although, they were doing it with a more complicated vehicle than the falcon 9, so the delay is "somewhat" understandable.
And only "somewhat," because new glenn seemed to take forever compared to starship. It does go to show, maybe the highly iterative approach that spacex takes really is faster (or, it could just be spacex has more highly skilled engineers, but I for one can't tell what the reasons are).
It's not about the delay, they can take as long as they want to build what they want to build. I object to their attempt to use patents to block competitors for decades when they didn't even have a product yet.
ah, yeah, patent trolling is pretty horrible (and Bezos is known for this - one click)...
... although, just to play a little devil's advocate, Bezos doesn't get enough credit for jump starting private spaceflight companies. Blue Origin was started 2 years before SpaceX. Am sure Blue Origin racked up a ton of patents.
yeah, didn't state it clearly. only meant that Blue Origin has actually been at it longer than SpaceX, and probably has around the same amount of patents as them because of it. Yeah, Blue Origin doesn't get as much credit for commercial space flight as spacex, and rightful so, but seems like they still did contribute a great deal (in fact, Blue Origin was the first to complete a vertical takeoff and landing, although it was with a suborbital vehicle).
Iterations are faster than modelling, no different for software where testing in prod with actual users ends up being quicker than in a testing environment.
Iterations in hardware businesses are far more expensive, particularly for early stage (by revenue not age) companies like Blue Origin. Outside of the Vulcan engine sales, joy rides and NASA grants they don't have much inflow and depend on equity infusion.
SpaceX also would find it tough without Starlink revenue to fund iterations for Starship. Similarly the early customer revenue ( plus the generous NASA grants) contributed to iterate on F9 be it Block V or for landing etc.
Beyond money, it also requires the ability to convince customers to be okay with the trade-offs and risks of constantly changing configurations, designs.
It is not that people do not know iterative testing with real artifacts is quicker, but most are limited in their ability to fund it or cannot convince customers, regulators to allow them.
Yeah, it does seem like iterative development with hardware is an extremely cash intensive way of development. And yes, what a genius move to fund a lot of this development with Starlink - it's amazing this seemingly off the cuff idea is such a cash cow, and it seemed at least like they got it up and running relatively quickly. Yeah, regardless how someone feels about Elon these days, Starlink has got to be up there for one of the most brilliant moves by an entrepreneur of all time.
And to come back to you point, yeah, I do see, you need the funds first to be able to support such a cash hungry way of development - which, on a tangent, kind of disappointed me (and a few others online) when Stoke Space decide to build their own 1st stage instead of just focusing on their unique 2nd stage. Like many in the past have mentioned, it seems like they'd be getting to space a lot quicker if they had just designed their 2nd stage to fit on a Falcon 9.
Starlink was not that amazing as a business decision.
If one expects to generate orders of magnitude more supply of a good (launch capacity), then one needs to expect the existing (conservative, long lead-time) market will have insufficient demand.
So one needs to generate additional demand.
So one needs to find a profit-generating business that's limited by mass in space / launches, where each component is inexpensive enough that its loss doesn't bankrupt the company.
Space-based telecommunications falls out pretty obviously from those requirements, given the pre-Starlink landscape (limited, exquisite assets serving the market at high premiums).
In small irony, it's also the exact same possibility space optimization that led to Amazon starting with books: Bezos didn't give a shit about books specifically, but he did like that they were long-tail, indefinitely warehouse-able, and shaped for efficient shipping.
In novel logistics spaces, it's better to find the business that matches capabilities than the other way around, because the company's core competency and value is their novel logistics solution.
It was an obvious market, that was visible years before the project was announced. I don't think any one was surprised, it was not like Apple launching iPod or the iPhone.
What was impressive is at that they solved a lot of hard problems like satellite manufacturing at scale, phased array dishes, or fleet management of thousands of satellites or laser interconnects between satellites, and so on, for basically a side project to increase their primary product demand enough to justify the reuse being a useful feature.
Hmm, don't know, easy to say it was obvious in hindsight. But over the years, Google project Loon and other similar attempts at increasing internet coverage (think Facebook tried too at one point) have not been nearly as successful. Yeah, still not convinced it was obviously going to be successful, but maybe am missing some aspect you're seeing.
Market was obvious, solutions weren’t as you cite there were many tech failures, it was just a logical extension to their business that is not really hindsight.
It was not the same kind of new market entry Apple did with the iPhone or even the iPod , or Amazon doing AWS, which if we claim today as obvious would be hindsight
Well, sure, agree that there is a natural logic to the idea, but to actually go through with something that no one has done before and actually execute it (which as we all from the tech/sci industries here know), and also do it on a large scale and be very successful is an entirely different matter. Yeah, the number of things that need to go right is still pretty high, and at least to me, was extremely impressive. But to each his own.
It was also a great move because they could take more risks launching their own Starlink satellites and prove out the reliability of the Falcon 9 to others. They also are very had to compete with when they build, launch, and deploy the system all in house.
Was thinking this too. It reminds me of how TSMC's fab has a lot more volume than Intel's, because TSMC has outside customers and high-volume is what is needed to perfect a chip fabrication process (getting many more chances to fix any problems, and once you finally do, have the volume necessary to make it profitable). What a great idea it was:)
You get lot more data when running real world experiments .
For off world missions, the best examples are the Soviet Venus missions of how iterating and sticking with the goals helped do some incredible research which would be hard to replicate even today .
The benefit of not doing quick and dirty is why we got out The longevity of voyager or some of the mars rovers or ingenuity.
They were "launching cities" as one of their program chiefs said. Yes, when you can arbitrarily tax you population you can afford these loud propaganda headlines.
Hard to draw super hard conclusions. Could also be that the bets made on Falcon turned out to be particularly good, vs a more methodical approach Blue Origin took. The highly iterative approach _may_ be faster, but I don't see any evidence yet that it will _always_ be faster. Just depends on how good your bets are and how much in-flight testing you happen to have to do based on a design.
Would be interesting to see more detailed information like specific engineering issues being resolved one way vs another.
Falcon beat New Glenn to the punch, but New Glenn is probably more capable overall, so it's not an apples to oranges comparison. Completion of Starship would really help the iterative approach case though (ignoring the junk it leaves scatter around the world when it goes boom)
People need to remember that New Glenn is completely artificial in market terms. Blue Origin had literally infinite money, and if not sponsored by the richest man on the planet it could never exists. And New Glenn even if its 'better' then Falcon 9 (yet to be demonstrated) will likely never make back its development cost.
I think people just don't understand what an absurd amount of cash burn Blue had for the last 10+ years.
So when it comes to iterative vs methodical, this is a perfectly clear case. SpaceX did it faster and for an amount of money that is so much less then Blue that its hard to even compare the numbers.
Go back and just look at how many people worked at Blue, and then do the math on what their cash burn rate was just for people.
Rocket Lab is also taking a more methodical and less iterative approach with Neutron, which should be ready some time next year. If they make that work well, that will be another point in favor of a methodical approach.
There should be an in depth academic study on their two approaches, it seems like it'd be valuable.
To me at least, given the (probably) positive affects iterative dev has (overall) had on software development, my personal feeling is it'd be useful for most other types of engineering. But (as someone else also pointed out) iterative is much more expensive in hardware fields, given the high cost of materials, and you need to have a lot more funds to build hardware this way.
Spacex tends to "build rocket factories" instead of building one rocket. So they can launch and reuse hundreds a year. They're repeating this with starship.
It's hard to know what BO is doing because they're so quiet all the time, but to what degree is this scaling true for them also?
Going by the Tim Todds interview with Jeff Bezos it seems like BOs approach is very similar in this area. It looked to me that the machines they had there to build NG is set up to produce rockets in large quantities. He talked about their goals with the second stage, and that they’re looking at making a reusable version but that in parallel they’re also doing cost optimisations that may make it so cheap that reuse doesn’t make sense.
Was talking with someone else, yeah, focusing on a rocket factory instead of just building a couple of rockets does seem like a good idea. Allows you to build a lot of test articles during development, even ones that you'll launch like Space X, and during real flights, you'll have a lot of rockets available for real launches.
Yeah, Bezos has been putting most of his attention there for the past few years. And why not? What's more interesting, running a online marketplace (which still actually seems pretty interesting), or building rockets to fly into space:)
It'd be a win for me, probably not for him. Or investors, sadly, at least not in the short term. I would turn off the non-Amazon sales platform. It might be feasible to save the brand, but of course the immediate effect would be a loss of that revenue stream from all the random Chinese "brands" that flood it with cheap garbage and counterfeits.
Or at least make a persistent toggle switch in the UI where you can say "I never want to see a single product that is not shipped-from-and-sold-by-Amazon." And end commingling with any product that Amazon itself sells, if that is occurring.
That's why they don't let morons like me run big business :). I care about things that only matter when you are a small business apparently.
Ah, focus on quality of products being listed. And, maybe that means there is room for a high-end competitor to Amazon eventually (am not seeing this anytime soon, but maybe in a couple decades??)
Yes, but it's also a harder problem, aiming to reuse everything instead of just the first stage.
And they have at least reached orbital velocity on several occasions, so they could have physically orbited. They just purposely chose a trajectory that wasn't an actual orbit.
Agreed. And even if they don't ever fully reuse the second stage, they still could use this gigantic working rocket as a (probably still) very cost effective to transport things into space.
wow, given the recent starship milestones that were reached, this is a really strange comment (well, they are behind schedule, but that's Elon Musk way of working).
eh, think this is a bit much to ask. Are we going to educate a majority of the baby boomers who just never got a feel for how technology works? Yeah, my Dad also just got scammed by a phishing scheme on his PC (and if a scammer had walked him through how to install an apk on his phone, he'd probably do that too).
In my humble opinion, in the design of a UI or any type of system, kind of have to go where the users take you to some degree. And Android, being an OS for consumer devices, should be geared toward the masses and the mistakes they'll make.
Should we ban refilling your own cars oil because some idots keep filling coolant into it?
I worked in IT support and I am deeply aware with the issues people are having. Some issues are systemic (aka bad design) and those should be fixed. Other issues are human.
It may not seem like it, but I have the patience of an angel, because I remember when computers where new to me. I like people to understand. Understanding is power. But when I did work in IT support I saw some things. Grown adults repeatedly clicking away error messages without reading them while I stand and watch over their shoulder. When I ask them what their error message read they say they don't know. Then we read it together and they go: "Ohhh".
Yeah. Ohhh. You have a weird error that prevents you from working and there is a red error message and you don't bother to read it. That isn't a technological problem that is a educational problem.
I stand by what I said, we cannot dumb down our system because people don't care, are lazy and act dumb. Because that leads to a cycle where it gets ever dumber and lazier all while making life hell for people who are not dumb or lazy.
If you want to use a car you need to know certain things. Same is true for digital systems, the internet, a smartphone, a toaster, a hair dryer, a knife, a simple plastic bag, etc. The solution is education, not dumbing down the world.
Well, yeah, everything has limits and this issue seems like a very practical one. Seems like it depends on how much work would be needed to teach the user base, which, at least to me, feels out of reach. As your being in IT, you may agree that teaching a large majority of 60+ year-olds standard things on something like Windows is difficult and extremely slow. Feels like it would take at least a month of dedicated training, where they are full on board. Having helped my older friends out, don't see that happening anytime soon (a half hour here and there is all they seem willing to do).
But you know, if there is a method that you know that can teach the masses these skills, then am all for it (maybe barrage them with youtube commercials teaching basic tech skills?:)
Shouldn't the logical conclusion be that if it's too much/hard to teach these people how to operate a device safely, they operate the devices in an unsafe way, bare the cost of it by being scammed, learn that it's not safe for them to operate the device for certain use-cases due to the experience, they tell others about it and it's in media -> people who do not feel confident operating such a device securely are scared away from using it due to the potential consequences they heard about -> problem solved (from a banking security perspective)
(except now the bank needs more staff behind the counter)
Not 100% sure if you mean this genuinely or joking around a bit. Will assume the former
Well, think just letting the knowledge of user failure expand organically is definite a method of deterrence, and some amount of this probably going to happen to some of the users. But to me, seems like it's a question of what percentage of your user base would be exposed to being scammed. Of course you'd want his to be zero, but if it's significant, yeah, probably should put measures in place to reduce the amount of scamming. Even on a purely practical level, it's bad for the reputation of your product...
...Am thinking, since there is so much resistence to locking down android, one problem might be was it was initially billed as a more open OS that tech people could enhance in whatever way they wanted. But yeah, times have changed, it's now a product that is used by the masses, and guessing the masses are now their most important users. Not saying this is wrong or right, but probably why there is so much push back as compared to say if iOS did the same thing (which they may have already done).
Yeah, agree with this too. Apple tends to create products that are more fully realized than Samsung or even Microsoft (especially in how it looks), but it's been pretty well know that Apple software tends to be buggy, as they aren't an engineering-focused company like let's say Google. They are a consumer products company.
IMHO, people are thinking about how well thought-out and usable the products and software tends to be - Yeah, Apple makes it so anyone can use it - But their software has always been buggy.
