5 ms·
True, but they are failing very, very, slowly. The big difference between NASA and SpaceX lies in how fast they each move, and what they are failing at. Faili
by ElFitz 6y ago
True, but they are failing very, very, slowly.
The big difference between NASA and SpaceX lies in how fast they each move, and what they are failing at.
Failing at launching the first private rocket on a tight budget, at landing a rocket for the first time, or at iterating on rocket designs at pace rarely, if ever, seen before is expected. As a matter of fact, it’s success that isn’t expected.
Failing at making yet another (very expensive) rocket built by supposedly experienced manufacturers overseen by a huge public organisation over more than a decade with huge funding? Well, it’s a bit disturbing to say the least.
- pfdietz 6y agoSpaceX learns by doing, not by years of expensive analysis that ends up not preventing failure anyway. SpaceX's approach also deals with the real problem, which is a program having the wrong goals, rather than making mistakes in working toward a given goal. How many of you have built a product that ended up working great, but was a failure because it was the wrong product?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tailspin2019 6y agoWaterfall got us to the moon. Agile will get us to Mars...
- MichaelMoser123 6y ago'Daily standups on Mars' that would make an epic show.
- mumblemumble 6y agoLore suggests that that's a misconception, born of the Agile myth that the only thing that existed before the invention of either XP or Scrum was waterfall. The truth is perhaps more like this: agility got us to the moon, bureaucracy trapped us in low earth orbit, agility seems to be offering our best hope at getting back out of LEO again, including to Mars. For example, see https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240112230/Interview-From-Apollo-Mission-to-agility-manifesto https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240112230/Interview-Fro...
- darepublic 6y agoAgility, sure, but don't confuse agility with agile
- mumblemumble 6y agoAgile <> agile. In tech jargon, this particular word is case-sensitive.
- tailspin2019 6y agoFair enough. I was making a commentary more of what I see the difference between NASA vs SpaceX's approach today. I wasn't around for Apollo, and given their crazy compressed timeframe for getting to the moon back then, there must have been some agility there.... I was really agreeing with the previous commenter, which I guess is a statement about today, and not how NASA operated in the 1960s... > SpaceX learns by doing, not by years of expensive analysis that ends up not preventing failure anyway. My mistake for invoking the Agile vs Waterfall debate... (and potentially being wrong!)
- giantrobot 6y agoCongress and the Nixon administration trapped NASA in LEO. There was extensive planning inside NASA for applications of Saturn-Apollo technologies [0]. Two of the ambitious ones were a manned Venus flyby [1] and a permanent Lunar base [2]. After the Apollo I fire Congress lost its appetite for space and slashed NASA's budget [3]. The Nixon administration went all-in on the Space Shuttle which ate up all of NASA's manned spaceflight budget. Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project were the only AAP projects to survive and only at the cost of Apollo missions 18-20. The Saturn-Apollo program had a super-heavy lift rocket (Saturn V), a man-rated heavy lift rocket (Saturn IB), a Lunar trajectory capable command and service module, a lunar lander, and a workable wet workshop space station (Skylab). Congress tossed all of that away. The Space Shuttle program wasn't a bad idea, a heavy lift vehicle that provided a shirt sleeve environment but could support EVA is actually an awesome thing for LEO. But Congress scrapping Saturn-Apollo trapped NASA in LEO because the Shuttle was only capable of LEO. It's not a platform that can support manned Moon missions let alone any more distant bodies. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby [2] https://www.wired.com/2013/11/moonbase-apollo-1968/ https://www.wired.com/2013/11/moonbase-apollo-1968/ [3] https://www.wired.com/2012/08/before-the-fire/ https://www.wired.com/2012/08/before-the-fire/
- jariel 6y agoThe Gemeni and Apollo projects were very iterative, and rife with failures. They launched a new mission every few months! Apollo burned downed and killed the crew, the next Apollo was up a few months later! The second moon mission was launched a few months after the first. 1960's NASA was a little bit like SpaceX. That said - we should remember that Space X is iterating on already established tech, at somewhat of a smaller scale. They started smaller. Let's see how it works with their newer, bigger gear that is breaking boundaries.
- tailspin2019 6y ago> True, but they are failing very, very, slowly. I can’t argue with that!
- kaba0 6y agoSpaceX gets tons of government funding, while NASA’s was greatly cut over the years..
- pfdietz 6y agoSpaceX get tons of revenue for selling a product to NASA. This isn't subsidy, this is purchasing a service SpaceX developed on their own. Why shouldn't NASA take advantage of technology developed by others? NASA has saved a lot of money through this.
- nickik 6y agoWhat a bunch of nonsense. Please actually inform yourself before just saying things. NASA budget has actually gone up over the last couple of years. SpaceX got funding from NASA. So literally part of the funding NASA got was from the NASA budget because NASA bought things from SpaceX. And SpaceX gave NASA some of the best deals in the history of spaceflight.