In the late 1950s, my dad was a USAF officer... combat veteran, command pilot and weather/electronics qualified... a very unusual combination.
In 1956 he was selected to command an Air Training Command Detachment for RAF personnel on all aspects of the Thor IRBMs that were to nuclear capable... by early 1959.
Our first stop as a family was Santa Barbara CA... where every day he would go Vandenberg AFB to for 6-months intensive training... on the missiles that yet to be reliable enough for combat alert. Every week... as young kids playing outdoors, sis and I saw rockets launched out of Vandenberg that did crazy stuff about 1/2-the time. Douglas built them and tested-tested-tested with USAF... a million dollars a missile. Many years later, my dad later admitted to what we were seeing... lots of launch failures with few successes... early-on. Then we went to Britain with Dad and his training detachment.
Apparently after a few years of intense development/testing... of this first USAF IRBM... the Thor became extremely reliable for duty... so Thor missiles and warheads were shipped overseas to surround the USSR... including where we had been stationed [RAF Hemswell, 3-separate launch sites in the countryside, near us]. Eventually these missiles on 'combat alert' became obsolete and were removed from service. The British sold the missiles back to the US/NASA and returned the warheads to the USAF. Well, the design was so rock-solid after many painful years... the Thor's found new life as NASA core launch vehicles... first as 'Thor-Delta'... then simply 'Delta'... then they became almost unrecognizable with all the many modern variations. All occuring on the solid foundations o prior developments/successes/failures.
The point of all these words is that these early Thor developments emphasized consistent instrumentation and testing procedures, carefully/deliberately evolving booster configurations... carefully building for maximum quality... etc... which provided the early rigorous roadmap for future Launcher successes. I cannot understand how SpaceX Texas could be so prone to 'wild west' development/testing... changes-on-changes-over-changes... this in direct violation of all prior rules and paths to success. Especially with the monster they are testing... over the heads of everybody in the Gulf-of Mexico flightpath.
Especially when they are planning/building larger variants as we speak... long before the base-design has any 'stability'. I guess I am too old to understand this approach. Damn.
Somehow SpaceX was far more disciplined with Facon9 development... but then it seemed to conform more closely with known development protocols. Success IS a terrible teacher. This in one time I 'feel the pain' of the FAA commercial spaceflight authorities.
Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov
