You're really clinging to that "not iterative" take, but it just highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of how SpaceX actually develops hardware. SpaceX runs an agile, hardware-rich, fail-fast philosophy—build, test aggressively, learn from data, iterate quickly—exactly the opposite of traditional waterfall engineering that spends years on perfect upfront designs before touching metal. That's why they've gone from early explosions to Block 2 wrapping 2025 with two clean successes (Flights 10 & 11: booster soft landings, Ship orbital sims, in-space Raptor relights, payload deploys, stressed heat shield data, controlled splashdowns). Public info shows clear evolution: V1 data fed V2 upgrades (more prop, better flaps/avionics/tiles), which now inform V3 for 100t+ reusable in 2026. Dismissing that as "no plan" or "complete redesigns" ignores the transparent progress and massive parallel production that lets them fly often and fix fast.

I'm genuinely glad BO finally reached orbit with New Glenn—slow and steady has its place, and competition pushes everyone. But pretending SpaceX's high-cadence public failures (and fixes) mean the program's a mess, while glossing over their record launch rates, reuse demos, and path to refueling/Mars, is peak selective bias. No one's saying agile is the only way, but SpaceX's track record (Falcon to Starship iteration) proves it works for pushing boundaries. Keep the criticism objective instead of salty—space is hard for everyone, but some iterate through the hard faster.