4 ms·
BO has a more traditional approach to design than SpaceX's iterative process. They spend more time on simulation and analysis than on real world testing. Right
by Mountain_Skies 3y ago
BO has a more traditional approach to design than SpaceX's iterative process. They spend more time on simulation and analysis than on real world testing. Right now it appears that the SpaceX approach returns better results though they do have to deal with the peanut gallery using tests that end in explosions as an opportunity to attack the company instead of acknowledging that it's part of the process. If Blue Origin has a rocket explode, that's a much bigger blow to them as RUDs are not a significant part of their process. It also means their process is far less observable to outsiders, so a year or two from how, they might have New Glenn rockets in regular operation and for most, that will seemingly come out from nowhere.
- panick21_ 3y agoSpaceX also does a lot of simulation. They are known to have really good simulation team. And were very early on doing simulation on GPUs and such. And that was 10 years ago. By now they are likely far further along. > so a year or two from how, they might have New Glenn rockets in regular operation and for most, that will seemingly come out from nowhere. They will be lucky to have launched their rocket more then once in the next 2 years.
- chasd00 3y agoI don't think SpaceX's iterative approach would work without extremely efficient production lines and know-how. In software everyone can take an iterative approach because you're just typing on a keyboard, you don't have to produce a physical laptop at the end of every sprint. IMO SpaceX brought a lot of the production lessons learned from Tesla and applied it to rocket and engine production. That knowledge and wisdom from making Tesla production lines work isn't available at Blue Origin so I don't think a SpaceX rapid dev approach could work there.