| > 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. |