Okay, I hadn’t heard that the bloc 1 was never planned to even theoretically have the 100+ tons capacity of the eventual operational version. That makes a difference.
Finally though, there is the fact that Saturn never had a catastrophic failure to make orbit. What were the NASA engineers doing right, or at least extremely lucky?
They absolutely got lucky on a few flights. The classic example of resonant behavior on a rocket were the pogo oscillations on Apollo 6, which probably would have been an abort if it were crewed. Apollo 13 also had some oscillations, and there were other close calls in different areas. Apollo 12 would have been aborted had it not been for the quick thinking “switch SCE to AUX” after a lightning strike.
But it’s a silly comparison anyway. Apollo had way, way more money. And the Saturn V was a much simpler rocket. Yes, their computers were more primitive and they didn’t have so much history in rocketry to work from, but the two programs are just too different to compare.
I think, probably, Starship V1 had been targeted at 100 tons, but that doesn’t mean they had a reasonable expectation of hitting that. SpaceX makes a point of setting aggressive targets that can’t realistically be hit. They build something, fall short, and improve in the next iteration. Falcon 9 1.0 was supposed to be reusable by parachute, but it never came close to working. Falcon 9 1.1 made very significant improvements, but it still wasn’t enough for reusability. Falcon 9 1.1 Block 3 finally achieved reusability, but with too much refurb work required. It wasn’t until Falcon 9 1.1 Block 5 that they really got high-cadence reusability working. That’s just how the iterative process works.
Musk isn’t getting discouraged:
Nice splashdown:
And some cute dophins said hi to the crew:
I made a rather rude comment but decided the better of it. Look for it in my ongoing Science thread, Let’s Make Earth the #1 Planet. Thank you.
Space picture of the day.
Great Balls a Fire.
You (and I) have young absurd minds. 
That photographer (Jenny Hautmann) put in a lot of effort to get juuuust the right angle!
Would it surprise you to discover that this was for the NROL-69 mission?
Nice. 
You will (probably) not be surprised to learn the Florida state capitol facility has a similar configuration.
There are lots of photos available online carefully aligned to hide the reality, and equally many to accentuate it. 
There is another similar but more … unmistakeably prominent … building juxtaposition elsewhere outside the USA. I’ve seen the pix but I’m drawing a blank on whether it’s a religious or government structure and where it is.
Fun in any case.
Richard Rogers, the architect behind the Pompidou centre and many other famous buildings, always tried to hide a phallus in his designs. I worked in one of his buildings and the two revolving doors and the covered walkway were pretty obvious when viewed from above.
And the price was $69 million and change.
“Same as in town”
Space is hard:
German company, launched out of Norway, small rocket (about 1 ton payload). Slightly unusual in that it uses propane propellant, but otherwise a pretty typical 2-stage rocket.
It appears to explode moments before impacting the bay. Suggesting a ridiculously slow and sloppy flight termination system or FT decision process.
Unclear whether the initiating anomaly was guidance or thrust control. I’m betting guidance.
Not seeing it. Here are two adjacent frames:
The first seems to show a distinct splash. At some point in the next 1/30 s, an ignition source is found and it explodes. I don’t think the FTS engaged at all.
Agreed that guidance seems the most likely. The whole launch looked pretty wobbly. Oscillations the whole way up. Hard to say beyond that, though. Poor response on the thrust vector control, maybe.
I defer to your analysis; I was watching in real time.
IANA expert on launches, but it seemed a long time post-ignition on the pad and slow clearing the tower. Lower than planned thrust? Or just low t/w by plan?
Good question. Agreed that it seems a little slow for a small rocket like that. By very crude inspection, it takes about 6 seconds to travel its length, which is 28 m. So an acceleration of 1.55 m/s^2, or a TWR of about 1.16. That’s not unheard of for a rocket (about that of the Saturn V), but definitely on the low side. So an engine out or slight underperformance is possible.
Once it starts yawing over, control is obviously already lost.
Engine out then cascading loss of counter-control by vectoring or verniers or …
I look forward to the post mortem press releases.
They’ve definitely using vectoring; you can see the plume change direction on ascent. Just seems to be mistuned in a way that it amplifies the oscillations. Could be either software or hardware at this point.