Wrong on every point.1. Even in the 1960's this launch would not have been called a qualified success.
2. I am getting more and more disappointed with the way SpaceX is working on Starship/Booster.
It's just trial-and-error like Wernher von Braun did in the 1940's, but in those days they did not have 80 years of experience with rocket launches like we have nowadays.
3. The first Saturn V launch was a success, only 25 years after the first successful A-4 (aka V-2) launch.
Saturn V could bring astronauts to the moon and bring them back.
4.The second Starship launch was a failure, 81 years after the first successful A-4 launch.
Starship is merely a two-stage rocket. Yes, it is big and heavy but that does not change the basic design principles.
5. Everything can accurately be calculated and simulated nowadays, but if that is done by young enthusiastic, overconfident, but inexperienced engineers working under extreme time pressure then the results are full of mistakes. It's no different in my world (process design) where also most calculations and simulations done by young coworkers have to be corrected by more experienced engineers. Seems to be a result of the modern education system.
1. The first Atlas launch was called a success that even though it flipped and had to be destroyed by the RSO, it validated the balloon tank concept by remaining intact during the flips.
2. Nobody had tried to fly a fully reusable system from the beginning. If this was a test of an expendable vehicle, the booster was 100% successful. It only failed after the primary mission and during the recovery phase.
3. There were 4 non flight stages built for testing of each stage of the Saturn V. One each for static fire, structural load , facilities and ground dynamics testing. Why don't we wait on the fifth Starship before passing judgement.
4. NASA has crap loads of money to build test facilities, pads, manufacturing buildings, etc and 3 different companies doing the stages. Of course it could be done quicker. SpaceX is spending a small fraction of what NASA did and it is SpaceX's own money. You have no say in how they are doing it.
5. No, everything can't be calculated and simulated. That is why there is ground validation tests. That is why proofloading is done. That is why wings of airliners are loaded to 150% of flight loads on the ground. SpaceX chooses to bypass some of this ground testing for flight testing. They are hardware rich and have great telemetry systems. SpaceX has more test points inflight than Saturn did in its ground tests.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
Also, I am not a SpaceX fan, but I know what the reality is