[fragmede]

Because, even in failure, there's progress. "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration" is often attributed to Edison, without whom, we wouldn't have the lightbulb. In order to make progress, you need to try. And if you never fail, you're not trying hard enough. Would it be better if it hadn't failed? Absolutely. But better to try and fail than never try.

[slenk]

What bothers me is that they don't even try to succeed. They only want liftoff - they don't seem to care about the ever important orbital aspect

[avhon1]

Why don't you think they're trying to succeed? They got very close to orbit today, much closer than many prototype rockets do. Just earlier this year, Japan's new rocket also failed to achieve orbit. Its second stage just didn't ignite at all. Starship got closer to orbit than that today.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/the-launch-of-japans...

The Soviet N1 rocket never even got past first stage separation, in 4 launches. They got closer every time, but after the 4th stage blew up during main engine cut-off, they canceled the program, and never flew a cosmonaut beyond low-earth orbit.

[MatthewElvey]

I think most people don't understand the concept of if you want to succeed, fail faster.

It's valid (and explained well and often) but counterintuitive.

(And with mundane tasks, it's less applicable, as with them, it's reasonable to expect that when competent people attempt them, they generally get done correctly.)