ptfrd

There have been tons of reports of his subordinates having to manage him.

I've seen rumours like that online, but I doubt there are tons of reliable testimonies. (Though if you feel like spending the time digging some up, I'd be happy to go & read them, and update my views accordingly.)

But perhaps there's no smoke without fire, and I do see how his style could lead to rumours like that.

I'll start by mentioning a couple of his edicts.

1. Something like "try deleting the part or process" [from your design]. He had some rough metric like "if you aren't finding that 10% of the parts you try deleting end up needing to be added back in [to the design], then you haven't been deleting aggressively enough".

2. Something like "assume the requirements [that you have been asked to meet] are wrong". Talk to the other teams, and the people designing your interface or creating your requirements. Push back.

These both seem plausibly correct to me, and it's these - and perhaps many dozens of other similarly 'weird' aspects of his approach that he has adopted over the years - which are why I suspect his multiple successes are not a fluke.

And then, you can imagine a similar type of thinking applied in a 'meta' way. Basically, if Musk isn't finding that at least 10% of his crazy edicts are getting significant push-back from his teams, and eventually get dropped, then maybe he's not being crazy enough. And that certainly means there'll be examples that could lead, sometimes with some embellishment, sometimes not, to the kinds of rumours you allude to.

says they have to change a design because he thinks it doesn’t look cool

Well, yes, he's definitely weird in this way sometimes. Often placing value in aesthetics, and sometimes comedy. (Like with the "make the rocket more pointy" thing.) But seemingly not enough to cause his projects to fail. (So maybe that's ultimately a good thing too; a bit of quirkiness to remind himself and others not to take things TOO seriously.)

For a bit of context, Give Well reckons there's at least one charitable programme where it only costs $5000 to save a human life.

Also, the total budget request for this deorbit plan (including launch and operating costs, etc.) is more like $1.5 billion.

And again, I know something like this US Deorbit Vehicle is the only realistic option. But if I was Bill Nelson I'd at least be writing a quick letter to the UN; let them be the ones to make this (probably) wrong decision.

I think he's a genius. Not on this issue, of course (though if he's read any of the Cass Review he's way ahead of the people down-voting me for accurately quoting it).

But probably the best engineering manager there's ever been.

Will Falcon 9 be enough, or Falcon Heavy be required?

https://www.youtube.com/live/Dw1JXZwo00o?t=34m48s (34:48) Seems to imply Falcon 9 is insufficient.

Cool, but not the best use of $0.8 billion. NASA should go to the UN and try to get a load of countries to agree to just accept the risk of an uncontrolled re-entry. Keep $0.01 billion to compensate for any damage/injury caused. Give the rest to poverty alleviation.

Out of interest, if there are specific parts of the ISS that are expected to survive re-entry, could they be removed and put in a Cygnus or something? Leaving the rest to fully burn up?

And how bad an idea would it be to wait until the ISS is a day away from re-entry, and then launch a missile at it? (Presumably it would be better if they could use a trajectory where the missile approaches the ISS from above.)

(Yes, I know, none of this will ever happen. I'm just interested in any thoughts anyone has.)

For $0.8 billion I'd design a new engine! (Would have to learn rocket science first but I'd be able to afford the best teachers, so doable.)

Does DK apply here? The most comprehensive report & evidence review that I know of says:

Parents should be encouraged to seek clinical help and advice in deciding how to support a child with gender incongruence and should be prioritised on the waiting list for early consultation on [the issue of social transition].

Clinical involvement in the decision-making process should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training.

Doesn't sound like the author thinks social transition is the kind of thing teachers should normally be making decisions about.

Thanks for posting. I suggest considering adding "Unofficial" to the title of this post.

FAO Will (or anyone else associated with Spaceflight Now):

In the current version of this article, one of the paragraphs appears twice!

True. And I guess the likelihood of there being much left to look at, let alone any actually useful visible clues, is not high. (Bearing in mind the RUD seems to have been destructive enough to have incapacitated 75% of the satellites.)

I wonder if they considered sacrificing one of the contactable satellites, trying to send it back towards the 2nd stage in the hope of getting some useful camera views, or anything like that.

A tweet from Musk

Upper stage restart to raise perigee resulted in an engine RUD for reasons currently unknown. Team is reviewing data tonight to understand root cause.

Starlink satellites were deployed, but the perigee may be too low for them to raise orbit. Will know more in a few hours.