SpaceX's iterative testing: Opportunity in STEM education & innovation communication strategy.
Okay, based on the Reddit discussion, here's an analysis of potential business or marketing opportunities:
Observed Phenomenon: The Reddit discussion highlights public curiosity and some confusion about SpaceX's frequent Starship "explosions" (termed "rapid scheduled disassemblies"). Commenters clarify this as part of an intentional, aggressive, iterative development philosophy, drawing parallels to the "move fast and break things" approach common in software engineering. This method contrasts with traditional, more cautious aerospace development cycles.
Analysis & Opportunities:
-
Educational Content & STEM Outreach:
- Signal: Public misunderstanding of complex engineering processes and iterative design in high-stakes R&D.
- Opportunity: There's a clear demand for educational content that explains iterative design, risk management in cutting-edge R&D, and the specific engineering challenges SpaceX is tackling.
- Business Idea: Creation of engaging video content, articles, interactive simulations, or even curriculum modules for STEM programs (K-12, university) using Starship's development as a real-world case study.
- Marketing Angle: Companies in the education tech space or science communication can leverage this interest to create content that demystifies advanced engineering.
-
"Agile for Hardware" Consulting & Tooling:
- Signal: The "move fast and break things" philosophy, traditionally from software, is being visibly and successfully applied to complex hardware.
- Opportunity: The success and public discussion around SpaceX's approach can popularize the "Agile" or "Lean Startup" methodology for physical product development, beyond software.
- Business Idea: Consultancies specializing in helping traditional manufacturing or engineering firms adopt more iterative, rapid prototyping, and failure-tolerant development cycles.
- Business Idea: Development or marketing of software and hardware tools that facilitate rapid prototyping, testing, and data analysis for physical products, enabling faster iteration cycles.
- Marketing Angle: Position services/products as enabling "SpaceX-like speed and innovation" for hardware development.
-
Corporate Communications & Transparency Strategy:
- Signal: SpaceX's framing of "failures" as "rapid scheduled disassemblies" and transparent sharing of their development journey.
- Opportunity: Other innovative companies, especially those in R&D-intensive or high-risk fields, can learn from SpaceX's public relations strategy.
- Business Idea: PR and communications firms specializing in crafting narratives for innovative companies that embrace transparency around their development process, including setbacks. This helps manage public perception, investor expectations, and build brand loyalty.
- Marketing Angle: Highlighting how transparency and framing setbacks as learning opportunities can build trust and excitement, rather than fear or doubt.
-
Investor Relations for Deep Tech & "Moonshot" Projects:
- Signal: The discussion implies a need to educate not just the public but potentially investors about the nature of long-term, high-risk, iterative R&D.
- Opportunity: Companies undertaking ambitious, capital-intensive projects can benefit from clearly communicating their iterative approach and the rationale behind it to secure and maintain investor confidence.
- Business Idea: Specialized investor relations services that help deep tech or "moonshot" companies articulate their development philosophy, milestones (even if they include "failures"), and long-term vision to investors who understand or can be educated on this model.
-
Content Creation Around Innovation Philosophies:
- Signal: General interest in how innovation happens and the different methodologies employed.
- Opportunity: Create content (podcasts, blogs, documentaries, books) that explores different innovation philosophies, using SpaceX as a prominent example, and contrasting it with other successful models.
- Marketing Angle: Appeal to entrepreneurs, engineers, business leaders, and students interested in the mechanics of innovation and disruptive technologies.
This Reddit thread demonstrates that SpaceX's development model is not just an internal strategy but a publicly visible phenomenon that is sparking discussion and can influence broader trends in engineering, business communication, and education.
Origin Reddit Post
r/outoftheloop
What's up with all the SpaceX launch explosions?
Posted by u/Halospite•05/28/2025
SpaceX had another "rapid scheduled disassembly" recently.
Why does this keep happening? Didn't engineers figure this shit out in the sixties? We landed man on the moon in 1969 using compute
Top Comments
u/beachedwhale1945
To be clear, SpaceX doesn’t **have** to have this many explosions. They have **chosen** to take a more unusual approach to designing a rocket. Most rocket companies do not have the funds to b
u/moriero
Complex software built with this attitude is unmaintainable and eventually becomes its own worst enemy
u/katbyte
\> SpaceX doesn’t have a test stand capable of holding down Super Heavy or Starship for a full duration burn: it would destroy the launch pad
so they are being cheap and cutting corners.
u/Gingevere
> which was a major leap in rocket technology and successfully developed far more quickly than any competitor.
Ehh, that was a niche where all the tech was already there but nobody had b
u/cartoonist498
Answer: In software engineering, there's a well known concept "move fast and break things" which works extremely well for developing complex software. You can literally turn years of work int
u/eomertherider
Answer: The goal of the missions have changed since the sixties. The technology is more complicated than in the sixties. The technologies (fuel, materials, assembly, software) are new. In the
u/impy695
Answer: You're linking to starship which is an experimental, bleeding edge rocket and it's an industry where even little things going wrong can cause major issues due to the speed, size, and
u/Fun-Football1879
Answer: space x has a very different approach to rocket design than we had in the 60's. The biggest difference in the 60's they had an unlimited budget. This mentality has crippled America's
u/beachedwhale1945
Answer: Rocket engineering has always been hard. When I last checked, only three rockets not based on prior designs had ever been successful on their first flight: the Space Shuttle/STS, Prot
u/virtual_human
Answer: Have you ever heard the saying, it's not rocket science"? There is a reason rockets are used in that saying. Rocket science is hard, really hard, and the margins for error are small
u/cartoonist498
Answer: In software engineering, there's a well known concept "move fast and break things" which works extremely well for developing complex software. You can literally turn years of work int
u/Iwishiknewwhatiknew
I think the secret is that all piece of software becomes unmanageable and your worst enemy with enough time, so why fight it?
u/Bomb-Number20
It's still wild to me that the first STS launch test was crewed. Even the Russians sent up the Buran shuttle un-crewed.
u/Halospite
Thank you, this was a really good explanation! I feel like other answers didn't really go into why they had to blow up, but this was a good explanation as to why they couldn't use previous mo
u/moriero
Complex software built with this attitude is unmaintainable and eventually becomes its own worst enemy
u/mawktheone
answer: NASA did indeed do it. But with difficult and expensive technology. SpaceX are trying specifically to do it entirely differently.
In doing this there's two options, spend years on
u/Gingevere
> which was a major leap in rocket technology and successfully developed far more quickly than any competitor.
Ehh, that was a niche where all the tech was already there but nobody had b
u/impy695
Answer: You're linking to starship which is an experimental, bleeding edge rocket and it's an industry where even little things going wrong can cause major issues due to the speed, size, and
u/Fun-Football1879
Answer: space x has a very different approach to rocket design than we had in the 60's. The biggest difference in the 60's they had an unlimited budget. This mentality has crippled America's
u/eomertherider
Answer: The goal of the missions have changed since the sixties. The technology is more complicated than in the sixties. The technologies (fuel, materials, assembly, software) are new. In the
u/Halospite
Are we sure they're actually doing it on purpose and aren't saying "yeah we meant to do that" to keep getting investments?
u/Halospite
Thank you, this was a really good explanation! I feel like other answers didn't really go into why they had to blow up, but this was a good explanation as to why they couldn't use previous mo
u/beachedwhale1945
Answer: Rocket engineering has always been hard. When I last checked, only three rockets not based on prior designs had ever been successful on their first flight: the Space Shuttle/STS, Prot
u/moriero
Complex software built with this attitude is unmaintainable and eventually becomes its own worst enemy
u/Not-Too-Serious-00
If they werent breaking stuff they wouldnt be innovating and progressing...its when you repeatedly break the same things you have a big problem.
u/Fun-Football1879
Answer: space x has a very different approach to rocket design than we had in the 60's. The biggest difference in the 60's they had an unlimited budget. This mentality has crippled America's
u/ThatGenericName2
Yep. Something people (including SpaceX) seem to be forgetting is that move fast and break stuff only works if the stuff breaking brings little to no risk to the development and/or company.
u/Bomb-Number20
It's still wild to me that the first STS launch test was crewed. Even the Russians sent up the Buran shuttle un-crewed.
u/Bomb-Number20
It's still wild to me that the first STS launch test was crewed. Even the Russians sent up the Buran shuttle un-crewed.
u/beachedwhale1945
Answer: Rocket engineering has always been hard. When I last checked, only three rockets not based on prior designs had ever been successful on their first flight: the Space Shuttle/STS, Prot
u/eomertherider
Answer: The goal of the missions have changed since the sixties. The technology is more complicated than in the sixties. The technologies (fuel, materials, assembly, software) are new. In the
u/mawktheone
answer: NASA did indeed do it. But with difficult and expensive technology. SpaceX are trying specifically to do it entirely differently.
In doing this there's two options, spend years on
u/impy695
Answer: You're linking to starship which is an experimental, bleeding edge rocket and it's an industry where even little things going wrong can cause major issues due to the speed, size, and
u/Halospite
Thank you, this was a really good explanation! I feel like other answers didn't really go into why they had to blow up, but this was a good explanation as to why they couldn't use previous mo
u/eomertherider
Answer: The goal of the missions have changed since the sixties. The technology is more complicated than in the sixties. The technologies (fuel, materials, assembly, software) are new. In the
u/Gingevere
> which was a major leap in rocket technology and successfully developed far more quickly than any competitor.
Ehh, that was a niche where all the tech was already there but nobody had b
u/beachedwhale1945
To be clear, SpaceX doesn’t **have** to have this many explosions. They have **chosen** to take a more unusual approach to designing a rocket. Most rocket companies do not have the funds to b
u/Not-Too-Serious-00
If they werent breaking stuff they wouldnt be innovating and progressing...its when you repeatedly break the same things you have a big problem.
u/Nimmy_the_Jim
Answer: Space flight is hard, rockets and reusability at this scale unprecedented. These are all prototypes.
u/ryhaltswhiskey
> there's a well known concept "move fast and break things" which works extremely well for developing complex software
According to who?
u/impy695
Answer: You're linking to starship which is an experimental, bleeding edge rocket and it's an industry where even little things going wrong can cause major issues due to the speed, size, and
u/mawktheone
answer: NASA did indeed do it. But with difficult and expensive technology. SpaceX are trying specifically to do it entirely differently.
In doing this there's two options, spend years on
u/katbyte
\> SpaceX doesn’t have a test stand capable of holding down Super Heavy or Starship for a full duration burn: it would destroy the launch pad
so they are being cheap and cutting corners.
u/ThatGenericName2
Yep. Something people (including SpaceX) seem to be forgetting is that move fast and break stuff only works if the stuff breaking brings little to no risk to the development and/or company.
u/ThatGenericName2
Yep. Something people (including SpaceX) seem to be forgetting is that move fast and break stuff only works if the stuff breaking brings little to no risk to the development and/or company.
u/Not-Too-Serious-00
If they werent breaking stuff they wouldnt be innovating and progressing...its when you repeatedly break the same things you have a big problem.
u/cartoonist498
Answer: In software engineering, there's a well known concept "move fast and break things" which works extremely well for developing complex software. You can literally turn years of work int
u/Halospite
Thank you, this was a really good explanation! I feel like other answers didn't really go into why they had to blow up, but this was a good explanation as to why they couldn't use previous mo
u/beachedwhale1945
Answer: Rocket engineering has always been hard. When I last checked, only three rockets not based on prior designs had ever been successful on their first flight: the Space Shuttle/STS, Prot
u/moriero
Complex software built with this attitude is unmaintainable and eventually becomes its own worst enemy
u/impy695
Answer: You're linking to starship which is an experimental, bleeding edge rocket and it's an industry where even little things going wrong can cause major issues due to the speed, size, and
u/Not-Too-Serious-00
If they werent breaking stuff they wouldnt be innovating and progressing...its when you repeatedly break the same things you have a big problem.
u/Gingevere
> which was a major leap in rocket technology and successfully developed far more quickly than any competitor.
Ehh, that was a niche where all the tech was already there but nobody had b
u/Bomb-Number20
It's still wild to me that the first STS launch test was crewed. Even the Russians sent up the Buran shuttle un-crewed.
u/ThatGenericName2
Yep. Something people (including SpaceX) seem to be forgetting is that move fast and break stuff only works if the stuff breaking brings little to no risk to the development and/or company.
u/mawktheone
answer: NASA did indeed do it. But with difficult and expensive technology. SpaceX are trying specifically to do it entirely differently.
In doing this there's two options, spend years on
u/Fun-Football1879
Answer: space x has a very different approach to rocket design than we had in the 60's. The biggest difference in the 60's they had an unlimited budget. This mentality has crippled America's
u/cartoonist498
Answer: In software engineering, there's a well known concept "move fast and break things" which works extremely well for developing complex software. You can literally turn years of work int
u/beachedwhale1945
To be clear, SpaceX doesn’t **have** to have this many explosions. They have **chosen** to take a more unusual approach to designing a rocket. Most rocket companies do not have the funds to b
u/Halospite
Are we sure they're actually doing it on purpose and aren't saying "yeah we meant to do that" to keep getting investments?
u/GregBahm
Answer: You're seeing the evolution of the history of engineering. In the 60s, the prevailing development system was a process called "**waterfall**." In the "waterfall" development model, th
u/cartoonist498
Answer: In software engineering, there's a well known concept "move fast and break things" which works extremely well for developing complex software. You can literally turn years of work int
u/mawktheone
answer: NASA did indeed do it. But with difficult and expensive technology. SpaceX are trying specifically to do it entirely differently.
In doing this there's two options, spend years on