I actually have high hopes that it'll work on the first try, without too much selling of souls involved. SpaceX is actually pursuing a very sensible incremental route with their designs. They gave themselves the opportunity to learn at the School of Hard Knocks, blowing up their first three Falcon 1 flights, before getting the next two right. By the time they moved on to the Falcon 9, they had five launches and two successes under their belt.
The Falcon 9 is actually a fairly incremental upgrade from the Falcon 1: essentially identical engines; nearly identical avionics; just much bigger tanks and more complicated plumbing. It's evident now that this approach has really paid off for them.
Similarly, by the time they'll fly a Heavy, they'll have at least five Falcon 9 flights under their belt. And the Heavy is not really much more of a step change from the Falcon 9 than the Falcon 9 was from the Falcon 1: just a lot more of the same engines; very similar avionics, and more complicated plumbing due to the propellant cross-feed system. So, not THAT big a step technically, despite its outrageous payload capabilities.
Only the first flight did anything close to "blow up", and the payload was recovered largely structurally intact (sensitive components irreparable). It would almost certainly have been survivable in an LES-equipped capsule.
Flights 2 and 3 were prevented from reaching orbit but did not blow up, catch fire, or do anything else that would have precluded a safe, if rather early, return of the crew.
I admit to using the term "blowing up" rather colloquially. you're entirely right: it's not accurate. Even the first flight (which suffered an engine shutdown due to a fuel leak) didn't really "blow up" until it hit the ground; the latter two probably only "blew up" upon re-entry. (Although I'm not actually sure about the third flight; during staging, the first stage rammed the second stage at a low velocity, damaging it enough to scupper the mission. No idea how intact the second stage and payload were after that.)
All three flights would certainly have been survivable if equipped with a LES; all three would certainly have led to loss of payload if not launching people. In any case, five flawless flights since then have demonstrated that they've learned quite a lot from those early experiences.
The Falcon 9 is actually a fairly incremental upgrade from the Falcon 1: essentially identical engines; nearly identical avionics; just much bigger tanks and more complicated plumbing. It's evident now that this approach has really paid off for them.
Similarly, by the time they'll fly a Heavy, they'll have at least five Falcon 9 flights under their belt. And the Heavy is not really much more of a step change from the Falcon 9 than the Falcon 9 was from the Falcon 1: just a lot more of the same engines; very similar avionics, and more complicated plumbing due to the propellant cross-feed system. So, not THAT big a step technically, despite its outrageous payload capabilities.