I think this paragraph resume their philosophy: > So building the computer for the Dragon isn't just about building the computer for the Dragon, it's about bui

I think this paragraph resume their philosophy: > So building the computer for the Dragon isn't just about building the computer for the Dragon, it's about building a whole suite of tools, techniques, people and processes to then go to the next vehicle, and the next vehicle. And our equipment crosses lines. Falcon designs go into Dragon, we're currently retrofitting the Dragon design into the new Falcon, so our designs constantly keep evolving, and that's why we don't want to get into lines that have limited growth capacity. Their approach is all about reusability, evovability and scalability. And I think using a maximum of common code between all the different systems will only make this code stronger. They seem to counterbalance the hardware faults and software dangerousness of C++ by implementing a generalized voting mechanism where all decisions must be validated by two different computers. In this area and at this scale it seems to me that it's disruptive.