Yes, clearly it&#x27;s not just &quot;dump motors in room, get results&quot;, but rather that it&#x27;s usually very doable to generate failures.  There are only so many reasons that they can fail and it shouldn&#x27;t be too difficult to generate the circumstances that cause those failures.<p>Obviously figuring out <i>which</i> circumstances are the ones that are actually responsible for failures will be more difficult.  But it&#x27;s not too hard to do some sensitivity analysis to get some clues.<p>If they&#x27;re <i>highly</i> sensitive to having too much current drawn then that might make you suspect that somehow, somewhere the system&#x27;s power demands are overwhelming the generator and that&#x27;s what is causing the failure.<p>The point behind &quot;it&#x27;s not rocket science&quot; is that rockets are very, very expensive to make and so you can&#x27;t just test as many of them as you&#x27;d like, for as long as you&#x27;d like, until you through trial and error reproduce the conditions that caused the failure.  You also don&#x27;t get the rocket back when it either succeeds or fails.<p>But in this case the starter&#x2F;generators are cheap, and they are able to in many cases sort through the debris of the crash.  So that does make it qualitatively and quantitatively different than rocket science.