You test components in isolation, you test integration of components, you run simulations of the entire rocket, and finally you test the rocket launch.

You’ll catch issues along the way, but you can’t catch all of them before a full launch test. That’s why there are launch tests.

Test code by running it.

Test a rocket by launching it.

Testing to failure is pretty common in rocketry. If you don’t push the limits you’ll never really know where the limits are.

This has been SpaceX’s methodology for a long time now and has gotten them to the point where they have the most reliable western launch vehicles ever launching record amounts of mass to orbit each year at record low prices.

I truly hope that if you ever design a rocket yourself, that you will test it. I have no idea why you'd think testing is a terrible thing to do if it has to do with rockets.

Why precisely? Can you elaborate?

The history of rocketry goes much further back than the space shuttle. The shuttle was supposed to be a step towards reusability but didn’t succeed or progress the way they thought it would. Starship is continuing that dream of full reusability and their approach is working. You can’t plan everything on paper when it comes to hardware especially when attempting things that have never been done before, you just don’t have the data in that case. You have to build prototypes and test them to destruction. All manufacturers do this.

In hindsight yes. The trick is knowing which of the thousands of things to do are necessary. And yes, that’s how you end up with preflight checklists

There's more to "overall success" then launch failure rate. Cost and time are very important, which are the other dimensions they are optimizing for here.

I ignored those, since the starship at this stage can be considered a prototype. I am just trying to argue, that calling SpaceX unreliable, especially compared to its competitors and time to market, is bold.

The usual definition of success for a rocket is getting the payload to the intended orbit. Since Starship doesn't have a payload yet, at least not a real one, its "success rate" is not measuring the same thing.

I'd say that only the 7th mission was legitimately a failure, because there was some rerouting of flights outside the exclusion zone. The other six missions were successful tests since nothing other than the rocket itself was affected.

It’s like comparing the reliability of the Model 3 and the Cybertruck.

You cannot compare a mature product to something that is still under initial development.

That would be like comparing a 1-y.o.'s ability to run to a 10-y.o.'s. Of course the younger kid doesn't yet control their legs, but that doesn't mean it's going to stumble and fall forever.

R&D for starship has a several-billion-dollar NASA grant. Something like 30-50% of the money being blown up on this program is taxpayer money.

Starship program is funded in part by NASA as part of Artemis program. So some of this money is ours.

Fortunately (for him) he'll be President on Monday and can then order the FAA to let him do whatever he wants.