I imagine they don't necessarily always fail explosively. I don't know how often this stuff actually happens.

I don’t know how frequent it is, but the important point is the attitude that test failures can be ok. I don’t know if this one is, but yes there’s a pattern ….

Instead of being so risk averse that you take years and billions extra doing your best to create one of a kind hardware trying be perfect (NASA/Boeing), SpaceX builds many copies, iterate, test frequently, learn from failures. This approach seemed to have worked extremely well for previous rockets, so I’m still cheering them on.

Even just consider this test - the fact that they’re trying to build a rocket engine every week with the goal of automating the process well enough to have high confidence in them, can test it without the rocket, can build a rocket and attach engines later, can use a rocket and replace a failed engine. If this modular approach comes together this is huge!

Okay? It was on a test stand.

Test Pad, it was on a test pad.

The footage shows SpaceX’s engine test pad going up in flame.

The reason they use test pads is that iPads are too expensive.

Weekly explosions on a test pad? No. None of the integrated tests have exploded on the pad. (Edit: like this one, which did)

The last starship on the pad was mid March. It made it up, but fell apart during reentry. Before that, IFT 2 was in Nov 23, and the exploded 8 min up. IFT 1 was over a year ago, and that only made it 4 min after lift off.