It's not up to me to "let" them do anything. I think taking risks is a solid strategy, that clearly has worked for them.
The failure of the pad was entirely, 100% predictable. It's (literally) not rocket science. How concrete responds under pressure is a super well understood thing.
Yes, and they analyzed the risk, looked at the percentage chance it would be a problem, and the impact of the problem.
Then they put the deluge system on a priority list with 10,000 other things that had to get done before the first flight and did what needed to be done, but likely skipped over the nice to haves, knowing they could always come back to them.
For all you know building the deluge system for flight one may have delayed them x months, and they simply decided to take the risk because they needed the political capital of a visible launch attempt to even keep the program alive.
I’m a bit shocked people on hn don’t understand rapid prototyping and iterative development.
You genuinely seem upset or angry that a private company did something other than what you think it should have. That’s not healthy.
What language have I used that suggests I'm upset? As far as I can tell, all I've done is point out that "what happens to concrete under millions of pounds force" is not some area full of unknowns where the outcome wasn't 100% predictable.
Where did I imply I have any "say"? I very explicitly said the exact opposite. I also clearly said that risk taking is a good strategy that is clearly working for them. This is just one case where they got it wrong, and the thing they got wrong was 1000% predictable. That literally all I'm saying...
The failure of the pad was entirely, 100% predictable. It's (literally) not rocket science. How concrete responds under pressure is a super well understood thing.