|
In response to
"what he's describing in the article is "make it good enough, launch it, and see what happens." that's almost the definition of minimum viable."
by
mafic
|
As an iterative process, not as a final product. The goal with this launch was "clear the launch pad"
Posted by
TWuG
Apr 20 '23, 17:53
|
And it met that goal. The next goal will be stage separation. The goal after that will be successful orbital insertion, then reentry and recovery.
It's a *process*.
And for the cost of one Atlas V, you can probably get 5 or 6 Starship full stacks.
Falcon 9 has had 2 failed launches and one partial failure (and that one was on the payload provider) out of 200+ launches.
So that's a 1% failure rate and getting smaller with every launch. It's failure rate is tied to how new the vehicle is
Soyuz may have more launches over the last 50 years, but everything on it is expendable and it is horribly expensive compared to Falcon 9.
Atlas V also isn't reusable.
Basically, it's ridiculous to say the process used to develop Falcon 9 and Starship is somehow a "minimum viability" method.
Test until it breaks is a great way to find problems instead of trying to guess where problems might occur and it greatly reduces development costs and gives a more robust final product.
|