> It was anticipated it would fail eventually. As I stated in the part of that sentence you omitted, everything fails eventually. It is very reasonable to exp

> It was anticipated it would fail eventually. As I stated in the part of that sentence you omitted, everything fails eventually. It is very reasonable to expect a better estimate than that for a human spaceflight. If something fails, you need to know why it failed, it doesn't matter if it flew once, 23 times, or 2300 times. > Planes are meant to fly well more than 23 flights so that's a bad comparison. The point of the comparison is that for aerospace hardware 23 uses is not decrepitly old, and a manufacturing defect can easily take that long to cause an issue. > No other booster has flown more than 23 flights, this is unchartered territory. And it will remain uncharted territory if the reaction to a failure is "eh rockets just aren't supposed to work after that point."