Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonethewiser | Hacker News Reader

I understand the distinction but I wonder if it’s only useful because of the weird nature of previous rocket engineering efforts. Notably, NASA contracting out different components due to the quirks of being a government entity. SpaceX is much different than that but aren’t they rather similar to, say, car companies?

I mean if SpaceX is a rocket factory company, isn’t Ford a car factory company? We just don’t include factory because it’s redundant.

View on HN

Most definitely! I mean, Ford was revolutionary because it was the first car factory company, right?

Before that, you had to have a weird german guy hand build your buggy.

Before Ford, there were thousands of bespoke car manufacturers all around the world, producing units in the hundreds per year.

The thing that made Ford revolutionary is precision mass production . You could take parts produced in factories on different continents and freely interchange them. Parts with tolerance of a thousandth of an inch.

Ford bought out Johansson just to make sure he had access to the gage blocks that were the enabling technology of the day.

Well, they’re a manufacturer. The product is cars. Car factories are a prerequisite.

There probably _is_ a similar, relevant distinction between mass-manufactured cars like Ford's and hand-built high-end cars like, I dunno, a McLaren F1, though. We don't use this exact terminology, but I think SpaceX is trying to be Ford in contrast to the legacy players, which are McLaren.

Sure, but for now it seems like a nice succinct way of communicating the difference from the legacy rocket companies.

When there was demand, the "legacy rocket companies" mass produced.

Atlas missile ICBM assembly line, Convair, San Diego, 1950s.[1]

[1] https://live.staticflickr.com/7715/17145288136_e217444837_b....

Continuous versus discrete improvement, largely a function of our public procurement process.

yeah i think any company that's more than just a brand name / middle man could say that their production process is their product rather than what they actually sell.

spacex does not sell any rocket factories even if that is what they spend the most money on developing so i'd consider them a rocket company because to me a company should probably be described by what brings in the income

at some level, even a middle man could say that they are a sourcing and branding company rather whatever product bears their name

They don’t sell rockets either. They are primarily a launch provider.

"I mean if SpaceX is a rocket factory company, isn’t Ford a car factory company? We just don’t include factory because it’s redundant.

I think you could call any company that tries to mass produce something a "X factory company" because from a certain scale on production and supply chains are where the real knowledge is. Apple could be called a "phone factory company".

>Apple could be called a "phone factory company".

Could it? It doesn't actually make them. It hires 3rd party companies for that. Where Ford owns/operates factories that produces their products. Unless I'm confused and Ford doesn't own their factories?

Ownership doesn't seem particularly important. Apple designs the specifications, the supply chains, and the QC, leaving a few pieces of the labor supply up to partners.

Still seems like a phone factory company, even if they don't own everything soup to nuts like early auto factories tried to do.

They're a phone manufacturing process company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com