[the_mungler]

Well, it did successfully lift off the pad. I honestly didn't think it would make it that far.

"The ... Failure happens ... Before anything flies the first time" I'm no aerospace engineer, but I doubt this was the case in the early days of jet engines(if that is the case, then I stand corrected). The new raptor engines are full flow staged combustion, only the second of their kind. Having this many light right next to each other and burn for that long at high altitude is a huge milestone.

[XorNot]

I am curious what milestone contracts SpaceX may have had sitting around waiting for a Starship flight to pay out actually.

If this was a sales pitch "the rocket destroyed the launchpad, and got damaged in the process - once we fix that it'll work" is a much better pitch then "we need another 2 years minimum of permitting in order to build the flame diverter to launch it" (though I'm content to put this one on Musk: once Starship started being delayed, building the flame diverter should've just been a time cost they ate immediately).

The stupider takes on this are the people doing the "this is so incompetent! This company can't be trusted" spiel as though the Falcon 9 hasn't been quietly throwing things into orbit and landing this entire time.

[hef19898]

The first jet engines were used on actual aircraft during WW2, for obvious reasons speed trumped safety across the board. Heck, back then people thought installing liquid fuel rocket engines in wooden glider aircaft was such a good idea, they actually built and used them in combat. I'm too lazy to read up on the actual development history of the first jet powered fighter jets so.

And yes, depending on aircraft, a lot of components are tested until failure before they are installed in actually flying aircraft.