
What it took for SpaceX to become a serious space company - ForHackernews
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/what-it-took-for-spacex-to-become-a-serious-space-company/381724/?single_page=true
======
ash
More details about the "young attorney" who had added "a kind of universal
action clause" that allowed NASA to "sort-of invest" in SpaceX:

> I have to share with you, as a sort of sideline, do you know where our Other
> Transaction Authority comes from? The guy who wrote the [National
> Aeronautics and] Space Act, who was just incredible, was a very young guy.
> This was back in 1957, ’58. [Paul G.] Dembling. I had the opportunity a
> couple of times to talk to him, and he told a story which I’m sure is true.
> He was a young attorney and he’d only been practicing for a few years. The
> Russians had launched Sputnik [in 1957], and there was panic in America. We
> did have a military space agency, but President [Dwight D.] Eisenhower said,
> “I need a civil space agency.”

> Mr. Dembling was tasked with writing the Space Act, and he sat down and did
> a lot of research and he wrote it. He told me, “I did the best job I could.
> I read everything, but I knew in the final analysis there might have been
> something I missed. So I sat down and I said, ‘Well, how can I cover that?’
> I can cover that by saying, ‘And NASA can do any other agreement,
> arrangement, whatever it needs to do to fulfill its mission.’” That became
> the Other Transaction Authority. You know how Sherwin-Williams [Company]
> paint covers the world? He basically said, “If I’ve forgotten something, use
> this.”

> … He said, “I sat there, and I thought I probably missed something. Now,
> what can I put in that will let them do whatever they need to do?” Back
> then, in ’58, the whole nation was roiled. It was still the Cold War, the
> Russians had a Sputnik, we could hear it, beep-beep-beeping. Those who were
> alive at that time can remember being taught to get under our little school
> desks and hunker down, like that was going to protect you from an atomic
> weapon. In any event, that was the climate of fear in the country, so
> getting a civil space agency stood up and running was very important. Paul
> came up with the Other Transaction Authority stuff. Who knew, right? Who
> knew?

[http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/C3PO/WholleyM...](http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/C3PO/WholleyMC/WholleyMC_3-19-13.htm)

~~~
TorKlingberg
Could someone explain the reference to Sherwin-Williams? It's a paint company,
but how is that related to the Other Transaction Authority?

~~~
HCIdivision17
Sherwin-Williams has a slogan "Cover the Earth". The reference here being that
this clause covers just about anything NASA could need, colorfully playing off
the slogan (and possibly the idea of CYA).

~~~
snowwrestler
You know, that's actually a really creepy mental image: the entire globe
painted in lurid colors of latex paint. All food sources are coated and
inedible. Every plant is coated and photosynthesis fails. Amphibians can't
breath through their skin and die. People can't sweat and die of heat
exhaustion. The entire biosphere is cut off from the sun and dies and rots
under a millimeter-thick coating of bright paint. Anerobic bacteria gorge
themselves, releasing gases that bubble the paint. Earth is left looking like
a psychedelic beach ball with blisters. Somewhere in the deep sea, only the
tube worms that live off deep ocean volcanic vents are left to carry life
forward.

------
vonklaus
>Last month, NASA said it would pay SpaceX its largest single contract ever,
$2.6 billion

>Boeing, will do the same job but at more than half again the cost—some $4.2
billion.

Leaving aside how horribly this is worded, what does this even mean? Two lines
later it said Boeing was awarded a contract nearly twice as large.

~~~
zaroth
Apparently it's not quite settled. A 3rd company which lost the bid is suing
over just this issue. How can you pay two companies such drastically different
amounts for the same end product?

I think it represents the varying levels of perceived risk in delivery, and a
tacit acknowledgement that SpaceX is simply operating (at least) 2x as
efficiently. If SpaceX fully delivers on their contract, I hope we see Boeing
squeezed harder next time. What would be even more interesting is if SpaceX
were to hit the finish line on time and budget, and Boeing getting lost in
billions of cost overruns and delays. The article talks about "cost+"
accounting, so that may play a part in how this happened as well.

In the end I like that they awarded two contracts. There really is nothing
like good competition to motivate everyone.

~~~
anovikov
Same way Orbital was awarded vastly more for CRS contract, by even larger
margin. Reason is simple and completely valid: both Orbital in 2008 and Boeing
in 2014 have much higher chances to perform to the expectation. So SpaceX
makes a discount for risk.

In 2008, SpaceX did only 4 launches, of which only 1 successful, of much
smaller light Falcon 1 vehicle, Orbital built 2 distinct successful launch
vehicles - Taurus and Pegasus - and apart from that, it built complex
satellites, being a company with 25+ years of experience and much more funding
and track record. Should 2008 CRS contract be awarded today, it would be
probably much different because now SpaceX appears more qualified.

Same applies to Boeing today - for all achievements of SpaceX, Boeing is a
nearly 100 year old company which was in space business since before the space
age, and about two orders of magnitude larger - for them, CST-100 is a simple
device not presenting much technical risk.

~~~
treebeard04
Pegasus has a 5% failure rate. Taurus has a 33% failure rate. Taurus has three
failures in its last four flights. Not impressive. SpaceX had a perfect launch
record on the Falcon 9. Not bad for a 12 year old company. And regarding
Boeing being 100 years old, I'll drive a Tesla and not a Model T, thank you.

~~~
anovikov
Please read my post carefully. Right now yes, SpaceX is more qualified. That
was not the case in 2008 when CRS contract for SpaceX and Orbital was awarded,
both SpaceX track record and success rate were far inferior.

------
stevesmith2
Original version of the article here [http://qz.com/281619/what-it-took-for-
elon-musks-spacex-to-d...](http://qz.com/281619/what-it-took-for-elon-musks-
spacex-to-disrupt-boeing-leapfrog-nasa-and-become-a-serious-space-company/)

~~~
rbirkby
Pop quiz: Which space vehicle does that article misspell. And why?

~~~
readerrrr
Whatever it was, I think they fixed it.

On a similar note:

 _Falcon, Merlin, Kestrel, and Dragon: Not the Victorian virtues—Enterprise,
Endeavor, Discovery—honored by the space shuttles they replace, nor competitor
NASA’s classical Atlas, Orion, Apollo, and Saturn. SpaceX’s machines were made
by people who read pulp fantasy novels as children, or the paperback science
fiction of Musk’s childhood in Pretoria, South Africa_

 _will do the same job but at more than half again the cost—some $4.2
billion._

This isn't English. Who writes like this?

~~~
dragonwriter
Also, "Enterprise" was only very indirectly named for a "Victorian virtue". It
was directly named from scifi -- specifically, the petition campaign for the
shuttle to be named "Enterprise" (the original planned name was
"Constitution") was driven by Star Trek fandom.

~~~
leoc
And of the four SpaceX engine names, only Dragon is unambiguously a fantasy or
mythological name at all. 'Merlin' is the name of a bird
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(bird)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_\(bird\))
just as 'Falcon' and 'Kestrel' are. It's also the name of one of the most
famous aero engines ever [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-
Royce_Merlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin) .

~~~
readerrrr
There is some information floating around the web, names like Millennium
Falcon and Puff the Magic Dragon, but I don't remember Musk saying anything
about them.

------
grecy
Are there any videos of the early Falcon 1 launch failures? A quick google got
me nothing.

~~~
ash
Flight 1: [http://youtu.be/0a_00nJ_Y88](http://youtu.be/0a_00nJ_Y88)

Flight 2: [http://youtu.be/YMvQsmLv44o](http://youtu.be/YMvQsmLv44o)

Flight 3: [http://youtu.be/Qz0yJ8N3cA0](http://youtu.be/Qz0yJ8N3cA0)

~~~
blueintegral
I've seen that same oscillation problem at the end of Flight 2 with some of my
vehicles in Kerbal Space Program before. It's funny to see that on a real
vehicle.

