First Falcon 9 now getting assembled for launch

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:12:42 -0500, in a place far, far away, kevin
willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:11:13 -0700, in a place far, far away, "David
M. Palmer" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

In article , Bob S.
wrote:

I wonder how Boeing and LockMart are feeling about all this. If this
thing actually works than Atlas and Delta are cooked, Falcon 9
launches are one-third their price.

My guess is that in the end, one or the other will simply try to buy
SpaceX. Will the authoritiet allow this, you guys reckon?
Why would Elon Musk sell it?
To make a lot of money with which to start another space company, and
move on to the next steps?

In other words, exactly what he did during the dot.com era, right?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. From my own (much, much less lucrative)
experience, these kinds of buy-outs often come with "no competition"
clauses for senior management. In order to get the $$$, Musk might have
to refrain from any other space-related venture for several years.

Then he presumably wouldn't do it...

When/if he does start a next-next generation space venture, he might
well be under contract not to hire any of the people from the previous
ventures.

And then again, he might not.

Starting a new company is hard. Starting a new company while
not being able to hire the people you know are capable of starting the
new company is hard^2.

No more than what he'd already done when he started SpaceX.

He might even be under contract to not say anything bad about acquiring
organizations. At one point in my career, I walked out of a acquisition
bonus of several hundred dollars because I wouldn't agree to not
bad-mouth the company that acquired the start-up where I worked.

Either they make him an offer that's attractive, or not. If the
former, he'll sell. If not, he won't.

kevin willoughby wrote:

At one point in my career, I walked out of a acquisition
bonus of several hundred dollars because I wouldn't agree to not
bad-mouth the company that acquired the start-up where I worked.

So what's the going rate for not bad mouthing your former employer
nowadays? Didn't they accept your 'no bad mouthing' counter offer?

Do they sell futures in the bad mouthing commodities market yet?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:12:42 -0500, in a place far, far away, kevin
willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
[...]
In other words, exactly what he did during the dot.com era, right?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. [...]

Then he presumably wouldn't do it...

??? How do you reach this conclusion?


When/if he does start a next-next generation space venture, he might
well be under contract not to hire any of the people from the previous
ventures.

And then again, he might not.

Well, yah. That's kind of what I meant when I chose the word "might"
instead of "will".


Starting a new company is hard. Starting a new company while
not being able to hire the people you know are capable of starting the
new company is hard^2.

No more than what he'd already done when he started SpaceX.

Are you saying that he started SpaceX without having identified through
personal experience a set of that guys he'd hire for SpaceX who were
competent, compatible (often more important than competent!) and
unencumbered by contract restrictions? That's possible, but not common...


He might even be under contract to not say anything bad about acquiring
organizations. At one point in my career, I walked out of a acquisition
bonus of several hundred dollars because I wouldn't agree to not
bad-mouth the company that acquired the start-up where I worked.

Either they make him an offer that's attractive, or not. If the
former, he'll sell. If not, he won't.

Possibly. But it is entirely possible that the big boys would make him
"an offer he can't refuse" -- pay him so much that he'd be foolish to
decline. Accepting could simultaneously be best for Musk and worse for a
space faring civilization.

The idea that the big boys could buy up new-generation competition and
then suppress it either through mismanagement or deliberate malice has
precedent.

I have personal experience with the former, so I know it can happen.

As for the latter, I assume you're aware of the conspiracy conviction
against GM, Firestone, and Standard and Phillips oil for destroying a
decent street-car system with a bus-based system at additional expense,
traffic congestion and pollution, but increased profits for those
involved? It optimized local profits, but was bad for the community.

Buy-outs are, at least sometimes, a chance for a person or a few people
to profit from things that are bad policy. Stifling Musk might help
maintain "business as usual" for the bug guys, regardless of what would
be best for the common good.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

It doesn't take many trips in Air Force One
to spoil you. -- Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:08:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, kevin
willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:12:42 -0500, in a place far, far away, kevin
willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
[...]
In other words, exactly what he did during the dot.com era, right?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. [...]

Then he presumably wouldn't do it...

??? How do you reach this conclusion?

Ummmm....

Because he's not stupid?

Starting a new company is hard. Starting a new company while
not being able to hire the people you know are capable of starting the
new company is hard^2.

No more than what he'd already done when he started SpaceX.

Are you saying that he started SpaceX without having identified through
personal experience a set of that guys he'd hire for SpaceX who were
competent, compatible (often more important than competent!) and
unencumbered by contract restrictions?

Yes.

That's possible, but not common...

How do you know?

He might even be under contract to not say anything bad about acquiring
organizations. At one point in my career, I walked out of a acquisition
bonus of several hundred dollars because I wouldn't agree to not
bad-mouth the company that acquired the start-up where I worked.

Either they make him an offer that's attractive, or not. If the
former, he'll sell. If not, he won't.

Possibly. But it is entirely possible that the big boys would make him
"an offer he can't refuse" -- pay him so much that he'd be foolish to
decline. Accepting could simultaneously be best for Musk and worse for a
space faring civilization.

So you think that he applies zero value to the latter?

The idea that the big boys could buy up new-generation competition and
then suppress it either through mismanagement or deliberate malice has
precedent.

Ah. So you continue to think that he's stupid.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:08:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, kevin
willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:12:42 -0500, in a place far, far away, kevin
willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
[...]
In other words, exactly what he did during the dot.com era, right?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. [...]
Then he presumably wouldn't do it...
??? How do you reach this conclusion?

Ummmm....

Because he's not stupid?

You seem to have missed a basic point. This isn't an issue of stupid or
not. There is often a trade-off between what's best for an individual
and what's best for the commonwealth. Musk might make a well-reasoned,
rational decision about what's best for him, and the rest of us might be
disappointed.


Starting a new company is hard. Starting a new company while
not being able to hire the people you know are capable of starting the
new company is hard^2.
No more than what he'd already done when he started SpaceX.
Are you saying that he started SpaceX without having identified through
personal experience a set of that guys he'd hire for SpaceX who were
competent, compatible (often more important than competent!) and
unencumbered by contract restrictions?

Yes.

That's possible, but not common...

How do you know?

As I've admitted befo much of my professional life has been spent
working for startups of various kinds. This leads to personal experience
about such things.

Given that this is a big part of my life, I've done a fair bit of
reading and talking to others about this topic.

The best CEO I ever worked for said that 80% of his job was to recruit
the right team. He was right. The best way to recruit a team is to
contact the people you know can do the job. Do you think von Braun could
have built the Saturn V if he didn't have the rest of Operation
Paperclip on his team?

I'm curious, Rand, have you ever had to build a team for a brand new
company?


He might even be under contract to not say anything bad about acquiring
organizations. At one point in my career, I walked out of a acquisition
bonus of several hundred dollars because I wouldn't agree to not
bad-mouth the company that acquired the start-up where I worked.
Either they make him an offer that's attractive, or not. If the
former, he'll sell. If not, he won't.
Possibly. But it is entirely possible that the big boys would make him
"an offer he can't refuse" -- pay him so much that he'd be foolish to
decline. Accepting could simultaneously be best for Musk and worse for a
space faring civilization.

So you think that he applies zero value to the latter?

No.

Why do you think it's necessary to ask me such a question? What made you
think that I might think "he applies zero value to the latter"? His
weighting of this would be quite different from mine, but zero? Zero?!


The idea that the big boys could buy up new-generation competition and
then suppress it either through mismanagement or deliberate malice has
precedent.

Ah. So you continue to think that he's stupid.


Wow.

First, please justify your (implicit) claim that I used to think he's
stupid. Facts, citations, direct quotes, or anything else that could
justify that claim. (Hint: there is no such evidence.)

Second, please justify your claim that I currently think he's stupid.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

It doesn't take many trips in Air Force One
to spoil you. -- Ronald Reagan

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 22:33:41 -0500, in a place far, far away, kevin
willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:08:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, kevin
willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:12:42 -0500, in a place far, far away, kevin
willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
[...]
In other words, exactly what he did during the dot.com era, right?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. [...]
Then he presumably wouldn't do it...
??? How do you reach this conclusion?

Ummmm....

Because he's not stupid?

You seem to have missed a basic point. This isn't an issue of stupid or
not. There is often a trade-off between what's best for an individual
and what's best for the commonwealth. Musk might make a well-reasoned,
rational decision about what's best for him, and the rest of us might be
disappointed.

He might. In fact, I would expect him to, but that's no reason to
think that the rest of us will be disappointed. One of the things
that he thinks is best for him is making space settlements happen.

Starting a new company is hard. Starting a new company while
not being able to hire the people you know are capable of starting the
new company is hard^2.
No more than what he'd already done when he started SpaceX.
Are you saying that he started SpaceX without having identified through
personal experience a set of that guys he'd hire for SpaceX who were
competent, compatible (often more important than competent!) and
unencumbered by contract restrictions?

Yes.

That's possible, but not common...

How do you know?

As I've admitted befo much of my professional life has been spent
working for startups of various kinds. This leads to personal experience
about such things.

Given that this is a big part of my life, I've done a fair bit of
reading and talking to others about this topic.

The best CEO I ever worked for said that 80% of his job was to recruit
the right team. He was right. The best way to recruit a team is to
contact the people you know can do the job. Do you think von Braun could
have built the Saturn V if he didn't have the rest of Operation
Paperclip on his team?

I'm curious, Rand, have you ever had to build a team for a brand new
company?

Yes, not that it's really relevant. The fact remains that Elon did it
once, and he can do it again, if he thinks that it's the best way to
achieve his goals.

He might even be under contract to not say anything bad about acquiring
organizations. At one point in my career, I walked out of a acquisition
bonus of several hundred dollars because I wouldn't agree to not
bad-mouth the company that acquired the start-up where I worked.
Either they make him an offer that's attractive, or not. If the
former, he'll sell. If not, he won't.
Possibly. But it is entirely possible that the big boys would make him
"an offer he can't refuse" -- pay him so much that he'd be foolish to
decline. Accepting could simultaneously be best for Musk and worse for a
space faring civilization.

So you think that he applies zero value to the latter?

No.

Why do you think it's necessary to ask me such a question? What made you
think that I might think "he applies zero value to the latter"? His
weighting of this would be quite different from mine, but zero? Zero?!

I ask because the questions that you seem to ask, and speculations
that you put forth, imply that he may.

The idea that the big boys could buy up new-generation competition and
then suppress it either through mismanagement or deliberate malice has
precedent.

Ah. So you continue to think that he's stupid.


Wow.

First, please justify your (implicit) claim that I used to think he's
stupid. Facts, citations, direct quotes, or anything else that could
justify that claim. (Hint: there is no such evidence.)

Second, please justify your claim that I currently think he's stupid.

Because you imply that he would do something against his own interest.

In sci.space.history Anthony Frost wrote:
This appears to be the first flight vehicle, though it will be put
up and taken down again. One of the update articles mentions that
the second stage engine won't be in place for the first stand up.

The entire engine or just the composite extension? I saw some
verbiage in one of the "Update" entries on spacex.com which suggested
the latter. The text from the December 14th update:

"Attached to the second stage, but not visible here, the Merlin
Vacuum engine rests within the carbon composite interstage (shown
below connected to the shorter second stage). In actual flight,
the Merlin Vacuum will have a large expansion nozzle that will
nearly fill the interior of the interstage. However, the nozzle
will not be used during this first standup at the Cape."


The picture of the first-stage 9 engine cluster being hauld down off
the test stand seemed to show something other than kevlar between the
engines. Looked more like substantial metal to my peanut gallery
eyes. (*) Perhaps F9 has been undergoing some weight gain? Of course,
SpaceX being an entity without apparant internal dissent we would be
rather less likely to get leaks like those we get out of NASA...

rick jones

(*) The picture for the December 12st update and then December 4th
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In sci.space.history OM wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:48:26 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones
wrote:

The picture of the first-stage 9 engine cluster being hauld down off
the test stand seemed to show something other than kevlar between the
engines. Looked more like substantial metal to my peanut gallery
eyes. (*)

...Perhaps it's simply some sort of protective sheeting to prevent
possible bouncing of the engines between each other during the
booster's erection on the pad?

Certainly a possiblity - I commented/asked about it directly to a
member of the SpaceX PR group do not recall getting an answer on that
score. I have gotten other answers to other questions. Still, no
way to know if it was dropped by accident or design.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...