[Zandikar]

I'm agreeing with the adage in question (#'s 39 in OP) that designing any new rocket is going to be difficult or expensive, and if viable, it's better to use an existing. You acknowledge as much later in this thread:

> Well yeah almost everybody does on their first attempts.

The above poster I was responding to was saying the opposite. I was asserting that that's not true, that SpaceX is embracing the adage of not only "Don't reinvent the wheel" but "Hell, let's reuse the wheel".

Also, just because someone has the foresight to budget extra time and money for the inevitable failures/complications of an initial prototype, doesn't mean there weren't extra cost or time involved in the development of that product than if it had worked reliably like a mature, proven design would.

SpaceX has been killing it. I'm not criticizing. I'm just acknowledging these are some VERY basic tenants of engineering and product design PERIOD, no matter if you're making a stapler or a death star.

[DennisP]

I guess I'm misunderstanding how SpaceX follows #39 in the form of "Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles," since SpaceX developed the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and is now working on Starship. There's probably been no point in their history when they weren't working on their next launch vehicle. Sure it's difficult, but just saying it's difficult is not the same as "whatever you do, don't do it."

I do think maybe NASA shouldn't develop any more launch vehicles, but I'm sure glad SpaceX is doing it and so are a bunch of newer companies.