
NASA comments on agile vs. waterfall comparing SpaceX and Boeing [pdf] - lifeisstillgood
https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2019_ASAP_Report-TAGGED.pdf
======
lifeisstillgood
From the pdf:

As the ASAP has pointed out previously, SpaceX and Boeing have very different
philosophies in terms of how they develop hardware. SpaceX focuses on rapidly
iterating through a build-test-learn approach that drives modifications toward
design maturity. Boeing utilizes a well-established sys- tems engineering
methodology targeted at an initial investment in engineering studies and
analysis to mature the system design prior to building and testing the
hardware. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages.

Basically this is a big win for "Agile" (which is about as losely defined as
possible now)

~~~
tomp
This is a significant condemnation of the "systems design" approach that has
been central to space engineering so far. It might have been appropriate in
the past, when access to space was _actually_ expensive, but it has also
significantly stifled the progress within established players, and only a new
player, free from orthodox thinking patterns, was able to innovate.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Personally I think it is more like "old player that did not understand
software development gets trounced by new player that has software at its
core"

This is not waterfall vs agile really. But software eats the world

~~~
tomp
But the remarkable thing is, the agile _software_ methodology is equally
applicable to non-software. SpaceX does the same with engines & rockets. Tesla
does the same with cars. _That 's_ the real breakthrough.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Yes. But. To my mind that's the 'iterate' or 'fail fast' methodology - which
is pretty much de facto in Science and Engineering as a _best practise_. See
benchtests for motors and rockets, or firing chickens at jet engines. Of
course it is not always achieved - but is that because scientists and
engineers do not know about it, or because the organisation in which they work
is hobbling them in some fashion?

I think there are two big points here - one, software development is a core
skill for firms these days, without which you are likely to fail.

Second, "heavy engineering" appears to have hit a point where the leading edge
is not progressing as fast as the "commercial" world is. (this might be part
of the feeling we are not inventing the future fast enough anymore).

By this I mean once upon a time, the envelope was so far out only States could
afford to keep up - Canada folded its aerospace efforts in the 50s etc. As a
rough rule of thumb you needed to not only build custom components, but you
needed to build custom machines to make the custom components.

Today I think commercially available machines are able to make the custom
components, thus making the envelope much more within reach for much less
money - its that Makers can now do things previously only professionals could,
so now professionals can do things previously only big organisations could.

This means that the inefficiencies of big 'dinosaur' organisations no longer
pay off (Boeing is not the only people who can do rockets).

Elon Musk seems to have known / discovered / stumbled (#) this inflection
point - but it is likely to play out in all sorts of industries. Military
equipment etc. I mean if a 300 USD drone is a viable weapon on urban
asymmetric battlefields, then something is coming (##)

(#) select based on personal views of Musk

(##) my personal publically obvious inflection point is a "maker style" rocket
that can damage a jet aircraft. The rocket community is heading towards
rockets that can get to the 32,000 foot level, and once you do that at Mach 1,
for a few thousand dollars in a backyard, air dominance becomes something up
for grabs again.

