Would Starbase or Starship even exist as a concept or program of SpaceX, if it hadn't been for Musk? Would Shotwell have created the Starship program at SpaceX? Would Shotwell even have pushed for the reusable booster program at SpaceX or would she have went with expendable first stages? No one is taking anything away from Shotwell, but fact is, it is Musk who is making reusability, full reusability, on-orbit refueling, and super-heavy lift a priority of R&D at SpaceX.
And this has nothing to do with gender. Steve Jobs got all of the accolades for everything amazing that Apple did. He stole credit from Steve Wozniak, and from all of the other brilliant designers and engineers at Apple, but people mostly gave him a pass. But to deny Steve as the driving force for many of decisions, even if Steve had nothing to do with Apple's amazing supply chain management, or semiconductor team, is also distorting history. No Steve Jobs, no iPhone, no Mac. No Musk, no Starship. It's just that simple, Musk isn't an executive to set out to make a rocket company to make money launching satellites, he set out to make humans multiplanetary, and everything flows from that vision. His obsession with that dream is the core driver behind everything else.
Musk creates the 'urgency' at SpaceX. Blue Origin isn't doing jack because they are careful with money, Blue Origin is wasting money. They've spent $1 billion a year! They're not doing anything because they're running a traditional waterfall model of development and they have no urgency, becausefor Bezos this is a hobby. They're OldSpace dressed up in NewSpace clothing.
What you're doing is trying to remove the person who controls the purse springs, who is pushing his company to engage in risky, unsafe, but potentially revolutionary vision, from the story. Put a traditional CEO in Musk's chair and you'll get a guy managing a 5% YoY improvement in their existing Falcon 9 business lines every year. They'll rest on their butt milking the Falcon 9 with tweaks, and they'll be stuck in the innovators dilemma for fear of killing the golden goose, or risking the company.
And it's for that reason, since the 1960s, the basic formula for aerospace companies hasn't changed.
Also to be clear, I'm a big fan of Shotwell. But you can be a fan of both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook, of the visionary risk taker with the obsessive personality, and the person responsible for executing it. With the ADHD and the OCD founders. You need both kinds of people.
And this has nothing to do with gender. Steve Jobs got all of the accolades for everything amazing that Apple did. He stole credit from Steve Wozniak, and from all of the other brilliant designers and engineers at Apple, but people mostly gave him a pass. But to deny Steve as the driving force for many of decisions, even if Steve had nothing to do with Apple's amazing supply chain management, or semiconductor team, is also distorting history. No Steve Jobs, no iPhone, no Mac. No Musk, no Starship. It's just that simple, Musk isn't an executive to set out to make a rocket company to make money launching satellites, he set out to make humans multiplanetary, and everything flows from that vision. His obsession with that dream is the core driver behind everything else.
Musk creates the 'urgency' at SpaceX. Blue Origin isn't doing jack because they are careful with money, Blue Origin is wasting money. They've spent $1 billion a year! They're not doing anything because they're running a traditional waterfall model of development and they have no urgency, becausefor Bezos this is a hobby. They're OldSpace dressed up in NewSpace clothing.
What you're doing is trying to remove the person who controls the purse springs, who is pushing his company to engage in risky, unsafe, but potentially revolutionary vision, from the story. Put a traditional CEO in Musk's chair and you'll get a guy managing a 5% YoY improvement in their existing Falcon 9 business lines every year. They'll rest on their butt milking the Falcon 9 with tweaks, and they'll be stuck in the innovators dilemma for fear of killing the golden goose, or risking the company.
And it's for that reason, since the 1960s, the basic formula for aerospace companies hasn't changed.
Also to be clear, I'm a big fan of Shotwell. But you can be a fan of both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook, of the visionary risk taker with the obsessive personality, and the person responsible for executing it. With the ADHD and the OCD founders. You need both kinds of people.