"Hey the missile doesn't work in v1, but we still shipped it"
"Sorry, we just didn't see enough users of this product, so we remotely bricked it."
"We didn't QA this properly and now people are dead."
Move fast and break things is supposed to apply to the missile, not the process to write the guidance system.
> "Hey the missile doesn't work in v1, but we still shipped it"
Yes, that’s how we won WWII: we shipped prototypes based on the new ideas, and improved them based on the lessons from the field. In war, stakes are higher, and you can’t always afford to delay for a long time to ship perfect product: by the time it arrives, the war might already be lost.
Although that was more of a Bureau of Ordnance / Congressional fault, for insufficient interwar funding and testing.
An extreme but absolutely relevant and potentially devastating example of the current system is the F-35.
SpaceX has absolute massively iterated in every single thing they do, what the heck are you talking about? The Falcon 9 more than doubled it's payload from v1.0 to FT Block 5, and gained first stage landing/reusability through a host of iterative improvements. Starship's development has been all about hardware rich iteration with plans to enable it right down to the basic material level. They've been big on MVPs and then iterating from there.
They were not "big on MVP"
Their engineers from the start delivered a very solid vehicle tested, and re-tested probably more than NASAs own rockets.
All improvements they had since were enhancements over the original masterplan, nothing like "throw it on the wall, and see if it sticks"
Isn't the F35 developed like that though?
And you think that doesn’t happen at Boeing & Lockheed?
It sure was not a lack of technology.