3 ms·
I think there's some nuance here -- my take is that SpaceX has a very good balance of knowing when going slowly and carefully is critical (launching important c
by bpodgursky 6y ago
I think there's some nuance here -- my take is that SpaceX has a very good balance of knowing when going slowly and carefully is critical (launching important customer vehicles, launching crewed missions), and when it's critical to move fast and iterate (eg, every other time).
SpaceX has blown up a LOT of vehicles via mistakes, by iterating fast and learning from them. They use these as learning experiences, and if they can get a few satellites up in the interim, that's great (see: the starlink launches on re-used rockets). But when it comes to launching actual astronauts, they checked every one of NASA's million boxes.
NASA and Boeing are unfortunately incapable of operating in fast-and-loose mode, even when it would be better to iterate and break a few rockets. The two-mode operation is why SpaceX dominates, and likely will continue to crush.
- baybal2 6y agoI believe they are differentiated by not doing a lot of random iterations in comparison to the competition. Blue Origin for example managed to completely redo pretty much everything about their design few times over, while SpaceX had something resembling Falcon 1, and Falcon 9 on their drawing boards pretty much since the beginning. Too much pivots, too much iterations, and close to no straight advancements.
- bpodgursky 6y agoI mean, I wouldn't call that a real "iteration", since Blue Origin didn't actually build or launch any of those designs.
- Shorel 6y agoIMO a restart is not an iteration. Iteration is "improve the current model". A restart throws the current model away.