> Significantly, the Merlin engines—like roughly 80 percent of the components for Falcon and Dragon, including even the flight computers—are made in-house. That’s something SpaceX didn’t originally set out to do, but was driven to by suppliers’ high prices. Mueller recalls asking a vendor for an estimate on a particular engine valve. “They came back [requesting] like a year and a half in development and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just way out of whack. And we’re like, ‘No, we need it by this summer, for much, much less money.’ They go, ‘Good luck with that,’ and kind of smirked and left.” Mueller’s people made the valve themselves, and by summer they had qualified it for use with cryogenic propellants.
> “That vendor, they iced us for a couple of months,” Mueller says, “and then they called us back: ‘Hey, we’re willing to do that valve. You guys want to talk about it?’ And we’re like, ‘No, we’re done.’ He goes, ‘What do you mean you’re done?’ ‘We qualified it. We’re done.’ And there was just silence at the end of the line. They were in shock.” That scenario has been repeated to the point where, Mueller says, “we passionately avoid space vendors.”
Every parts manufacturer tries to extract as much as possible from the leeway in the middle.
I imagine it's similar to what we see in software, where we see mega-waterfall projects delivered for the government cost way too much and still fail, and where tech companies & literal hobbyists can deliver higher quality software more quickly by avoiding an overbearing planning process.
We know what wide-open unregulated markets result in when lives are at stake. It would be nice to think that engineers and executives would never sacrifice human life for profit, but we know that some of them will.
I also think about all the advice I read on this forum to "raise your rates" and "charge based on the value you deliver, not what your costs are." But when physical engineering companies take this approach, it's somehow just greed or complacency. Of course any potential client can just decide to hire their own staff and do the job in-house if your quote is viewed as unreasonable.
We know much more about what happens with regulation: prohibitively expensive nuclear power and unbearably slow progress in simple medical devices. Opportunity cost is enormous here.
> It would be nice to think that engineers and executives would never sacrifice human life for profit, but we know that some of them will.
This is really simplistic. We wouldn't use anything if it cost what it cost to make it 100% safe. Everything has risks and prices.
We certainly need to constantly revisit things but without regulations our society wouldn’t be fun to live in.
See what I mean? What's the point of misinterpreting?
No one is ever saying "zero regulations are best". There are hundreds of thousands of regulations. Because there are so many, lots of them are not great or constrictive, and we never got to the world where the US is powered by 1990 by majority nuclear power, and the following developing China followed suit, and businesses sprang up there to roll out the same technologies worldwide, and we had far, far less climate change.
Death is bad for business? I dunno why this myth that without government life would be a deadly hellscape seems to persist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/06/bp-oil-s...
etc etc
/s?
(Look at the quality of life in failing/failed states, where there's effectively no government. Libertarian paradises are extremely rare; deadly hellscapes are all too common.)
More seriously, I wonder as a human species if we’ll evolve beyond certification being the only way to prove a work was done properly. I suspect the civilization who does that will save an order of magnitude more human workers.
SpaceX builds all 33 engines on a Starship for that amount.