Both you and I agree that aerospace companies should do large scale vehicle simulations, which they do.
In addition SpaceX does complex fluid dynamics simulations to design and test their engines. That's likely part of why they have successfully made the "holy grail" of Full-Flow staged combustion work in the Raptor. [0]
None of the failures so far could have been detected through simulation since they were complex integration issues. At some point the cost of simulation is vastly larger than the cost of just creating a test article.
Components like drogue chutes, explosive bolts, failsafe valves and abort systems are typically validated both analytically (by reviewing designs) and are often hard to fully validate by testing.
Since validating components is so expensive, it leads companies that rely on analyitical validation (like Boeing) to become overly attached to previously analysed and working components because analysis is so time consuming and expensive. You end up with modern rockets built with space-shuttle engines as components (SLS) and old jets with new engines tacked on (747 Max).
When you talk about explosive deconstruction of a test article after something new was learnt you fail to realise the learning (not the landing) was the goal. If SN9 had landed correctly, it is very likely they would have deconstructed it anyway. They just deconstructed SN12, 13 and 14 to make way for SN15 which has a very improved design.
In addition SpaceX does complex fluid dynamics simulations to design and test their engines. That's likely part of why they have successfully made the "holy grail" of Full-Flow staged combustion work in the Raptor. [0]
None of the failures so far could have been detected through simulation since they were complex integration issues. At some point the cost of simulation is vastly larger than the cost of just creating a test article.
Components like drogue chutes, explosive bolts, failsafe valves and abort systems are typically validated both analytically (by reviewing designs) and are often hard to fully validate by testing.
Since validating components is so expensive, it leads companies that rely on analyitical validation (like Boeing) to become overly attached to previously analysed and working components because analysis is so time consuming and expensive. You end up with modern rockets built with space-shuttle engines as components (SLS) and old jets with new engines tacked on (747 Max).
When you talk about explosive deconstruction of a test article after something new was learnt you fail to realise the learning (not the landing) was the goal. If SN9 had landed correctly, it is very likely they would have deconstructed it anyway. They just deconstructed SN12, 13 and 14 to make way for SN15 which has a very improved design.
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbH1ZDImaI8 "Is SpaceX's Raptor engine the king of rocket engines?"