[cjtrowbridge]

All of SapaceX rockets waste close to half their payload capacity on extra fuel for landing, extra equipment for landing, and they still have a 100% failure rate on every super-heavy launch they've ever attempted. SpaceX has blown up more rockets in the last year than NASA has in its entire history. NASA's super heavy rockets have been working successfully since 1967. NASA did build the first single-stage-to-orbit rockets that also successfully landed, but it immediately realized that was a huge waste of resources. Instead, they put parachutes on rockets and then refurbished them instead. So NASA gets double the payload capacity for free. The boosters currently strapped to the SLS that's about to go to the Moon are the same ones that previously took space shuttles to orbit in the 90s. NASA has been to the Moon and Mars; SpaceX has never made it to either, and just last week Elon said they've officially given up on going to Mars, and they're hoping to make it to Moon in another decade instead. NASA is going next month. SpaceX is just vaporware being run by a drug addict whose only goal is to sell it to the public markets before the house of cards comes down.

[XYen0n]

> SpaceX has blown up more rockets in the last year than NASA has in its entire history.

SpaceX's number of successful launches last year exceeded the total number of launches by all other U.S. agencies over the past decade.

[cjtrowbridge]

Only with LEO launches, and the soviet rockets from the 90s are still cheaper and more reliable at that. Enormous subsidies and sanctions against Russia are the only thing pushing anyone to spend more on inferior Falcon rockets.

[platybubsy]

It would be great to have some actual numbers. How did reuse work out for Falcon 9? How much does the reused boosters for SLS cost? What's the cost and performance of an expendable Starship vs SLS?

[cjtrowbridge]

It's not possible to compare, because while the SLS just got back from the Moon and is about to go back; SpaceX has never had a single successful super-heavy launch. Now that Elon has officially given up on Mars and decided to spend the next decade trying to figure out how to get to the moon, we may see some progress. All he has to do is put down the drugs and catch up to the NASA of the 1960s.

[mavhc]

Going to Mars takes about the same delta-v as the moon.

SpaceX launches 80% of the world's mass to orbit, they probably know what they're doing.

Starship is an extremely hard problem, and their aim is to reduce cost of getting mass to orbit by another 10x after Falcon 9 did the same.

Falcon 9 needs about 4% of fuel to land on a ship, 14% to return to launchpad

Why would you say they've had 100% failure rate? What did you think the reason was to launch and how did it fail?

[pennomi]

Surely the could put a traditional upper stage on Super Heavy and just go directly to the moon, no? I’m not sure what the obsession with second stage reuse is, because you lose almost all your margin.

[cjtrowbridge]

Falcon Heavy (as its name implies) is not capable as a super-heavy lift vehicle. Past GTO, it can only carry 18 tons. You need more than double that to reach the Moon and come back, as NASA did in the 1960s.

[terminalshort]

I'm not sure what the obsession with airplane reuse is. Why not just build a new one for each flight?

[pennomi]

You don’t gain additional margin throwing away an airplane. Reuse is a lovely idea but the rocket equation is a harsh mistress.

[mavhc]

Space X cares way more about reusability than the moon, they're not actually in a race to the moon. Step 1: build the best general solution. Step 2: do everything

[cjtrowbridge]

You're confused. Elon said two weeks ago that they have given up on Mars and the Moon is the goal they're currently working on. He said it will probably take them another decade to catch up to NASA of the 1960s by reaching the Moon with a real super-heavy rocket that actually works.

[mavhc]

He said moon first, not no Mars. And a decade to build a moon city, not to get there.

However what people say and their real reasons aren't always the same.

I assume Issacman went around to everyone and convinced them to say they're all switching on the moon, add another test flight to delay things, and in return they'll switch to using Starship in the future as they will cancel Block 1B of Artemis

[NetMageSCW]

They’ve already caught and reused a Super Heavy and had multiple successful soft landings in water with Starship.

[cjtrowbridge]

No, it's never made it to orbit.