Lol no. It is actually MORE de facto than de jure. Don't spread misinformation. I've seen that dogshit line replayed so many times. He's an engineer above every

Lol no. It is actually MORE de facto than de jure. Don't spread misinformation. I've seen that dogshit line replayed so many times. He's an engineer above everything else https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden... https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WY73exaVpyw https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WY73exaVpyw "by year" doesn't make sense. Also, the flame "plate" was a reasonable test, it hadn't been tried before. Engines failing at start doomed what was otherwise at the very limit from what we've understood. If you watched the launch, you saw how extremely long the rocket stayed on the pad. It was because with engine failures the thrust was too low to get off and it actually needed to lose fuel. It was like 5x the time it would have been held down otherwise. It's a misnomer that anything really went truly "wrong" with the test. It's like pressing F5 and seeing the "There were build errors" popup.