> This is what I mean by the (imo) unfounded cynicism about SpaceX. Failed 3 or 4 times, kinda sorta got one. That's a bad record for a certain type of engineering;
I wasn’t saying that the failures indicate that the process isn’t working. You’ll notice that wasn’t my initial point at all when I expressed my skepticism.
I only brought it up to respond to the point: “They have already flight tested the belly flop flip and had no problems with it.”
That isn’t true. They have had problems with it. That’s why I mentioned those tests.
Could they continue to iterate on it and work out those problems? Yes! They could. Could they continue to iterate on it, and find the problems to be very hard to overcome? Yes, that kind of thing has also happened in SpaceX history.
I’m not saying they’re doomed to fail. I’m saying there’s something that seems to me relatively high risk, and a core part of their plans. I don’t think that aspect has been fully de-risked, and I don’t understand what the alternative option would be if they can’t make it reliable enough.
If you call that unfounded skepticism, then I’d turn around and say you’re being overly optimistic.
> It took _20_ launches to get a successful Falcon 9 upright landing.
I know. I watched every single one live. As I’ve watched every single Starhopper test live. I remember exactly where I was for their first successful landing of each.
I’m not hoping they fail. I desperately want them to be successful. If you asked me to bet on it, I’d say more likely than not that they get it sorted. But I’m less confident than I was for the F9 landings.