Just like landings have become routine, it appears manned dragon launches are boring now too. There are news articles but buried at the bottom of pages. No one here is discussing it and honestly not even much in the main sub either. Just thought it was curious!

In case you are not familiar with the WeWork story, it was a real estate company that claimed that it is revolutionizing shared work space or whatever, it basically rented office buildings for long term from owners, and then rented out offices separately for individuals.
The company grew very quickly and at some point I believe they were the largest real estate company in the world, but after a few years of activity it turned out that they were losing money. They basically used the investors money for rapid expansion, and when they went to IPO and had to disclose their books they were exposed.

I think something like that may be happening at SpaceX. First it's a private company that keeps its financial affairs in secret, therefore one can only guess what is going on over there. But recent report by WSJ claimed that SpaceX is losing money. They lost a billion in 2021, and half a billion in 2022.
Now I find it very strange. They are the company that claims that they reinvented the space industry, that they managed to drastically cut the cost of rockets by preserving them by being able to land them safely. Taking this into account, that they are the only space company in the world that is able to reuse rockets, and they are very busy and getting new orders all the time, but nevertheless they still lose money?
They are supposed to be making bank, or at least to break even by now, instead they lose hundreds of millions each year. If they are not profitable by this point, when will they be?

Also all this talk about Starlink... but it was also subsidized, and now the US goverment decided to pull the plug by not renewing the 900 mil grant for next year. It's not a commercially viable product on its own. Is SpaceX going to lose money on it too without the subsidies? 900 mil is a lot of money.

I mean I don't know... maybe they invest extensively in their next rocket "Starship" and maybe that's why they lose money, and when it will be finished then maybe they'll become profitable. I don't know. That's if I'm trying to be optimistic.

But something is fishy about this spaceX. I won't be surprised if it goes bust if the US government decides to pull the plug on it. A revolutionary company that redefined the industry is supposed to be profitable and not depend on government subsidies, which is not the case with SpaceX. Something fishy is going on over there.

Musk also had to attract a shitload of money to be able to develope all those rockets, I'm sure he had to sell a lot of shares to get that money. I won't be surprised if he only owns like 10% of SpaceX.

I recently got a coding assessment for a sensor firmware position at SpaceX and pretty much bombed it. I wanted to outline what the assessment was and to ask if it seems more like a “Leet Code” type question or if you think it was something that is good to vet for a position like this?

Some additional background. I had an initial phone screen to talk about my background and work history with the recruiter and then moved on to a technical phone screen with the team manager and a senior engineer. That phone screen was very good in that both asked probing questions about basics of bare-metal development and also a good bit on signal processing, filtering, and sampling since it was very relevant for their teams job of sensor development. Both interviewers were asking really good questions and I felt like I was being asked about stuff relevant for the job. I thought I had bombed that part because I only vaguely knew about the signal processing stuff way back from uni days but seemed to do well enough that I got the take home assessment.

The take home assessment itself was coding done in either C or C++ (your choice). It was a gene sequencing program where you’re given a file that contains a long sequence of nucleotides (A, T, C, G) along with spaces, new lines, other irrelevant characters or numbers. You need to read the file, detect the start codon (ATG), process it codons following that start codon until you hit an end codon (3 possible codon combinations, I forget what they were). As you’re reading and processing the gene you need to translate the codons to the appropriate amino acid (you’re given a translation table in the problem statement and can also look it up online) and basically construct the protein (amino acid combination, another series of letters/characters) based on each three letter codon with in an appropriate gene (defined by a proper start and end codon). Then the final output should be the protein, the gene sequence (with start and end codons) that it got translated from (and there could be one or more genes with slightly different codons that map to the same protein so you need to list all of them), and the number of times that protein appears.

All of this should work within O(N²⁾ time. And you’re given 6 hours to complete the program with the first hour given to write up a plan for how you’re going to code it and estimate the big-O performance.

I chose to do it in C and build up a linked list of the full sequence and then do a one time traversal through that linked list and build out another linked list of the protein, associated gene(s), and gene count….and botched it badly because of confusion with managing the multiple linked lists head node. (One big take away for me is that my C coding really needs to be stepped up).

My question (from before) is do you guys think this is more of a “Leet Code” style question or something that is fair for a primarily bare-metal position? (I even asked about RTOS use and they said it’s not as much).

I’m not complaining about this as it was pretty fun honestly and at least I know I need a lot more work on my C now. But I wanted to get other peoples thoughts on this.

It's no secret that SpaceX has driven commercial launch prices down several times (, ). But I haven't seen estimates of how much impact it had on NASA, so I tried to answer this question.

Lower bound

To establish a minimum savings estimate I took SpaceX and 2nd contractor prices in the COTS, CRS, CCDev and CCP programs, as well as available US launch vehicles based on spacecraft mass and orbit. Please note that in the absence of SpaceX, their place would have been taken by the contractor ranked 3rd in the competition whose bid was worse than the 2nd in terms of price or other important parameters.

For example, Dragon 1 originally had a payload capacity of up and 2,500 kg down, while Cygnus had only 2,000 kg up and zero down. Since the Space Shuttle retirement in 2011 the only other recoverable capsule has been the Russian Soyuz with a 50 kg payload down and ~2 flights per year, making Dragon 1 unique in its capabilities. So the actual savings and benefits of choosing SpaceX would most likely have been noticeably higher than this estimate.

This $6.8B estimate also doesn’t take into account the drop in launch prices of SpaceX rivals driven by competition. For example, ULA was forced to reduce minimum launch prices from to in 2016 and to ~$100M with the debut of the Vulcan Centaur earlier this year. At the same time, maximum prices dropped from to ~$200M. Without competition, prices followed inflation, which would have brought them to the range of $160M to $500M by now. This would lead the total estimate to ~$9B.

Upper bound

Between 1974 and 1987, attempted to commercialize the launch market using the approach of mass production of simple boosters. In 1997-2000, tried the classic approach, but gave up when they saw potential competition from the launch vehicles that NASA was going to fund. Between 1993 and 2010, tried to develop something like the canceled Falcon 5 with a reusable booster, initially with private funding and then with NASA's help.

The last example was by SpaceX, which ultimately led to the start of the COTS program. But it's hard to imagine that they could have been a commercial success considering they spent almost on a ready launch vehicle with performance between Falcon 1 () and Falcon 9 v1.0 ($360M) that the surge in activity in the of communications satellite constellations.

Even without SpaceX's intervention, by the time the Kistler K-1 could have been ready it would have had almost no payloads on the commercial market and too few NASA payloads to justify reusability. Kistler's successor to the COTS program (Orbital) would face the same problem of insufficient launch cadence for Antares, which would prevent them from driving down prices.

Watching this struggle leads to wonder: what would have happened if COTS and subsequent programs had never arisen? Or what if COTS had arisen, but was killed by Congress at the first pretext of underperformance? They have never been fans of commercialization and would happily return NASA to the old business approach if they could find an excuse.

According to NASA estimates the old approach would have cost in 2017 prices ($2.2-5.1B in current) just to build a Falcon 9 analog, not counting Dragon 1 and redundancy in the form of Antares/Cygnus which combined cost NASA only $821M ($1B current). A Falcon 9 Block 5/Crew Dragon replacement would cost NASA ($34.6-48.8B current) while SpaceX and Boeing's fixed contracts only provide ($7B current) for building redundant manned spacecraft.

This means NASA has saved $28.8-41.8B on the COTS and CCDev programs alone, which would need to be doubled for redundancy. But let's be honest, without the commercial program, NASA would never have had the redundancy just like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle never had it. That means the top estimate could be anywhere between $38B and $50B.

Near future (2024-2025)

I think one cautionary story is worth mentioning in this context. The Europa Clipper mission was originally designed to be launched on . In , Congress directed NASA to use SLS instead, which would have required a redesign of the spacecraft to withstand the rougher launch on it. According to the NASA OIG report from 2021 the launch cost of the first four SLS missions was estimated to be at least each and in 2023 they raised that estimate by another .

Furthermore, Europa Clipper was originally scheduled to launch on the 2nd SLS mission in and despite a 2 year schedule delay, SLS development has been so slow that NASA no longer has a spare launch vehicle until at least the lunar landing of Artemis 3. This means that the launch could happen no earlier than , and since the spacecraft will be ready for launch in October 2024, this could add another in storage costs.

Ironically, the only advantage of the SLS was a direct trajectory that should have allowed the flight to be shortened to . But the delays mean that Falcon Heavy will be able to deliver Europa Clipper to the Jupiter system in , while SLS no earlier than May 2031. And all the launch-related costs would have been at least $3,464M to NASA instead of the $178M they would pay SpaceX.

Medium-term perspective

The Artemis program is estimated at in 2012-2025, which is nearly a third of NASA's budget over that period. Almost 60% of that comes from SLS/Orion, which is by NASA senior officials and the inspector general as "unaffordable" and "unsustainable". And reading this story, you can guess why.

NASA's current total investment in commercial space is of the total budget, or even less than the average investment in SLS/Orion. For that, commercial space already provides all of NASA's transportation to the ISS starting in 2020 while SLS/Orion sits waiting for the opportunity to send 4 astronauts to the middle of nowhere where they will transfer to a commercial lunar lander.

Someday NASA may even build a Gateway space station there to justify the existence of SLS/Orion just like Congress tried with the Europa Clipper. It will be 3-4 times more expensive to build and maintain than a station in low Earth orbit with the "advantages" of rare flybys 15 times farther from the Moon than the Apollo missions and double the crew's exposure to radiation from galactic cosmic rays.

People often ask why there is so much hatred for SLS and I want to answer from my perspective: where you see a cool big rocket, I see lost opportunities. Imagine what commercial space could do with the current level of investment a decade ago and twice that now. We would certainly have a commercial station to replace the ISS by now and NASA would have freed up a lot of money for a truly sustainable lunar program that would make final preparations for Mars.

Instead, we are now doubting whether Artemis program will be sustainable at all. If SLS/Orion continues to eat up most of the Artemis budget long enough, NASA will not have the funds to develop equipment for lunar surface operations and without new achievements this program risks being canceled just like Apollo.

NASA has already taken steps on this path with the commercial HLS and CLPS programs. All that remains for Congress and NASA to do now is cancel the welfare programs for Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman shareholders and invest this money in companies that are willing to put also their own money on the line into making the programs as fast and cheap as possible. Whether we will boldly go down this path or stumble in the middle remains to be seen.

I sometime think the long term prospect of SpaceX.

Many thing can happen in long term. Even though we do not want it, and god forbid, there could be a astraunauts launch fail. As they have really high launch manifest, it also increases the probability of a launch failure.

Elon could die in accident or may decide to retire. There might be some event like boeing or something else.

What do you think will happen in 20 years time frame? Many big company/industry leader died over long term. Do you think SpaceX will be around long term?

Let's put on our tinfoil hats and assume that the secret boardroom rationale for starting SpaceX was always to make a ton of money from internet access via satellite. Sure, the other things Falcon9 does are nice but wouldn't alone be worth the initial investment risk. Following this cynical streak, what is the real, eventual, achieveable driver for bigger, cheaper, vastly-scaled Starship rockets? Is it even better internet? High end orbital manufacturing? Power beaming? Climate control? Rapid point to point earthly travel? Asteroid mining? Tax havens on Mars? Overwhelming economies of scale wiping out the launch competition? Sheer Bond villainy?
Interested in suggestions.

I've always wondered how Dishy knows WHERE to point RF beams.. especially when it's on boats and cars. Old timer dishes needed to be aligned very precisely by an installer to fractions of a degree in angle. Meanwhile the Starlink satellites are moving all over the sky! Yet you can pick up a Dishy from Costco, point it anywhere and turn it on, and it works. It can't possibly know where the satellites are years in advance? So how does Dishy connect to Starlink satellites in seconds when you plug it in?

We also know the Dishy works in GPS-denied environments like Ukraine.

A new SpaceX patent explains,