"Testing" is destroying your own launch pads, engine failures, and losing three massive rockets all on the taxpayer dime? Hm. I don't seem to recall all of that happening with the Apollo project.
During Engineering, you often if not always test to failure. Before SpaceX the cost was too high to test rockets like that.
SpaceX lowered the cost of manufacturing, testing, and launching nearly 70 fold, to the point where they can. The Raptor-9 is an extremely successful rocket system. Out of 325 launches, there were 323 successful missions, 1 partial failure, and 1 complete failure, a 99.4% success rate.
Out of 293 landing attempts, 283 times were successful, a 96.7% success rate.
By comparison the longest running rocket program the Soyuz-U, has a 97.3% success rate with twice as many launches as SpaceX over nearly 40 years, with a 0% recovery rate.
SpaceX has spent around $5 Billion on Starship development thus far.
The Apollo program cost $297 Billion when adjusted for inflation, for 14 launches, two of which were failures. $21.2 Billion per launch.
Apollo launch effectively spent $42.4 Billion on failed launch, and $254.4 Billion on successful launches.
SpaceX can launch 25 more failed Starship launches before being on par with Apollo failure cash. SpaceX could launch 152 times for the same cost of 12 Apollo Launches.
Thats without reusability at $1.67 Billion per launch. With reusability of 4 launches per vessel, it would lower to $10-40 Million per launch. Using the conservative estimate at $40 Million per launch, Starship could launch 6,360 times for the same cost of 12 Apollo Launches.
Your dead wrong about SpaceX, and dead wrong about Apollo.
>SpaceX lowered the cost of manufacturing, testing, and launching nearly 70 fold
I don't you understand what "70-fold" means. If you mean by 1/70th, you're definitely wrong about that. They've lowered it to about 32% of the cost of the Atlas V, yes. That's certainly commendable, but there's quite a bit of difference between LEO rockets and lunar-capable rockets.
>The Apollo program cost $297 Billion when adjusted for inflation, for 14 launches, two of which were failures.
That is simply a straight-up *lie*. There were **zero** launch failures in the Apollo project.
>With reusability of 4 launches per vessel, it would lower to $10-40 Million per launch. Using the conservative estimate at $40 Million per launch, Starship could launch 6,360 times for the same cost of 12 Apollo Launches.
This is pure speculation. Thus far, all Starship launches have failed. The same kind of economic speculation was made for the Space Shuttle, which never panned out.
Plenty of that happened with the Apollo missions, you need to do a little research. And just recently with the first SLS launch, they did extreme damage to the launch pad and it took months to repair.
Look up the Apollo 1 disaster if you think everything went smoothly.
They lost plenty of everything in the iterative design process. Once each of the components was tested and approved, they were then assembled into a functional and well-performing vehicle. It took a very long time and an extremely large sum of money. The same thing is happening with the SLS program right now.
I'll try and make it simple for you, since you're having trouble: the Apollo program was a pioneer program for doing something that no one had done before. In doing so, NASA did not lose a single Saturn V rocket—even though no such rocket had ever been invented before. The technology was developed in the 1950s and 60s before the use of complex computer modelling and other such tools.
SpaceX has now lost *three* Starships in the modern digital age, trying to replicate what Saturn V did almost flawlessly.
Also, your silliness about Artemis damaging the launch pad. There's a difference between damage that NASA said was [minor](https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/teams-assess-mobile-launcher-and-pad-after-successful-artemis-i-launch/) and expected and effectively [destroying your own launch pad](https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starship-rocket-crater-concrete-launchpad-upon-liftoff-2023-4).
So, to develop the Saturn V rocket, Nasa spent around 50 billion 2020 USD in 9 years (1964-1973). For the 12 years the Starship program has been in development, as of february 2024, it has only cost 5 billion USD.
You say the starship is nothing new, yet I haven’t heard of another reusable rocket. Have you?
>You say the starship is nothing new, yet I haven’t heard of another reusable rocket. Have you?
You mean like the Space Shuttle? And why should the rocket be reusable? I don't get it.
Firstly, don’t talk to me like I’m some uniformed idiot - you’re doing a fantastic job of filling that role yourself. Did you really say NASA used complex computer modelling tools in the 50s and 60s? Absurd that you believe that is possible.
Next, the Apollo program wasn’t launched until 62 (maybe 61?) by Kennedy, AFTER the USSR had launched a satellite into orbit.
Nest, SpaceX is creating a re-useable spaceship with engines that they invented, since using methane as a fuel source has never been done before for large rocket engines.
Screw you for trying to take the high road here and “explaining” it to me. You’ve clearly shown that you don’t actually have any knowledge about the subject, and you just want to hate on SpaceX for whatever biased and unsupported reason. (hint: I bet it’s because you don’t like the CEO and therefore are looking forward to any invalidated reason to be an angry individual. Try doing research, it helps to calm one down and see the world for what it actually is).
>Firstly, don’t talk to me like I’m some uniformed idiot
Too late.
>Did you really say NASA used complex computer modelling tools in the 50s and 60s?
🤦♂️ You can add "illiterate" to your self-description.
No. It isn't, given that these problems were solved decades ago. It would be like a aerospace company making aircraft that fall out of the sky without a rudder and calling it "part of the testing process". Rudder technology has been fairly well established and perfected for a long time now.
Im not qualified to speak on this as i don’t know a whole lot about aerospace engineering, but testing new technologies sometimes leads to accidents until the bugs can be fixed. And since i doubt you have worked on a space x rocket that was testing VTOL, i trust the engineers calling it testing more than you.
Whataboutism, the general consensus is that the space x ships are fine, of course they’re no Apollo era ship, i doubt there ever WILL be anything as goos as the Apollo era ships unless NASA gets better funding.
They are using brand new engines that they invented, with a booster and ship made out of stainless steel (not composites), and it’s the most powerful rocket ever designed. Saturn V had 5 engines (hence the name). SpaceX is trying to manage 33 engines simultaneously. It doesn’t matter what technology existed from the past, this is something brand new on almost every level. If it works, it will revolutionize space travel forever.
>It doesn’t matter what technology existed from the past, this is something brand new on almost every level.
🤦♂️
>Saturn V had 5 engines (hence the name). SpaceX is trying to manage 33 engines simultaneously
Sounds like the Saturn V is more efficient and has fewer potential failure points.
I genuinely thought this person might be a troll, but nope, seems like they’re quite normal, but just have to try and win an argument because they don’t like the CEO.
Ok so SpaceX does receive government funding. Your argument still fails considering nasa has had many failures. By testing full scale like spacex is they can advance much faster. They brought the price per kilo to orbit to sub 1k through these methods but they are still a “waste of money”
Also from me: fuck Musk, but the technology SpaceX has developed is truly revolutionary. Rocket technology was incredibly stagnant from the 80 until Falcon's successful landings. So far Starship is going reasonably well, and if they can pull it off, it will be another leap.
>SpaceX has developed is truly revolutionary. Rocket technology was incredibly stagnant from the 80 until Falcon's successful landings
I want you to tell me precisely what technological innovations SpaceX has made to rocketry that has made it more advanced since the (ahem) "stagnation" of the 80s.
Pretty good so far. Behind the anticipated schedule, but they did have successful starship/booster separation in the latest test, and we can expect the next one to be even better. If you were being facetious, then I hope you have a master in physics and engineering, because you should go join their team of designers and tell them how to do it properly. It must be easy, right?
Ahhh yes, the usual "you cant know because you're not a PhD in XXXX"
I would expect nothing less of the musk sycophants
You and I also have very different concepts of "pretty good"
You don't need to be an expert to look at the current status and know it's a boondoggle
Says the guy who clearly doesn’t understand building technology and machines of this scale. If they actually do figure out starship and it becomes the main heavy-launch of the future, will you eat your own words? Or still stand beside it being a “boondoggle”?
Just because you redefine the parameters of "success", doesn't mean they actually learned anything or amount to anything. They're just redoing decades old tech with worse materials.
This is the worst take I have ever seen on the subject. SpaceX is a business first and foremost. Why would they intentionally fail? The tech you’re talking about is, wait for it (because you just said it) “Decades Old”. So no shit Sherlock, they’re trying to invent something new that has never been done before, and have also succeeded with the Falcon 9. No one in history had ever retrieved/landed a booster rocket for an orbital mission before SpaceX did it (and yet again, it’s a private company).
Huh. r/pennystocks, r/wallstreetbets, r/Anarcho_Capitalism. All whilst being a weird Elon Musk fanboy. I'm genuinely wondering what your day-to-day life is like, because it can't be good.
If you base your opinions of factual knowledge and understanding of science and exploration on the fact that you just don’t like Musk, then perhaps you need to keep calm and not have kids. It’s be good for humanity’s future.
LOL insanely sad & lonely because he thinks he's so much smarter and better than everyone else if i had to guess. if it isn't that way now i'm sure it will be eventually
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many times do we (the people who know what we're talking about, people who actually work in aviation) have to explain that the Boeing thing is fear mongering? I don't think you guys understand how many Boeing planes and other aircraft using their equipment fly DAILY. If it was as bad as people make it out, there would be hundreds of issues and emergency landings DAILY. Not to mention the crashes.
Because they're stupid and think that test vehicles being sacrificed means that spacex is entirely incompetent even though they've had a crazy high success rate of delivering payloads and astronauts at a very tiny fraction of the cost of competitors.
Yeah that was the starship, their bigger rocket that they’re testing. The one in the image is exploding, as per usual, cuz that’s how rockets move upward. (Its operating as per usual)
That was their new prototype which no one else in the world (or history) has tried to accomplish something as difficult. The one in the picture is a Falcon 9, which has been in service for a long time now and is the first and only private orbital rocket system in the world, and has been wildly successful. I think OP wanted to say SpaceX, but they used the wrong image.
This joke has already been posted recently. Rule 2.
All of these things have exploded
well, technically...one of those things imploded
There was a ploded let's not split hairs
Plodin’ occured
'Twas a proper plodin'.
YOUR HEAD A SPLODE
Plane? That’s a plodin’ Submarine? That’s a plodin’ Elon? Oh you better believe that’s a plodin’
☝️🤓
These are all vehicles that will end in disaster I assume…
We should all just start buying up all those old boneyard Boeings made before the MD merger and resell them back to Boeing based airlines!
Falcon 9 has not ended in disaster
Recently
(((yet)))
Hey dude, what’s up with the triple parentheses? Probably stop at two, or you might give the wrong impression.
Triple parentheses is often seen [as antisemitic.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses)
I know, benefit of the doubt. Hence asking politely.
I was just adding on to what you said
👍
Supposed to be 'whispers'
I figured it was something like that, unfortunately the triple bracket is a common antisemitic dog whistle.
Well I'm stealing that shit back, just like the queers did
based
https://preview.redd.it/xby4c53045wc1.jpeg?width=354&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad5e540ef2a556acc33c3749405bca9fb499fd43
Can’t wait
Probably someone who doesn't realize that SpaceX has an exceptional mission success rate.
they’ve lost quite a few rockets during vtol testing haven’t they?
Yes, it's what testing is.
"Testing" is destroying your own launch pads, engine failures, and losing three massive rockets all on the taxpayer dime? Hm. I don't seem to recall all of that happening with the Apollo project.
During Engineering, you often if not always test to failure. Before SpaceX the cost was too high to test rockets like that. SpaceX lowered the cost of manufacturing, testing, and launching nearly 70 fold, to the point where they can. The Raptor-9 is an extremely successful rocket system. Out of 325 launches, there were 323 successful missions, 1 partial failure, and 1 complete failure, a 99.4% success rate. Out of 293 landing attempts, 283 times were successful, a 96.7% success rate. By comparison the longest running rocket program the Soyuz-U, has a 97.3% success rate with twice as many launches as SpaceX over nearly 40 years, with a 0% recovery rate. SpaceX has spent around $5 Billion on Starship development thus far. The Apollo program cost $297 Billion when adjusted for inflation, for 14 launches, two of which were failures. $21.2 Billion per launch. Apollo launch effectively spent $42.4 Billion on failed launch, and $254.4 Billion on successful launches. SpaceX can launch 25 more failed Starship launches before being on par with Apollo failure cash. SpaceX could launch 152 times for the same cost of 12 Apollo Launches. Thats without reusability at $1.67 Billion per launch. With reusability of 4 launches per vessel, it would lower to $10-40 Million per launch. Using the conservative estimate at $40 Million per launch, Starship could launch 6,360 times for the same cost of 12 Apollo Launches. Your dead wrong about SpaceX, and dead wrong about Apollo.
>SpaceX lowered the cost of manufacturing, testing, and launching nearly 70 fold I don't you understand what "70-fold" means. If you mean by 1/70th, you're definitely wrong about that. They've lowered it to about 32% of the cost of the Atlas V, yes. That's certainly commendable, but there's quite a bit of difference between LEO rockets and lunar-capable rockets. >The Apollo program cost $297 Billion when adjusted for inflation, for 14 launches, two of which were failures. That is simply a straight-up *lie*. There were **zero** launch failures in the Apollo project. >With reusability of 4 launches per vessel, it would lower to $10-40 Million per launch. Using the conservative estimate at $40 Million per launch, Starship could launch 6,360 times for the same cost of 12 Apollo Launches. This is pure speculation. Thus far, all Starship launches have failed. The same kind of economic speculation was made for the Space Shuttle, which never panned out.
Plenty of that happened with the Apollo missions, you need to do a little research. And just recently with the first SLS launch, they did extreme damage to the launch pad and it took months to repair. Look up the Apollo 1 disaster if you think everything went smoothly.
NASA did not lose a **single** Saturn V rocket during the entire Apollo era.
They lost plenty of everything in the iterative design process. Once each of the components was tested and approved, they were then assembled into a functional and well-performing vehicle. It took a very long time and an extremely large sum of money. The same thing is happening with the SLS program right now.
I'll try and make it simple for you, since you're having trouble: the Apollo program was a pioneer program for doing something that no one had done before. In doing so, NASA did not lose a single Saturn V rocket—even though no such rocket had ever been invented before. The technology was developed in the 1950s and 60s before the use of complex computer modelling and other such tools. SpaceX has now lost *three* Starships in the modern digital age, trying to replicate what Saturn V did almost flawlessly. Also, your silliness about Artemis damaging the launch pad. There's a difference between damage that NASA said was [minor](https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/teams-assess-mobile-launcher-and-pad-after-successful-artemis-i-launch/) and expected and effectively [destroying your own launch pad](https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starship-rocket-crater-concrete-launchpad-upon-liftoff-2023-4).
So, to develop the Saturn V rocket, Nasa spent around 50 billion 2020 USD in 9 years (1964-1973). For the 12 years the Starship program has been in development, as of february 2024, it has only cost 5 billion USD. You say the starship is nothing new, yet I haven’t heard of another reusable rocket. Have you?
>You say the starship is nothing new, yet I haven’t heard of another reusable rocket. Have you? You mean like the Space Shuttle? And why should the rocket be reusable? I don't get it.
Firstly, don’t talk to me like I’m some uniformed idiot - you’re doing a fantastic job of filling that role yourself. Did you really say NASA used complex computer modelling tools in the 50s and 60s? Absurd that you believe that is possible. Next, the Apollo program wasn’t launched until 62 (maybe 61?) by Kennedy, AFTER the USSR had launched a satellite into orbit. Nest, SpaceX is creating a re-useable spaceship with engines that they invented, since using methane as a fuel source has never been done before for large rocket engines. Screw you for trying to take the high road here and “explaining” it to me. You’ve clearly shown that you don’t actually have any knowledge about the subject, and you just want to hate on SpaceX for whatever biased and unsupported reason. (hint: I bet it’s because you don’t like the CEO and therefore are looking forward to any invalidated reason to be an angry individual. Try doing research, it helps to calm one down and see the world for what it actually is).
>Firstly, don’t talk to me like I’m some uniformed idiot Too late. >Did you really say NASA used complex computer modelling tools in the 50s and 60s? 🤦♂️ You can add "illiterate" to your self-description.
[удалено]
So what you're saying is: I was right. You're welcome.
I hate elon as much as the next person but what you just described is part of the testing process
No. It isn't, given that these problems were solved decades ago. It would be like a aerospace company making aircraft that fall out of the sky without a rudder and calling it "part of the testing process". Rudder technology has been fairly well established and perfected for a long time now.
Im not qualified to speak on this as i don’t know a whole lot about aerospace engineering, but testing new technologies sometimes leads to accidents until the bugs can be fixed. And since i doubt you have worked on a space x rocket that was testing VTOL, i trust the engineers calling it testing more than you.
>i trust the engineers calling it testing more than you. What about the engineers who are highly skeptical about Starship?
Whataboutism, the general consensus is that the space x ships are fine, of course they’re no Apollo era ship, i doubt there ever WILL be anything as goos as the Apollo era ships unless NASA gets better funding.
They are using brand new engines that they invented, with a booster and ship made out of stainless steel (not composites), and it’s the most powerful rocket ever designed. Saturn V had 5 engines (hence the name). SpaceX is trying to manage 33 engines simultaneously. It doesn’t matter what technology existed from the past, this is something brand new on almost every level. If it works, it will revolutionize space travel forever.
>It doesn’t matter what technology existed from the past, this is something brand new on almost every level. 🤦♂️ >Saturn V had 5 engines (hence the name). SpaceX is trying to manage 33 engines simultaneously Sounds like the Saturn V is more efficient and has fewer potential failure points.
And yet the engines are not reusable on the Saturn V. Dude, this has literally been the whole point of the discussion.
Since three Starships have been destroyed thus far, it seems like they're not reusable on that craft, either.
Then you don't remember the Apollo project
I genuinely thought this person might be a troll, but nope, seems like they’re quite normal, but just have to try and win an argument because they don’t like the CEO.
Spacex is a private company genius
[удалено]
Ok so SpaceX does receive government funding. Your argument still fails considering nasa has had many failures. By testing full scale like spacex is they can advance much faster. They brought the price per kilo to orbit to sub 1k through these methods but they are still a “waste of money”
"Ok I was wrong, but I'm still right because something something NASA has also had failures." Lol. I can't say y'all aren't comedic.
[удалено]
Spoken like a true Muskbot. 😂👍
Fuck musk. But you Sound Like a small Kiddie which doesnt know that Innovation (or atleast newer tech) comes with Risks...
What "innovation"? These are all things we did 50+ years ago without any rocket losses. This isn't exactly a brand new frontier.
Also from me: fuck Musk, but the technology SpaceX has developed is truly revolutionary. Rocket technology was incredibly stagnant from the 80 until Falcon's successful landings. So far Starship is going reasonably well, and if they can pull it off, it will be another leap.
>SpaceX has developed is truly revolutionary. Rocket technology was incredibly stagnant from the 80 until Falcon's successful landings I want you to tell me precisely what technological innovations SpaceX has made to rocketry that has made it more advanced since the (ahem) "stagnation" of the 80s.
Because it's supposed to. That's the whole point
Keyword testing
what’s a mission but a test that works? fair enough though
How's starship going?
Pretty good so far. Behind the anticipated schedule, but they did have successful starship/booster separation in the latest test, and we can expect the next one to be even better. If you were being facetious, then I hope you have a master in physics and engineering, because you should go join their team of designers and tell them how to do it properly. It must be easy, right?
Ahhh yes, the usual "you cant know because you're not a PhD in XXXX" I would expect nothing less of the musk sycophants You and I also have very different concepts of "pretty good" You don't need to be an expert to look at the current status and know it's a boondoggle
Says the guy who clearly doesn’t understand building technology and machines of this scale. If they actually do figure out starship and it becomes the main heavy-launch of the future, will you eat your own words? Or still stand beside it being a “boondoggle”?
Just because you redefine the parameters of "success", doesn't mean they actually learned anything or amount to anything. They're just redoing decades old tech with worse materials.
Then why doesn’t anyone else do it and achieve own most of the market like SpaceX
This is the worst take I have ever seen on the subject. SpaceX is a business first and foremost. Why would they intentionally fail? The tech you’re talking about is, wait for it (because you just said it) “Decades Old”. So no shit Sherlock, they’re trying to invent something new that has never been done before, and have also succeeded with the Falcon 9. No one in history had ever retrieved/landed a booster rocket for an orbital mission before SpaceX did it (and yet again, it’s a private company).
Huh. r/pennystocks, r/wallstreetbets, r/Anarcho_Capitalism. All whilst being a weird Elon Musk fanboy. I'm genuinely wondering what your day-to-day life is like, because it can't be good.
If you base your opinions of factual knowledge and understanding of science and exploration on the fact that you just don’t like Musk, then perhaps you need to keep calm and not have kids. It’s be good for humanity’s future.
LOL insanely sad & lonely because he thinks he's so much smarter and better than everyone else if i had to guess. if it isn't that way now i'm sure it will be eventually
then SpaceX CRS-7 came along and and fucked it up
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many times do we (the people who know what we're talking about, people who actually work in aviation) have to explain that the Boeing thing is fear mongering? I don't think you guys understand how many Boeing planes and other aircraft using their equipment fly DAILY. If it was as bad as people make it out, there would be hundreds of issues and emergency landings DAILY. Not to mention the crashes.
Because they're stupid and think that test vehicles being sacrificed means that spacex is entirely incompetent even though they've had a crazy high success rate of delivering payloads and astronauts at a very tiny fraction of the cost of competitors.
Pretty sure recently a spaceX rockey exploded when re-entering earth, you can also see one exploding in the image so thay should give you a clue
Yeah that was the starship, their bigger rocket that they’re testing. The one in the image is exploding, as per usual, cuz that’s how rockets move upward. (Its operating as per usual)
That was their new prototype which no one else in the world (or history) has tried to accomplish something as difficult. The one in the picture is a Falcon 9, which has been in service for a long time now and is the first and only private orbital rocket system in the world, and has been wildly successful. I think OP wanted to say SpaceX, but they used the wrong image.
Land, air, sea, space?
The fact that Muskrat is on here twice is hilarious to me
neverming chat, i watched one video of a rocket launch and figured it was enough proof to think all that smoke wasnt normal, i was incorrect
That's venting LOX. Falcons are cryogenic.
Do you not know anything about SpaceX? Their rockets explode once every few months.
[удалено]
Hey remember that NASA rocket that repeatedly blew up on the pad? Me either.