i've done a lot of contract work for spacex. imo i think part of the reason they work so much is because they have no formal methods group. everyone seems to solve similar problems in slightly different ways instead of having a vetted and documented 'right' way to approach certain things. i've literally been paid to write code that does the same thing for different groups in slightly different ways. having done a lot of aerospace contracting, this is atypical from what i've seen elsewhere. my point is that if they formed a methods group to formalize and standardize across the entire org they might be fine with a 10% cut if they're not duplicating efforts all over the place.
Can you comment on this from the perspective of how the method works, as in the results it produces and why, as opposed to whether it's standard/common or not? To me, SpaceX is remarkable because they've done what the rest of the world failed to do for 20 years. That's of course a combination of factors - vision, drive, start-up mentality - but are their actual processes/development methods also in any way better than in traditional space companies?
Appreciate if you can provide an anecdata: those you’ve worked with should have no problems landing another job? Just trying to get a feel of whether this will be a minor or major stress event for those fired.
From what I've heard from the SpaceX and ULA people I know (although there may be some sample bias because most of the SpaceX people I know quit due to the hours), that's not really the case. ULA is more of a 9-5 company, especially for union folks, whereas SpaceX is more of a 60-80 hours/week kind of place.
That's usually what happens basically everywhere. I 'survived' multiple rounds of layoffs and they always touch stuff that's deemed 'unnecessary' but needs to be kept alive and thus adding to the workload of already overworked employees.
