3 ms·

SpaceX looks like a software company that has had success with their product so far but is in the process of a major refactoring to a new technology base. Basi

SpaceX looks like a software company that has had success with their product so far but is in the process of a major refactoring to a new technology base. Basically if they want to fly reusable rockets with high reliability and low refurbishment time and cost, they have to redesign and rebuild quite a lot. And they need new philosophies and processes. You can for example look at their current Merlin gas generator technology engines. The chosen cycle results in high temperatures for the turbine, something which works against reliability and reusability. They have the staged combustion Raptor engine coming up, but they are too big to be used as landing engines, so they have to do that in another way. Gas generator as a first engine (and pressure fed upper stage) makes a lot of sense though. On the other hand, Virgin Galactic chose an unconventional and hard to scale technology: hybrid rockets, which has proved even more problematic. As a fairly technical person, you look at these companies and organizations (NASA) and feel how they just simply can't make technically informed decisions higher up. SpaceX has improved a lot historically though. Do you know if there are companies with technical leadership?

Retric 10y ago
Projects are never going to pick the perfect solution out of the gate. But, tested compromises also have value. I would suggest SpaceX freeze a design every 5-7 years that's good enough to scale while cheaper than it's completion and then have a more experimental path. If option A costs 20 million more, but has a 98+% success rate and option B saves 20 million then the market can chose which to focus on. The real 'problem' spaceX is facing is humans simply don't send all that much stuff into space, so they are never get enough data get the experimental path stable.

Retric 10y ago

Projects are never going to pick the perfect solution out of the gate. But, tested compromises also have value. I would suggest SpaceX freeze a design every 5-7 years that's good enough to scale while cheaper than it's completion and then have a more experimental path. If option A costs 20 million more, but has a 98+% success rate and option B saves 20 million then the market can chose which to focus on. The real 'problem' spaceX is facing is humans simply don't send all that much stuff into space, so they are never get enough data get the experimental path stable.