This is waterfall method propaganda! It never works out this smoothly. They probably forgot important requirements like: the astronauts need to be alive on Mars.

[–] Bezier@suppo.fi 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

2 years later: It's now up to the lawyers to figure out if it's the rocket that doesn't meet agreed requirements or if it's on the customer for not giving proper requirements.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 8 points 4 months ago

Or the funders get bored of waiting after ten years of "no Mars yet" and cancel the project, leaving you with a half finished rocket.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Actual real world right now giant rockets include

One that is being built under waterfall methodology. It has been being built for several years. That's the Blue Origin New Glen heavy lift reusable rocket
One that is being developed under an agile methodology, it flew as a subscale lander to test their engine and flight control, it has flown four full test flights, improving on each. That's SpaceX's Starship

We are yet to see either launch a payload to orbit

[–] oo1@lemmings.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How was appollo programme planned?

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago

It was outsourced to the guy who ran Nazi concentration camps to build ballistic missiles to bomb London with.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This is what I came to the comment section for.

If like me you're not a pro, it seems to literally just mean linear phases, so yeah, any nonlinearity would cause problems.