> set it back a few months. I'd bet $1000 that by end of next week SN10 will be on the pad, if not a repaired version of SN9. > Safety is very clearly an afte

> set it back a few months. I'd bet $1000 that by end of next week SN10 will be on the pad, if not a repaired version of SN9. > Safety is very clearly an afterthought at the Starship site. As far as I know no one has died at a SpaceX site. I think clearly we can say that SpaceX is putting sufficient amount of energy into worker safety. I agree with you this issue posed a risk to safety, and I'm sure SpaceX will learn from it and applies the lessons from it in the future. > You can't have that in rocketry. They want to go to Mars and can't even get out of the assembly building in one piece! Literally one day before they just took almost the same rocket up to 12.5k and almost landed it. I'm trying very hard to assume good intentions on your part, but statements like that make it hard. The alternative you seem to be proposing is the Boeing model where everything is extremely slow, methodical and waterfall style. How did that end up? A disaterous demo flight with 2 near misses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Orbital_Flight_Test#Anomalies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Orbital_Flight_Test#Ano.... We all agree rocket science is hard. We all agree that going to mars has lots of critical safety requirements. But SpaceX isn't going to mars yet, they are just doing rapid prototyping. The requirements here are WAY less.