"Cost overruns and massive delays plaguing the space industry are the rule, not the exception"
Do you know if space is anomalous in this regard, or is it just that many space endeavors are megaprojects and that's the natural tendency of megaprojects (see, for example, the book Megaprojects and Risk). To what degree is this what we expect from 1. megaprojects usually going over budget and 2. space is extra hard and one mistake could be disastrous or incredibly costly (e.g. putting a contact lens on a telescope is pretty hard once it's in LEO)?
If it's roughly in line with what's to be expected, how confident should we be that the new era of builders can reach and maintain this better way? Is this likely or still relatively unproven?
A great question! I haven't read Megaprojects and Risk, although I've heard great things about it. To some extent, I think your point can be an explanation of some of the delays and cost overruns in the industry. But I think a larger part of this issue in the space industry is incumbent bloat. Boeing has traditionally thrived off government contracts because there wasn't a decent competitor before SpaceX, and cost-plus contracts would allow for as much time as needed, plus a few years. Now that fixed-price contracts are the norm, and SpaceX and others can deliver on those, incumbent powers cannot depend on the government funding their cost overruns for as long as it takes to build something.
I'm not entirely sure of this answer, and I may have more to say on this in a future post, but my impression is that the new era of builders are delivering better products for cheaper and quicker, despite the natural tendency of megaprojects. The next few years should give us a lot of data points on this, but I have been very impressed with these new builders.
"Cost overruns and massive delays plaguing the space industry are the rule, not the exception"
Do you know if space is anomalous in this regard, or is it just that many space endeavors are megaprojects and that's the natural tendency of megaprojects (see, for example, the book Megaprojects and Risk). To what degree is this what we expect from 1. megaprojects usually going over budget and 2. space is extra hard and one mistake could be disastrous or incredibly costly (e.g. putting a contact lens on a telescope is pretty hard once it's in LEO)?
If it's roughly in line with what's to be expected, how confident should we be that the new era of builders can reach and maintain this better way? Is this likely or still relatively unproven?
A great question! I haven't read Megaprojects and Risk, although I've heard great things about it. To some extent, I think your point can be an explanation of some of the delays and cost overruns in the industry. But I think a larger part of this issue in the space industry is incumbent bloat. Boeing has traditionally thrived off government contracts because there wasn't a decent competitor before SpaceX, and cost-plus contracts would allow for as much time as needed, plus a few years. Now that fixed-price contracts are the norm, and SpaceX and others can deliver on those, incumbent powers cannot depend on the government funding their cost overruns for as long as it takes to build something.
I'm not entirely sure of this answer, and I may have more to say on this in a future post, but my impression is that the new era of builders are delivering better products for cheaper and quicker, despite the natural tendency of megaprojects. The next few years should give us a lot of data points on this, but I have been very impressed with these new builders.