4 ms·

I agree with many of your points, but it comes across as slightly biased because you don't acknowledge a single downside to any of them. >You don't have rapid

by bumby 4y ago

I agree with many of your points, but it comes across as slightly biased because you don't acknowledge a single downside to any of them. >You don't have rapid iteration on manufacturing improvements, because the tyranny of safety checks on manufacturing time balloons Rapid iterations has obvious benefits. But there are also downsides because it makes it harder to arrive at a stable, reliable design, it introduces vendor issues, etc. Tesla is also known for iterating faster compared to their major competitors but it has resulted in logistics and reliability issues. IMO SpaceX's most brilliant achievement was leveraging govt contracts to work out the kinks of their designs, which could then be leveraged at a lower risk for Starlink. In effect, they let the public take the burden of the risk (because the govt is really the only entity capable of shouldering that size of a risk for an unproven quantity) and then transitioned to a private means of revenue in Starlink. (I'm not saying that as a slight btw, I think it's mutually beneficial).

XorNot 4y ago
Frankly comparing Tesla and SpaceX is getting to be a tiresome argument. They're owned by one "eccentric" billionaire, but he's not an engineer, they don't share staff, facilities or manufacturing outside of "hey this alloy is pretty good". SpaceX's strategy for the Falcon 9 worked and it's one of the most reliable rockets in the world, flying the most often.
- sidibe 4y ago
  I think the risk is that they are both driven by what the CEO finds cool which may or may not be what's most effective
- bumby 4y ago
  >Frankly comparing Tesla and SpaceX is getting to be a tiresome argument. You're focused on the wrong takeaway. You're making this about a person, I'm talking about a process. I used Tesla because it's easy to see how one culture translates to the other. Insert any company that uses rapid iteration in place of Tesla if you prefer. The point is that there are certain circumstances where rapid iteration is useful and others less so. When reliability matters, rapid iteration may be working against you. (It's a continuum, of course, so the real question is where is that tipping point) >SpaceX's strategy for the Falcon 9 worked The point I'm driving at is there is a distinction to be made when finding out why certain iterations didn't work vs. just changing the design without fully understanding the failure mechanisms of the first. One leads to a greater understanding than the other. It's a difference in an engineers mindset and a scientists mindset.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Again: the Falcon 9 works. It works now. It is a rocket, built by the same company which is building Starship. You are driving at a point by pretending there's some important difference because "in this industry". It's the same industry. Building the same type of product. By the same company.
    - bumby 4y ago
      No. I am not saying it’s the “industry” as much as the context of risk. That's why it doesn't matter if the analogy is Tesla or some other safety-critical manufacturer. To be clearer: how many F9 launches have carried humans? Now go look at the history of Shuttle for the equivalent number of launches at that risk level. Would you claim they are equivalent in terms of human-rated safety? If not, it’s only because you have the benefit of knowing the long-tail probabilities with the Shuttle. >It's the same industry. Building the same type of product. By extension of your logic, Starship should then already have the same launch reliability as F9. So either this is an example of a low-probability event, or your logic is flawed.
      - lutorm 4y ago
        There were 135 space shuttle launches, of which 2 failed. There have been 162 launches of the F9 block 5 with 0 failures. Why do you think we have more knowledge of the long-tail probability of the Shuttle than F9? True, few of those F9 missions were crewed, but that's the point. There's no difference between a crewed and a noncrewed F9 launch vehicle, so there's no reason to think the presence of humans would change the risk. So, you get to accumulate most of that reliability data without putting people at risk doing so.
        bumby 4y ago
        >Why do you think we have more knowledge of the long-tail probability of the Shuttle than F9? Because the nature of the two programs was fundamentally different. The Shuttle was a product contract, while CCP is a service contract. On the former, the govt has much more control, and will detail more rigorous acceptance criteria. This generally gives a much higher pedigree on quality control. On the latter, they take a much more hands off approach and have limited insight. As an analogy, imagine you are making a big bet on acquiring a software company. One company gives you their source code, shows you all their most recent static analysis, unit test results, allows you to interview their programmers etc. The other company allows you none of that, but gives you a chance to play around on their website to see for yourself. Both systems seem to work when you try the end product, but which do you have higher confidence in? At the end of the day, "reliability" is just a measure of how much confidence we have that a product will do what we ask of it, when we ask.
- sgt 4y ago
  Considering his vast wealth of knowledge and expertise in the field he might as well be called an engineer. In fact probably more so than many real engineers.

by bumby 4y ago

XorNot 4y ago

Frankly comparing Tesla and SpaceX is getting to be a tiresome argument. They're owned by one "eccentric" billionaire, but he's not an engineer, they don't share staff, facilities or manufacturing outside of "hey this alloy is pretty good". SpaceX's strategy for the Falcon 9 worked and it's one of the most reliable rockets in the world, flying the most often.

sidibe 4y ago
I think the risk is that they are both driven by what the CEO finds cool which may or may not be what's most effective
bumby 4y ago
>Frankly comparing Tesla and SpaceX is getting to be a tiresome argument. You're focused on the wrong takeaway. You're making this about a person, I'm talking about a process. I used Tesla because it's easy to see how one culture translates to the other. Insert any company that uses rapid iteration in place of Tesla if you prefer. The point is that there are certain circumstances where rapid iteration is useful and others less so. When reliability matters, rapid iteration may be working against you. (It's a continuum, of course, so the real question is where is that tipping point) >SpaceX's strategy for the Falcon 9 worked The point I'm driving at is there is a distinction to be made when finding out why certain iterations didn't work vs. just changing the design without fully understanding the failure mechanisms of the first. One leads to a greater understanding than the other. It's a difference in an engineers mindset and a scientists mindset.
- XorNot 4y ago
  Again: the Falcon 9 works. It works now. It is a rocket, built by the same company which is building Starship. You are driving at a point by pretending there's some important difference because "in this industry". It's the same industry. Building the same type of product. By the same company.
  - bumby 4y ago
    No. I am not saying it’s the “industry” as much as the context of risk. That's why it doesn't matter if the analogy is Tesla or some other safety-critical manufacturer. To be clearer: how many F9 launches have carried humans? Now go look at the history of Shuttle for the equivalent number of launches at that risk level. Would you claim they are equivalent in terms of human-rated safety? If not, it’s only because you have the benefit of knowing the long-tail probabilities with the Shuttle. >It's the same industry. Building the same type of product. By extension of your logic, Starship should then already have the same launch reliability as F9. So either this is an example of a low-probability event, or your logic is flawed.
    - lutorm 4y ago
      There were 135 space shuttle launches, of which 2 failed. There have been 162 launches of the F9 block 5 with 0 failures. Why do you think we have more knowledge of the long-tail probability of the Shuttle than F9? True, few of those F9 missions were crewed, but that's the point. There's no difference between a crewed and a noncrewed F9 launch vehicle, so there's no reason to think the presence of humans would change the risk. So, you get to accumulate most of that reliability data without putting people at risk doing so.
      - bumby 4y ago
        >Why do you think we have more knowledge of the long-tail probability of the Shuttle than F9? Because the nature of the two programs was fundamentally different. The Shuttle was a product contract, while CCP is a service contract. On the former, the govt has much more control, and will detail more rigorous acceptance criteria. This generally gives a much higher pedigree on quality control. On the latter, they take a much more hands off approach and have limited insight. As an analogy, imagine you are making a big bet on acquiring a software company. One company gives you their source code, shows you all their most recent static analysis, unit test results, allows you to interview their programmers etc. The other company allows you none of that, but gives you a chance to play around on their website to see for yourself. Both systems seem to work when you try the end product, but which do you have higher confidence in? At the end of the day, "reliability" is just a measure of how much confidence we have that a product will do what we ask of it, when we ask.
sgt 4y ago
Considering his vast wealth of knowledge and expertise in the field he might as well be called an engineer. In fact probably more so than many real engineers.