[Zach_the_Lizard]

From an outsider's perspective, it seems "move fast and break things" worked well enough for SpaceX.

Boeing et al seem to be following the "move slow and hide problems so we don't fix anything" mantra.

[bumby]

>"move fast and break things" worked well enough for SpaceX.

Counterpoint: SpaceX had to re-learn well-known practices that are so commonplace in aerospace it's shocking they weren't being conducted [1]. One example is more complete material testing on critical components as part of supplier quality control. When they lost a rocket due to this process gap, their solution was to layer on those common QC practices. IMO these are risks that, over time, may turn SpaceX into the dinosaurs they are competing with. (reference to Chesterson's fence is probably apt.)

"Moving fast and breaking things" may be fine, but to the GP's point, it has to be a risk-based decision. We probably shouldn't be aiming to move fast when lives are at risk.

[1] https://spacenews.com/falcon-9-failure-linked-to-upper-stage...