Yes, I agree, there's much testing needs to be done for everything. Space stuff is an exception to this rule.
There were years of testing and years of failure.
...
And what is ridiculous? Math?
The so called engines and fuel.
Oh great, you don't believe in engines and fuel now...
Of course I believe in engines and fuel.
What I don't believe in, is engines and fuel being able to lift those monstrous looking heaps of junk off a launch pad.
Back in high school I took an Aerospace Science class, and in this class we had to built rockets out of pop bottles. These rockets would be filled a little more than halfway with water, and then placed on a stand with clamps around the neck of the bottle. Attached to the stand was an air pump that would fill the remaining space in the rocket with pressurized air. Our teacher then pulled a cord that released the clamps and allowed the pressurized air to escape by forcing out the water, and they were capable of traveling hundreds of feet. What I'm getting at here is what's to stop someone from building a larger rocket and changing the fuel to something far more efficient and powerful? What's to stop someone from mathematically determining how much thrust is needed to push the rocket into space? You have to realize that the rocket becomes significantly lighter mere
seconds after launch. The Saturn V rocket had a wet weight of 6.5 million lbs, more than 90% of which was rocket fuel. It can be assumed that the weight would plummet significantly as it approached space, thus making it easier and easier to move.