Okay, thank you for elaborating 💙 I feel like the lesson is that the best path is somewhere in between the two approaches; space X got further for less cost by being under much fewer restrictions than NASA but the constant rocket explosions and disruptive launches have damaged their PR...
meanwhile NASA is hypercautious because bureaucracy and politics has bloated their development time and launch costs, but each launch is itself less of a risk. I feel like there is a more sensible path down the middle where we get the most bang for cost (both dollar and environmental).
not the exact middle, but between the two approaches.
Yep. The SpaceX method works best on simpler and cheaper things. Super Heavy booster was a huge success. And up until IFT6 everything seemed to proceed well. After that, there has been no progress. And perhaps IFT8 failure or IFT9 failure could have been avoided with more carefull "ground work".
IMO: Some things like re-entry from orbital speed need to be tested in flight. But for the past 6 months, sadly no progress there. I expect tens of flights to be needed before the SShip is fully reusable. I think they hope they can start to fly payloads while they perfect the reusability.
I agree that some things have to happen in test flights, which will always be expensive ventures esp. if they fail. I feel like both organisations need to have more flexibility than they're being allowed - bureaucracy on one side, ego on the other.