[jillesvangurp]

It's an understandable but wrong attitude. If you don't have high profile failures like this, you aren't taking enough R&D risk. It's a fiercely ambitious industry and these launch attempts amount to what literally are moon shots. The race is on between various companies and countries as to who gets there first.

Boeing is pretty much out of the race at this point. Just too busy navel gazing and lobbying. There's a big risk that the next person on the moon might be from China. Blue Origin and SpaceX are the best things to happen to the rocket industry in decades. So, yes Blue Origin had a RUD with New Glenn. They should, learn and adapt and launch the next one. It would be good for SpaceX to have credible competition. And New Glenn seems like it could become that.

But if they only get their lessons every few years, they'll be competing against a fully reusable Starship rather than Falcon 9 & Falcon heavy by the time this thing becomes a serious launch vehicle. The goal posts are moving.

[hgoel]

High profile failures that take out launch infrastructure are undesirable because the cost to that is much much higher than just losing the rocket. It means having all of your R&D and production pipelines stalled for at least months, usually years, while the rest of that fiercely ambitious industry races ahead.

This was routine pre-launch testing, not a launch attempt.

[superxpro12]

My understanding is that a static fire test is not much different than a launch attempt? The tanks are fully loaded. The engines are throttling up to full.

In terms of application its the same amount of energy going into the rocket in either case.

[hgoel]

What I was trying to imply is that it wasn't R&D. That it was routine testing, verifying that your machine is working fine.

Static fires put more stress on the rocket than an actual launch because the rocket is stuck on the ground, receiving all the shockwaves. They also cause more damage to the launch infrastructure.

[chainingsolid]

They might purposely NOT fully fuel one of the 2 tanks, in case this happens...

[Hugsbox]

Forgive my ignorance, but why would China being the next on the moon be such a bad thing? Aren't moon missions mostly just "look what I can do!" sorts of things?

[hgoel]

For decades, Americans have been propagandized into the position that they alone are exceptional. Thus, anyone that challenges that belief becomes the enemy. It's gotten so bad, that "China might get there first" is the only way to get American politicians to actually stick to a target for more than 4 years.

[fastball]

Americans wanted to beat the Soviets to the moon the first time around, and I don't think it was because they'd "been propagandized into the position that they alone are exceptional".

[jillesvangurp]

Depends on your point of view. But I imagine some people in the US would not be happy to lose that race. The reason it was a race in the sixties is because they definitely didn't want the Russians to get there first.

[Hugsbox]

So purely so that China doesn't get the bragging rights? I guess I don't see the big deal but I'm sure it's more important than it seems on the surface.

[brookst]

Some of that, and also because it’s a benchmark of program maturity. Think of it as not wanting China to be able to do things the US can’t, with some overtones of military capability, American exceptionalism, the symbolism of China not even being in the race that the US won 56 years ago, etc.

[Hugsbox]

That makes a lot of sense! Thanks for your patience with my smooth brain

[pphysch]

China isn't looking at it just for bragging rights, but as a step towards the first moon base. Some see it as a race for the frontier and territorial claims.

[Matl]

Are you saying that Americans, who have close to 1,000 known and many unknown bases in every corner of the globe are worried someone else might set up a base somewhere before them?

I guess I am just not that bothered, because I don't assume American intentions are inherently better.

[fastball]

Would you really be surprised to discover that Americans in general might be more inclined to assume that American intentions are better?

[Hugsbox]

Is a moon base a practical or even useful thing to have? I mean, it sounds really cool, but what would be the benefits?

[watwut]

Boeing issue was that they in fact took the risks so that they move faster and cheaper.

> There's a big risk that the next person on the moon might be from China.

China seems to be focused more on pragmatic things and less on super expensive vanity projects.

[jillesvangurp]

They have a pretty concrete moon program. That would be one of the things they are focusing on.

[phkahler]

I don't see China as being in a race though. They seem willing to play a long game in a lot of areas.

[Rover222]

Nah, failures that destroy the launch pad are just bad, any way you try to slice it.

[Voultapher]

Based on operating experience and outlook, Rocketlab shouldn't be forgotten on that list. Launch cadence is the driving factor for revenue and profit for these companies' launch division.

[harimau777]

That's easy to say if you aren't the one getting space junk dumped on you when a rocket explodes.

[rhubarbtree]

Is there any reason to doubt that the Chinese will get (back) there first?

[brookst]

Sure. It’s not easy to do. I think odds favor China right now, but it’s far from a done deal. Anything from geopolitics to internal politics to technical hurdles could interfere (ditto with the US and everyone else of course).

[chihuahua]

Not first. Seventh.

The successful manned moon landings so far:

1. United States of America

2. United States of America

3. United States of America

4. United States of America

5. United States of America

6. United States of America

Now we're watching a riveting race for 7th place.

[Matl]

There was no race anymore once the first Moon landing happened. Same as the Soviets won the 'space race' since they were the first to get into space.

The Moon landing race was a new race.

Now the Back to the Moon race is a different one altogether.

[mongol]

What were the high profile failures in the Apollo program that proves your point?

[qsi]

Apollo 1. Three astronauts died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

[m4rtink]

Not to mention there being a lot of launch failures pre and during the Apollo era, including pad explosions (there are nice compilations on youtube). But that was not really that much of an issue, as this was expected and there were dozens of pads built for these launches, so the testing cadence was not affected.

There was no fatal launch failure for Apollo & pad explosion would be a problem with just 2 pads available.

There were a couple Saturn V stage explosions during testing but again - those damaged test stands, not the pad.