5 ms·

That's the point - they're discovering the limits. The other way to do this would be to over engineer, have more conservative testing, etc. But Musk has been c

That's the point - they're discovering the limits. The other way to do this would be to over engineer, have more conservative testing, etc. But Musk has been clear that they've explicitly chosen a strategy of fast iteration, and breaking things instead. And that's one of the primary things that gives them an edge over NASA.

gameswithgo 6y ago
are you an aerospace engineer or someone just trying to find a positive take on the forth explosion?
- missosoup 6y ago
  You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to be aware of the spaceX R&D strategy which has been spelled out pretty clearly by Musk and others in various interviews. I'm not saying the failure was intended, I'm saying the reason there are so many failures because they opted to go hard and fast, while government funded shops like NASA can't afford to have such a high failure rate because of the optics and politics. This modality to R&D isn't at all unique to aerospace and is more of a business/management issue so I'm not sure why you think an engineer would have anything more meaningful to say. As Kelly Johnson of skunkworks said, you can't have innovation unless you are prepared to see failures.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    This sounds reasonable, but as always, A -> B doesn't mean B -> A. Failures are not clear evidence that the innovation strategy is working as planned.
    - missosoup 6y ago
      The whole fundamental concept of innovation is that there is no plan. If there's a clear path to get to where you want to go, then you don't need to innovate. Innovation is the act of exploring the unknown regions of the problem search space. No, there's no guarantee they picked an optimal strategy. If such a guarantee were possible, they wouldn't need to be trying and failing in the first place. What there is clear evidence of, is you generally reach your goal faster if you're more risk tolerant. And that's very well understood by now. Various r&d folk from NASA have also said that they wish they could go harder and faster. But because they're micromanaged by congress, every failure is very expensive politically.
      - jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
        > The whole fundamental concept of innovation is that there is no plan. Definitely not true. > What there is clear evidence of, is you generally reach your goal faster if you're more risk tolerant. If budget is unlimited, perhaps. In real life, not so much.
        redis_mlc 6y ago
        You and rumanator don't know what you're talking about and you seem puritanical to boot. If a rocket never fails, it means it's too heavy (overdesigned.) That's why Musk is ok with failures early on - he wants that data. So whether a destructive test is intentional or not, it does provide data for the next iteration. It's irrelevant if somebody "plans" or "hopes" for a new rocket to work tomorrow. It either works, or doesn't.
      - rumanator 6y ago
        > The whole fundamental concept of innovation is that there is no plan. This assertion is utterly absurd. These guys aren't the jackass crew just figuring out what to blow up next just for kicks. Please, do not add more noise to the discussion.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to be aware of the spaceX R&D strategy which has been spelled out pretty clearly by Musk and others in various interviews. This baseless assertion makes no sense. Your personal interpretation of cherry-picked PR talking points do not trump basic engineering practices. I mean, just look at the facts. The company was planning on flying the thing after the static tests, and now it can't because it exploded. Does that seem to you something that's part of a strategy? Failing milestones because things explode unpredictedly? If you are not an engineer, let alone an aerospace engineer, then please listen more and talk less.
    - dang 6y ago
      Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and especially please don't cross into personal attack here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    The stated attitude of a company as public as SpaceX is carefully tuned and measured. The actual attitude internally is likely to be substantially different.
    - Melting_Harps 6y ago
      > The stated attitude of a company as public as SpaceX is carefully tuned and measured. The actual attitude internally is likely to be substantially different. Its still a Musk corp, and as I was told at Tesla 'Elon gets, what Elon wants.' Its really odd philosphy but not entirely surprising, because I was going for Operational Support roles, not Engineering where its understood he has full reign, and it was felt in those department's leads/directors. As for SN4, well, what's the saying: Progress is messy. Aerospace has lots of failures. Onto SN5!
  - danson 6y ago
    Please don't let these rather aggressive comments from Ruminator and others stop you commenting. You put forward perfectly reasonable observations and it is frustrating when someone tries to silence others using the appalling Credentials Fallacy. It is perfectly logical to say at the macro level our "take risks, move fast" strategy will produce more failures, whilst at the micro level being very disappointed at each failure. Now, if this was a manned mission with life at stake I would expect the risk approach to be modulated accordingly. But even so, astronauts are not civilian passages and even they knowingly embrace flying at high risk. It would be interesting to know how (and if) SpaceX has approached derisking manned flight. Because the PR from blowing up humans is not good whether you're NASA or a private company.

gameswithgo 6y ago

are you an aerospace engineer or someone just trying to find a positive take on the forth explosion?

missosoup 6y ago
You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to be aware of the spaceX R&D strategy which has been spelled out pretty clearly by Musk and others in various interviews. I'm not saying the failure was intended, I'm saying the reason there are so many failures because they opted to go hard and fast, while government funded shops like NASA can't afford to have such a high failure rate because of the optics and politics. This modality to R&D isn't at all unique to aerospace and is more of a business/management issue so I'm not sure why you think an engineer would have anything more meaningful to say. As Kelly Johnson of skunkworks said, you can't have innovation unless you are prepared to see failures.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  This sounds reasonable, but as always, A -> B doesn't mean B -> A. Failures are not clear evidence that the innovation strategy is working as planned.
  - missosoup 6y ago
    The whole fundamental concept of innovation is that there is no plan. If there's a clear path to get to where you want to go, then you don't need to innovate. Innovation is the act of exploring the unknown regions of the problem search space. No, there's no guarantee they picked an optimal strategy. If such a guarantee were possible, they wouldn't need to be trying and failing in the first place. What there is clear evidence of, is you generally reach your goal faster if you're more risk tolerant. And that's very well understood by now. Various r&d folk from NASA have also said that they wish they could go harder and faster. But because they're micromanaged by congress, every failure is very expensive politically.
    - jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
      > The whole fundamental concept of innovation is that there is no plan. Definitely not true. > What there is clear evidence of, is you generally reach your goal faster if you're more risk tolerant. If budget is unlimited, perhaps. In real life, not so much.
      - redis_mlc 6y ago
        You and rumanator don't know what you're talking about and you seem puritanical to boot. If a rocket never fails, it means it's too heavy (overdesigned.) That's why Musk is ok with failures early on - he wants that data. So whether a destructive test is intentional or not, it does provide data for the next iteration. It's irrelevant if somebody "plans" or "hopes" for a new rocket to work tomorrow. It either works, or doesn't.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > The whole fundamental concept of innovation is that there is no plan. This assertion is utterly absurd. These guys aren't the jackass crew just figuring out what to blow up next just for kicks. Please, do not add more noise to the discussion.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to be aware of the spaceX R&D strategy which has been spelled out pretty clearly by Musk and others in various interviews. This baseless assertion makes no sense. Your personal interpretation of cherry-picked PR talking points do not trump basic engineering practices. I mean, just look at the facts. The company was planning on flying the thing after the static tests, and now it can't because it exploded. Does that seem to you something that's part of a strategy? Failing milestones because things explode unpredictedly? If you are not an engineer, let alone an aerospace engineer, then please listen more and talk less.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and especially please don't cross into personal attack here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ironmagma 6y ago
  The stated attitude of a company as public as SpaceX is carefully tuned and measured. The actual attitude internally is likely to be substantially different.
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    > The stated attitude of a company as public as SpaceX is carefully tuned and measured. The actual attitude internally is likely to be substantially different. Its still a Musk corp, and as I was told at Tesla 'Elon gets, what Elon wants.' Its really odd philosphy but not entirely surprising, because I was going for Operational Support roles, not Engineering where its understood he has full reign, and it was felt in those department's leads/directors. As for SN4, well, what's the saying: Progress is messy. Aerospace has lots of failures. Onto SN5!
- danson 6y ago
  Please don't let these rather aggressive comments from Ruminator and others stop you commenting. You put forward perfectly reasonable observations and it is frustrating when someone tries to silence others using the appalling Credentials Fallacy. It is perfectly logical to say at the macro level our "take risks, move fast" strategy will produce more failures, whilst at the micro level being very disappointed at each failure. Now, if this was a manned mission with life at stake I would expect the risk approach to be modulated accordingly. But even so, astronauts are not civilian passages and even they knowingly embrace flying at high risk. It would be interesting to know how (and if) SpaceX has approached derisking manned flight. Because the PR from blowing up humans is not good whether you're NASA or a private company.