3 ms·
> You can actually see this in SpaceX. In development when stakes are relatively low (e.g., no payload or passengers), the risk threshold is high. But they star
by mgfist 4y ago
> You can actually see this in SpaceX. In development when stakes are relatively low (e.g., no payload or passengers), the risk threshold is high. But they start taking a more measured approach when that risk starts to ratchet up. The danger being, advocates of one approach don't always know when/how to transition to the other.
This corroborates "fail fast". They achieve reliability and safety by launching far more than traditional space companies and seeing failure in those launches. They prove it out before adding the risk of human lives or expensive cargo. Meanwhile traditional companies will develop their rocket for 15 years till it's "perfect". SpaceX figured out that achieving perfection is best done through actual attempts, not laboratory experiments.
- bumby 4y ago>This corroborates "fail fast". But it also shows "fail slow" later. My point is that "fail fast" is not some hard rule to abide by, but contextually dependent on the risk at stake.
- lutorm 4y agoI mean, the whole point if failing fast is to stop failing faster. If you just keep failing fast without end you're not going to be around long...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bumby 4y agoSee the last comment of my OP. The risk I'm poking at is a cultural one, where "failing fast" becomes an acceptable mode of operating, regardless of the context.
- mgfist 3y agoNothing contradicts that. SpaceX does do this contextually. Once they nailed down the Falcon 9 rocket, the boosters and the Merlin engine, they mostly stopped messing with it and focused on operational excellence. But to get to that point they failed fast, because it's the most effective way to get reliability.