I think you are reading too much into this. SpaceX has a rather aggressive test program, and the purpose of the tests is not (only) to verify the functionality of the system, but also to learn about the vehicle and involved technologies. At this stage they are pushing the boundaries of the systems capabilities intentionally up to the point where it might start to fail. So if things don’t fail, it only means that they could have pushed harder and squeezed out more performance.

That does not mean that anyone wants Starship to explode. But the objective is clearly not to do a perfect launch, because SpaceX knows that it’s more efficient to make mistakes a few times times and then succeed, instead of spending excessive amounts of time and money one single perfect test launch. This has been communicated very clearly from the very beginning.

This sumarry is erroneously mixing up events from the first and second flight test.

Link to archive.li

Scott Manley conjectures that the staging itself worked as intended, but the flip maneuver caused too much stress on the internal plumbing (with all the propellant sloshing around), resulting in a ruptured pipe and burning in the base of the booster.

Not sure where you got that impression from. The booster apparently worked flawlessly during ascent, with all 33 engines working until stage separation. Only 30s into the boostback burn, the AFTS triggered after several engines shut down prematurely. The second stage was deployed successfully, and completed most of its burn, before being lost only around half a minute before scheduled (sub)orbit insertion, around 3km/h short of the required velocity.

For people like me without an X/Twitter account, there is also the spacex.com livestream (which is just the Twitter livestream embedded, but no login is required).

Hmm, I am a bit more confident in the ships abilities (at least for anything between hot staging and SECO).

Anyways, if it gets to the point to initiate hot staging (regardless of the outcome) and the FTS works, it‘s a success. But we should also remember that SN9 landed (crashed) harder than SN8, and SN12 was way worse than the previous three tests. If stage zero is mostly unharmed, the FTS works, and the authorities are not too unhappy, SpaceX has already produced enough hardware for several tests to get it right within the next few months. A good test is a test where you learn a lot, and can try again soon.

I would assume that “market share” is related to the relative number of units sold/number of active subscriptions/fraction of total sales in terms in revenue, or some similar metric. I run a variety of different distributions on servers (bare metal, VMs and containers) and desktop computers. Do they all count equally? Without giving it more thought, I wouldn’t even know how to determine the market share of Ubuntu in my own home in a sensible way.

With Windows, I can just count the number of active licenses. Oh wait, its zero.

Also, what about the back side of the barrel? Who is producing that oil?

Also Logseq.

The same applies for various password managers.

There is a new notice to mariners, which announces “rocket launching activities” for (approximately) September 8th. The previous notice was for August 31st.

If I remember correctly, they can launch with up to three engines missing. I guess the early shutdown of the fourth engine after ~2.74s triggered an abort of the static fire, which was supposed to last for 5 seconds?

SpaceX livestream for today’s static fire test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHxKhpFUOuo

Currently counting down to 2:08pm CT/19:08 UTC (17 minutes from now). Edit: Live stream is online now.