.
But a simple ion thruster is fine. Those beasts are incredibly fast up there in low orbit. Something like one earth orbit in 2 hours.
Musk quickly brought in new managers from SpaceX headquarters in California to replace a number of the managers he fired.
This seems like a good sign to me. It's hard to convince people with experience at your company to move cities to start up a new remote office, but it's an important part of getting the culture right.
i understand it's stupid hard to get a job there. the kind of interview that is often discussed with disdain, rightly so, here on HN.