SpaceX News

[Teahive]

And note, it is worth whatever it is worth (a launch is $60M so $15M for the first stage seems a fair guess) it saves $15M on EACH launch its reused. It could be reused 20X or thrown out on the first use. If they can be reused 15XEach, that stage is really worth $200M. Are you so sure you'd throw it away?

The stage is worth whatever it would take to replace it, minus the cost of getting it flight ready again. After all, any replacement has the same reuse potential.

[GIThruster]

Yes, but if it costs $20M to manufacture, and $5M to transport back from a landing and remanufacture, then the remanufactured flight ready unit is worth about $15M, each time it is used. It saves that much on each flight. So the last thing you want to do is lose it before it's been refurbished at all and have to replace it right away.

[Skipjack]

Yes, but if it costs $20M to manufacture, and $5M to transport back from a landing and remanufacture, then the remanufactured flight ready unit is worth about $15M, each time it is used. It saves that much on each flight. So the last thing you want to do is lose it before it's been refurbished at all and have to replace it right away.

AFAIK, it costs more like 15 million to manufacture. 20 would be the upper most guess. A Merlin 1D costs 1 million. There are 9 on a core. Then there are the CG thrusters and the structure plus the avionics. I think that all together 15 is realistic. The problem is that a large part of that cost is labor and not raw materials. So if you assume that you are not stopping to produce cores, you need to use them up beyond their lifetime in order to support your production lines (high launch rate). If you do not do that, then your production line will stand still and you have a large army of people that are essentially standing around doing nothing which costs you almost as much as throwing away a cheaply produced core. Because of this, it is important that reusing the stages is fast and inexpensive and has little overhead.

[zapkitty]

...

... ...

... ... ... they're test articles for a maneuver that NASA is jittery about.

Test articles that would have already more than made back their cost by launching ISS CRS missions etc.

Using them as test articles, and if needs be discarding them, should open the doors to much more profitable operations in the future.

... what were you all going on about again?

[GIThruster]

http://rt.com/usa/178096-texas-musk-spacex-launchpad/

[GIThruster]

http://valleywag.gawker.com/spacex-sued ... 1618454323

[hanelyp]

I wouldn't think Elon Musk is stupid enough to think he'd get away with what the lawsuit alleges.

[GIThruster]

No, and it doesn't sound like him either. Things change though, when you have people you pay to manage tens of millions of dollars, so it's hard to guess what might have happened here. Could be anything from what they're claiming, to a clever assault by his competitors. Lets just hope the "truth wins out".

[Skipjack]

No, and it doesn't sound like him either. Things change though, when you have people you pay to manage tens of millions of dollars, so it's hard to guess what might have happened here. Could be anything from what they're claiming, to a clever assault by his competitors. Lets just hope the "truth wins out".

From what I understand the issue is that they did not get paid for the 60 days that they require notice for if a layoff is more than 50 people. Someone in their HR department screwed up.

[GIThruster]

Any idea why they needed to lay off anyone at all? This surprises me with the rate they've been growing at. Where their jobs somehow obsoleted by some progress or are they experiencing negative growth from lack of future contracts? I'm surprised anyone got walking papers.

[Skipjack]

Any idea why they needed to lay off anyone at all? This surprises me with the rate they've been growing at. Where their jobs somehow obsoleted by some progress or are they experiencing negative growth from lack of future contracts? I'm surprised anyone got walking papers.

According to SpaceX, this was not a layoff, but a normal "cleanup process" of sorts, based on performance evaluations. It affected less than 5% of their workforce. They still had a 20% Net- employee growth this year.

[Maui]

Pretty sure I read that the high-point of SpaceX employment was actually October of last year (3800). Also, the lawsuit alleges 200-400 layoffs which is more than 5%.

SpaceX did mention the reviews and layoffs corresponded with some "re-balancing" of resources which sounds dangerously close to an admission of guilt, IMO.

Think its very plausible that someone as SpaceX was afraid of tarnishing their as-of-late golden image by announcing layoffs (particularly after collecting tax incentives based on creating jobs).

Also, it doesn't seem too surprising to me that they would be moderately scaling back on employees. The bulk of the design for Falcon 9 (which will provide most of their revenue for many years to come) would be about wrapped up by now and with re-usable rockets their production should not have to ramp up much more than it currently is. Serious work for bigger projects (like Mars) would still be a ways off.

[GIThruster]

This sounds suspiciously like no more than running a tight ship--the opposite of what the government work programs for the over educated and legacy nonsense at the big corps do, which is one reason they can't compete. If people aren't working, they need to look for gainful employ. You don't just continue to pay them.

But it does sound like this should have been done over time and not all at once.

[Skipjack]

Here is what SpaceX says:

Code: Select all

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41428spacex-says-“headcount-reduction”-due-to-annual-reviews-not-layoffs

Bahhh, this stupid URL is not working, you will have to use copy and paste.

[Betruger]

Part of the URL gets trimmed out by forum formatting. You can put incompatible URLs into code brackets for copy/paste, or redirect em thru URL shorteners like google's: https://goo.gl/

SpaceX Says “Headcount Reduction” Due To Annual Reviews, Not Layoffs
By Jeff Foust | Jul. 29, 2014