undefined | Better HN

0 pointstoomuchtodo1y ago0 comments

While SpaceX has been successful and innovative, it certainly doesn’t keep folks around. Average tenure is ~3.6 years. Those folks are smart, and can always find work elsewhere. Are we optimizing for the individual? Or for an aerospace manufacturing and supply chain system that requires care and feeding over decades? A tale as old as time.

0 comments

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> While SpaceX has been successful and innovative, it certainly doesn’t keep folks around. Average tenure is ~3.6 years

What was it for the Apollo programme?(The entire programme was 11 years [1].)

> Are we optimizing for the individual? Or for an aerospace manufacturing and supply chain system that requires care and feeding over decades?

I’m not arguing against having more people at NASA. Simply against the claim that this is the evidenced issue. Unless the entire American space programme is a failure, private operators are not the root problem.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

adrianN1y ago

The Apollo program doesn’t seem to be a good example of a space pipeline that is sustainable for a few decades at least.

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> Apollo program doesn’t seem to be a good example of a space pipeline that is sustainable for a few decades at least

Correct. OP suggested the root of the problem is we haven't made "these workers government employees." The Apollo programme had lots of government employees. Commercial interests clearly aren't at the root of the problem.

1 more reply

chrisco2551y ago

As a private company how are you even getting those numbers? I'm certain they vary dramatically by specialty within SpaceX.

cj1y ago

I think LinkedIn exposes these stats on Company pages. Search company and click the Insights tab.

Edit: Median tenure is 2.8 yrs according to LinkedIn.

Jensson1y ago

Average tenure will always be low in a growing company, not due to people leaving but due to people joining.

Can see here space X has more than doubled the number of people the past few years, that is enough to explain that "low tenure", its just due to people joining.

https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/62ac4aacc75a115ff9dcb9bc/639...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> While SpaceX has been successful and innovative, it certainly doesn’t keep folks around. Average tenure is ~3.6 years

What was it for the Apollo programme?(The entire programme was 11 years [1].)

> Are we optimizing for the individual? Or for an aerospace manufacturing and supply chain system that requires care and feeding over decades?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

adrianN1y ago

The Apollo program doesn’t seem to be a good example of a space pipeline that is sustainable for a few decades at least.

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> Apollo program doesn’t seem to be a good example of a space pipeline that is sustainable for a few decades at least

1 more reply

chrisco2551y ago

As a private company how are you even getting those numbers? I'm certain they vary dramatically by specialty within SpaceX.

cj1y ago

I think LinkedIn exposes these stats on Company pages. Search company and click the Insights tab.

Edit: Median tenure is 2.8 yrs according to LinkedIn.

Jensson1y ago

Average tenure will always be low in a growing company, not due to people leaving but due to people joining.

Can see here space X has more than doubled the number of people the past few years, that is enough to explain that "low tenure", its just due to people joining.

https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/62ac4aacc75a115ff9dcb9bc/639...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse