[GizmoSwan]

I just want to know how you know that "you" are incredibly right in this. You are just speculating like everybody else here. There is no quality or quantitative measurement available here for you to make these absolute statements. The only thing that I can gather from your text is that a lot can go wrong in fact.

Having the prototype that is exploding is NOT fine at this stage and that is "my" opinion. Your opinion is yours alone.

You are basically claiming your analysis is indisputable and that it has to be accepted and your belief in people's intelligence makes it so and I am stupid because you believe that they are smarter.

It is not matter of getting it right the first time and improvements in parts and efficiency. It is about having it never explode after the first round.

I don't care who you believe they are beating in the market place and how magnificent you believe this rocket is.

Good luck if you are associated with this venture. If so you are allowed to pump it.

[nickik]

I know that because that is what Elon Musk and other SpaceX engineers and have said. They have explained this in multiple presentations and interviews over the last 5 years. This is not a mystery. I am not speculating.

There is a whole community that has been following this project since day 1. There are people filming the production site every day. The analyze every part they see and try to figure out what changed. Some people in the community can get questions to Elon Musk and others.

The reason you are getting down-voted is that you seem to have not studied it at all what SpaceX is actually doing, and simply jump into the comments and make strong statements that what SpaceX is doing is wrong.

And your justification for this opinion is totally unconvincing for anybody that has actually studied the problem.

> I don't care who you believe they are beating in the market place and how magnificent you believe this rocket is.

Its really not about believe. Its a simple fact that everybody has acknowledged.

[kelnos]

> I just want to know how you know that "you" are incredibly right in this. You are just speculating like everybody else here.

Sure, and the same goes for you. Empirically, though, we know that when the US/NASA throws a ton of money at something and has a good engineering culture, we can get brilliant things like Apollo. When that culture erodes and the appetite for burning cash fades, we get things like the Space Shuttle. Yes, amazing, but mediocre when compared to the achievements of the Apollo program, and ultimately ending in failure and decommissioning.

Empirically, we have SpaceX, which has basically invented the "reusable rocket" category, using a hybrid development method that includes simulations and building and testing prototypes early and often.

Empirically, we (still) have Boeing, which has stuck with the old model, overengineering from the start. What do we have? A development process that is years behind SpaceX's, for a lot more money.

Learning from failure is fine when the only cost is money and materials. SpaceX's progress so far seems to have proven their development model, even before Starship.

I do find it really funny that you start out by deriding everyone for just speculating, but then finish your post loudly denouncing everyone who supports SpaceX as some sort of idiot... which is exactly the same sort of speculation... speculation which is not supported by the facts on the ground.