Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–557 of 557 posts

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#551

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

kurthr wrote: post #451
HeadsUpHigh wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX switched from carbon fiber construction for their next rocket to stainless steel. My guess is at least a big part of this workforce reduction relates to people involved in cf which are no longer needed. Additionally they had a lot of people working on crew dragon which as it now nears it's launch might not be needed any more( e.g. pica heatshield, electronics, software developers etc). Same goes for the now ma…

I just don't buy the Carbon Fiber vs Stainless construction. They aren't used for the same thing (low weight structural stiffness vs heat conduction, radiation & appearance). From what I understand it was a water tank contactor that did the hopper in Boca Chica... and it will never face lanch/re-entry stresses. That won't replace anyone.

The starhopper( test article) is indeed made by a water tank contactor. The actual starship will be made by stainless steel in LA as confirmed by Musk on twitter. Also he mentioned something about stainless steel having better properties than cf.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#552

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

solotronics wrote: post #517
kurthr wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't buy the Carbon Fiber vs Stainless construction. They aren't used for the same thing (low weight structural stiffness vs heat conduction, radiation & appearance). From what I understand it was a water tank contactor that did the hopper in Boca Chica... and it will never face lanch/re-entry stresses. That won't replace anyone.

How will they inspect and test all the welds required... I am still shocked that the BFR is not carbon fiber.

How do you inspect small creaks in a cf build? If I had to guess inspecting welds is probably easier.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#553

Post by syncmaster913n »

roedog wrote: post #484
syncmaster913n wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Launch price does not necessarily tell us anything because we do not know what profit margins SpaceX has.

hmm. So they could be losing money on each launch? But, why would they would they choose to sell at a loss when they could beat the competition at twice the price?

> But, why would they would they choose to sell at a loss when they could beat the competition at twice the price?

Because they promised to cut prices by an order of magnitude. Following a promise like that, you can't just offer a 10-15% price reduction.

Plus, if they offered at twice the current price, I don't believe they would be competitive. Part of the reason they offer a low price is that they have still-new, not-fully-tested technology. Clients accept the increased risk, but they expect significant savings in return.

Also, for certain flight configurations, SpaceX's pricing isn't particularly competitive even at its current level.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#554

Post by roedog »

syncmaster913n wrote: post #553
roedog wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hmm. So they could be losing money on each launch? But, why would they would they choose to sell at a loss when they could beat the competition at twice the price?

> But, why would they would they choose to sell at a loss when they could beat the competition at twice the price? Because they promised to cut prices by an order of magnitude. Following a promise like that, you can't just offer a 10-15% price reduction. Plus, if they offered at twice the current price, I don't believe they would be competitive. Part of the reason they offer a low price is that they have still-new, n…

Ah, I wasn't thinking about their commercial business. I can imagine how that would be more price sensitive.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#555

Post by syncmaster913n »

roedog wrote: post #554
syncmaster913n wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, why would they would they choose to sell at a loss when they could beat the competition at twice the price? Because they promised to cut prices by an order of magnitude. Following a promise like that, you can't just offer a 10-15% price reduction. Plus, if they offered at twice the current price, I don't believe they would be competitive. Part of the reason they offer a low price is that they have still-new, n…

Ah, I wasn't thinking about their commercial business. I can imagine how that would be more price sensitive.

Ah, got it.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#556

Post by inferiorhuman »

sova wrote: post #32
inferiorhuman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a big fraction but it's not necessarily unheard of. For example Autodesk laid off about 13% of its workforce at the end of 2017. Additionally, in California you've got to give plenty of advance notice and as a result the state tracks mass layoffs[1]. 1: https://www.edd.ca.gov/jobs_and_training/Layoff_Services_WAR...

Thanks very much for the link. They only show how many layoffs, and not percentage of workforce. Still, good data.

Ah, this only tracks data for layoffs in California and the the ratio isn't necessarily very useful. OTOH it's a good list of companies engaging in mass layoffs that could be used to look for nationwide trends.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#557

Post by takeda »

mdorazio wrote: post #198
takeda wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waiting until after Christmas is indeed nice, but the 8 weeks is actually mandated by law. California WARN act applies to any site that has at least 70 employees and lays of at least 50. When this is triggered, the employer needs to provide at least 60 days notice.

WARN only applies to notice, not to severance pay. As far as I know, even in a mass layoff situation in CA like this, they are not required to provide any compensation. You could look at it as "hey we're going to fire you in 60 days per WARN, so just stop working now and we'll pay you for that time" but it's not quite the same - they could just notify them, make them work the 8 weeks and not provide any actual severa…

It is about a notice, but once you lay off a person it is a liability to give them access to internal systems. So majority of companies turn it around and make it look like that's also part of severance. It makes them look better and they follow the law. There is no requirement to pay severance anyway.
Post reply on HN