SpaceX is all about getting the cost down. You are going to make a lot more travel and payloads viable by focusing on dropping the price to orbit by 10x or 100x or 1000x (about $20/kg is the goal for the in development superheavy rocket) than on optimizing for smoothness. For now it is smooth enough.
> because as a parent poster says - a rougher vibration profile rules out certain payloads.
I guess that is true, Yi made the same argument about sending construction based equipment and the dilemma of having to make it more robust than necessary tolerances and specs thus increasing the weight of the payloads.
But SpaceX hasn't had a satellite failure to date, with the exception of the secret spy satellite that was 'lost,' or the facebook one that exploded on the launchpad (THANKS, ELON!).
I wonder what payloads specifically that would include?