It is a SpaceX approach. The brain is given for you so you don't strain your limbs unnecessarily, and the limbs are given for you so you don't strain your brain unnecessarily. So try it, see how it works (or rather doesn't work), decide on how to apply your brains for the next iteration.

And maybe it is a PR strategy: it is fun to watch, the public really see the progress, so it is good for stocks.

But in any case, these all Starships are prototypes, they are meant to fail.

> Don't they already have the knowledge and tech to achieve this?

One could say they don't have all the knowledge, and they lacks some tech. Second stage got clogged thrusters and couldn't orient itself. I believe, that it was ice: there was something white on the video. Compressed gases tend to cool to really low temperatures when they evaporate. Maybe the was water in them, or they themselves started to crystallize.

The booster run into troubles with liquid oxigen filters. I cannot say what happened, but some engines didn't restart. It is much better then with the first test when engines didn't start at T-0:00, but still is not good enough.

Now the second stage will run probably into issues with its heat shield. If it will be able to orient itself properly, unlike the last time.

Don't ask that specific question.

SpaceX progress with Starship is absolutely bottom level. Not even close to where they want to be.

I recommend looking past all of that and cheer along with the idiots when the mission fails.

There once was a man trying to make make gold from iron. He ended up making silver from iron.

throwaway0394:

Not even close to where they want to be.

I recommend looking past all of that and cheer along with the idiots when the mission fails.

Nobody has done it with the technologies they are using before, so it's not just a matter of applying previously acquired knowledge and tech.

Why does your software keep failing during development? Don't you have the knowledge to make it work?

It's the old, non-iterative everything-up-front method to rocket development that's weird. At least as a developer it seems obvious that a more hardware-rich approach with a high iteration rate will lead to a better outcome in the end, _especially_ when you're trying to push hard on the technological boundaries.

Generally speaking it doesn't cost me billions to fix a bug. Hence the question...

That's part of the innovation; don't just build a single reaaally expensive ship that has to be perfect. Instead, build a _ship factory_ and crank them out (relatively) cheaply and fast.

IT DIDN'T! Both pieces had not exploded!