[simfoo]

> we’re focusing on a lower cost system, and a larger payload which will enable more use cases.

So you want to beat Airbus but also be cheaper. And do it with off-the-shelf components too, because those specialized ones are just too expensive. Not to say it's impossible but wow

[leoedin]

I think this is a bad take - large corporations like Airbus are terrible at R&D. They're simply not optimised for it. It's not very hard to move much, much quicker than a large corporation does - because the people inside the large corporation are having to contend with internal politics, legacy tools, legacy cost structures, and corporate inertia that doesn't like doing things a new way.

If you've worked in both a startup and a large corporation doing R&D, it's really obvious that startups are far, far more effective at it. If you gave $10m to a startup, vs a budget in a corporate project, you'd probably get 10x the result from the startup.

Where corporations excel is in scaling things up. Once you have a good design, you need a good manufacturing process and a solid supply chain. Startups rarely have the capital or knowledge to put that in place, while big engineering corporations will.

[kortilla]

That’s also how SpaceX disrupted the launch industry. Rapid iteration of cheap shit lets you learn so much more and improve the system so rapidly that competitors get left in the dust.

[Juicyy]

the main cost is labor. Airbus probably has >1k people working on that project.

[hef19898]

If so, did ever wonder why?