What more can we learn from SpaceX

And how you can sharpen your engineering practice from it

​After the interest in the last post I wrote on SpaceX and the general interest in SpaceX, I decided that at some time I would come back to the topic - once I thought of an ideal way for readers like you to get as much out of this as possible.

And now is that time now.
​
In the video below, you will see an interview with Elon Musk by the host of Everyday Astronaut: Tim Dodd. If you are not familiar with Everyday Astronaut, then you should put it on one of your subscription lists - it is an excellent ongoing series that provides you with examples of engineering practice that you can use to hone your own engineering understanding and skills.

In the above video, a number of key concepts are discussed. By contemplating these, you can dig into the underlying principles of engineering practice. From doing this, you become better at understanding these principles, and you can then better apply them.

Below are some things I noted - I am sure that they will help you. But I am also keen to know what you noticed. After reading what I have, please share, in the comments, some of your observations on engineering practice examples - good or bad - from the interview. I always enjoy talking about such things, and would enjoy talking with you about them too.

Use of first principles to inform the goals
At 14:20 they note from theory that they can’t get more efficiency so now effort can be directed elsewhere. Why do I find this interesting? Because it shows how, as technology and engineering projects evolve, engineers need to and can change mode. Without this use of theory, there could have been an ongoing fixation with combustion efficiency - even though that’s not what’s really needed by the end user.

Framing the mixing challenge
There is a detailed explanation of the mixing process at the 16:00 minute mark. The conversation revealed that the approach was to premix prior, so that the combustion chamber does not need to do as much mixing - only the last 10%. I like this because it shows how as you progress from the bigger picture to the details you can still be framing.

Strategic design thinking informed by engineering attributes
It is noted at the 18:00 point that they are still using hydraulics as opposed to full electrics for the actuators. The reason is that they have had to focus on other things at that time and the actuators can be separated enough from other systems - so it is something they can look into later. This is a good use of systemic thinking to help optimsie the design strategy which is a great example of modal shifting. There is also a good use of systemic thinking and first principles when they explain how a hydraulic system is still a good idea in other contexts - so they are not designing by heuristics! 

Framing the design strategy
“If you’re not adding back at least 10% of things you’re deleting, you’re not deleting enough."
This is clearly a design strategy suited for the case where weight and complexity need to be reduced. This would not make sense in other cases - say a civilian nuclear reactor - but it is well aligned in this case. And it is an ideal tool to help all engineers keep the mindset suited the challenge - especially if they have tendencies toward different mindsets because of their background (very Global Engineer). There is also at this time the reference to focusing on production and then automation - this shows it is very much a commercial venture. Finally, there is the acknowledgement of the need to iterate - because the limits of first principles use are being reached. I like that last notion because itis informed iteration, and not random trial and error.

Systemic thinking and opportunism
It is noted, around the 23:00 mark, how adjusting the system to protect items from heat and aero load can eliminate the need for the shields. I like this because it shows the synergistic value from combining the attributes of an expert engineer - and not just treating them separately.

Trouble with theory
I was surprised by what appeared to be difficulty with explaining cavitation at the 28:00 mark. The two seem to think they are just bubbles and maybe affected by the chemical environment. It did not seem to be understood that they are supersonic shocks that literally break up solids. It shows that we all keep on learning first principles.

More trouble with theory
Correct me I am wrong, but it seems to me that at the 37:00 mark they provide the exact definition of Isp as an alternative to the Isp. Another example that we can all keep learning.

Now it's your turn
What did you notice in the video? What principles or mistakes stood out to you? Were there other moments that highlighted good systemic thinking, clever framing, or design trade-offs? Drop a comment below—I’d genuinely love to hear your perspective, so I will respond.

​If you're not sure where to start, just share one moment that made you stop and think. These conversations are how we all get better. You can also recap some engineering basics here to better spot examples in the video.