SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
Initially posted this as a reply, but going top-level, cause the hot takes are too spicy for my liking.<p>So the plan was to test x, y, and z. Launch sequence and takeoff, stage separation and Starship engine light, and the post-launch stuff like booster wet landing, reentry, and heat tiles. The booster by itself is not aerodynamic, so the only way to test x is with a starship on top. And if you have starship, you might as well test y and z. But it&#x27;s not a primary goal. Any more effort in polishing y and z is &quot;premature optimization&quot;. X was the test. SpaceX did the X, we got max Q.<p>On the most recent SmarterEveryDay video on encasing a Prince Rupert&#x27;s drop in glass, sculptor Cal Breed talks about the moment when a process fails. He could stop there and restart, saving some time, but instead all the pressure is off, and he &quot;makes as many mistakes as possible&quot; for the rest of the build.
Quote is towards the end, but the whole vid is worth a watch.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;C1KT8PS6Zs4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;C1KT8PS6Zs4</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.calbreed.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.calbreed.com&#x2F;</a><p>Edit: also, they <i>needed</i> the flight plan all the way through &quot;total success&quot; in order to file with the FAA. You can&#x27;t just have &quot;oh sweet, 100% of booster things worked, we now have a suborbital craft careening on a parabolic trajectory&quot;. I didn&#x27;t read a flight plan, but I imagine they must have spelled out each possible outcome exhaustively.