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

How come Blue Origin with earlier start with richer founder is so behind?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: How come Blue Origin with earlier start with richer founder is so behind?

#11

Post by anon1199022 »

joshxyz wrote: post #10
userinanother wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue is run by accountants, spacex is run by engineers with a megalomaniac nominally in charge but well contained

musk fan here, highly accurate. even the internal tech emails of him saying "what did you get done this week?" brings chills to my spine.

Is it possible to "lead" a lot people with being really nice and kind tho? Those things are really important and not for great leaders IMO. In reality people don't follow kindness or nice people. They follow leaders and money.

Re: How come Blue Origin with earlier start with richer founder is so behind?

#12

Post by PaulHoule »

anon1199022 wrote: post #11
joshxyz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

musk fan here, highly accurate. even the internal tech emails of him saying "what did you get done this week?" brings chills to my spine.

Is it possible to "lead" a lot people with being really nice and kind tho? Those things are really important and not for great leaders IMO. In reality people don't follow kindness or nice people. They follow leaders and money.

Somebody nice with a realistic business plan (skip the suborbital "rocket to nowhere") would have accomplished more than Branson and Bezos ever did. I don't know about Branson, but nobody ever accused Bezos of being a nice guy.

Re: How come Blue Origin with earlier start with richer founder is so behind?

#13

Post by atleastoptimal »

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

SpaceX followed the path of least resistance. First they developed launch systems that targeted the middle of the space launch system that weren't terribly "high tech" but were designed with cost optimization in mind. Then they developed a real business, and they pursued re-usability in a conservative way as a further cost optimization. After all of that (and capturing a huge amount of the market) SpaceX began develo…

Also, SpaceX promotes itself as very mission focused and exciting. By doing so they end up getting the best people.

Among Musk's successful customs in running his businesses is going above and beyond in recruiting. He is very personal and direct with every hire he goes after, as he seems to understand or at least recognize the substantial difference in the 5-year out outcome of a company between getting someone who is 99.9th percentile vs 99.99th+ percentile.

Re: How come Blue Origin with earlier start with richer founder is so behind?

#14

Post by spikels »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #6
allears wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is corporate culture. Blue Origin (not "Ocean") behaves like Old Space, companies like Boeing, who spend a huge amount of time designing and debating before they even bend a piece of metal. SpaceX on the other hand likes to move fast and fail forward. They'd rather build a lot of prototypes and blow up a few, and learn a whole lot in the process. Also, Musk is a fanatic and workaholic, and drives his e…

Isn't this also a difference in safety-ethic? SpaceX seems to have a rather high number of failures, crashes and even killed people, but also a higher activity. And Musk in general seems to prefer a style of "move fast, crash hard, grow quick".

Is this a joke? SpaceX has the most reliable launch service in human history.

Re: How come Blue Origin with earlier start with richer founder is so behind?

#15

Post by mensetmanusman »

anon1199022 wrote: post #11
joshxyz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

musk fan here, highly accurate. even the internal tech emails of him saying "what did you get done this week?" brings chills to my spine.

Is it possible to "lead" a lot people with being really nice and kind tho? Those things are really important and not for great leaders IMO. In reality people don't follow kindness or nice people. They follow leaders and money.

Nice is only required when you are leading with no institutional power. If you have power, nice is a waste of time.
Post reply on HN