Question What will the NASA choice for the SpaceX Starship alone for Artemis Program lunar lander mean for the Space Launch System?

[newworldsexplr]

As a substantial number of you may have heard, in the last week or so (middle of April 2021) NASA made its decision of what space companies and systems to work with further for a lunar surface lander
for the Artemis program to bring US and partner astronauts back to the Moon to stay and eventually onto Mars. From what I read beforehand NASA was going to select two of the 3 contenders to
fund for further development of their systems. The three proposed lunar lander systems are from Blue Origins, Dynetics and SpaceX with their Starship. It turns out NASA only selected Starship. What does everyone think of the possible issues with this selection? For instance what does everyone think that this could encourage NASA to mothball the Space Launch System in favour of totally relying on SpaceX for the crewed program for NASA for both the surface or orbit of the Moon or Mars? Also what do people think that this selection by NASA of SpaceX will mean the lunar lander
could dwarf the Deep Space Gateway? Also what do people think that access stairs will be needed now for Starship to get astronauts down to ground level and back up to the passenger area
of Starship from the lunar or Martian surface for flights to or up from the surface to orbit? Also finally what does everyone think that SpaceX will now have to demonstrate they can land Starship just
with propulsive landing for their Moon surface landings instead of lifting body or parachutes which wouldn't work on the Moon with virtually no atmosphere?

 

[FredM]

Ultimately, the expensive options for Moon landings as stated above, will give way to Moon Landing Strips.
And NO .. you don't need an atmosphere to land on the Moon. Multiple SOLAR powered MAGLEV rocketport runways with auxiliary retro rocket braking will do just fine. Thus, Rocketports like "JFK-Moon", on the Moon, WILL become a standard feature in solar system travel in the near future. The enormous & continuous amount of solar power on the Moon is more than enough to make up for loss of atmospheric resistance in landing on the Moon runways.

 

[newworldsexplr]

Hi FredM, I agree fine with what you say. I wasn't aware of spaceplanes that could land like an airplane with retrorockets and can accept that could be done on the Moon even without its significant atmosphere. However, the current use by SpaceX of Earth's atmosphere for their landing and to make the Starships as lifting bodies or the use of parachutes on the Moon would still be not feasible with its lack of atmosphere. Also I can accept the eventual construction of runways for retrorocket spaceplanes for lunar landers including for NASA's ongoing Artemis program. However, what is your or other Space.com forum's ideas to ensure immediate or near term lunar landings, such as by 2024, of the SpaceX Starship or other lander as this is still the target date under the Artemis program. I think the Starship either has or could have vertical retrorockets like the Apollo lunar modules had or the proposed red dragon and perhaps regular crewed dragon have but currently this isn't the commercial crew selected by NASA for the SpaceX lunar lander. I also don't know how many years it would take by astronauts or humanoid robots working on the surface of the Moon to make a smooth runway on the surface of the Moon for making lunar spaceports like the JFK-Moon Rocketport you mention even though I would welcome such a rocketport for an eventual lunar lander centre.

 

[newworldsexplr]

As a substantial number of you may have heard, in the last week or so (middle of April 2021) NASA made its decision of what space companies and systems to work with further for a lunar surface lander
for the Artemis program to bring US and partner astronauts back to the Moon to stay and eventually onto Mars. From what I read beforehand NASA was going to select two of the 3 contenders to
fund for further development of their systems. The three proposed lunar lander systems are from Blue Origins, Dynetics and SpaceX with their Starship. It turns out NASA only selected Starship. What does everyone think of the possible issues with this selection? For instance what does everyone think that this could encourage NASA to mothball the Space Launch System in favour of totally relying on SpaceX for the crewed program for NASA for both the surface or orbit of the Moon or Mars? Also what do people think that this selection by NASA of SpaceX will mean the lunar lander
could dwarf the Deep Space Gateway? Also what do people think that access stairs will be needed now for Starship to get astronauts down to ground level and back up to the passenger area
of Starship from the lunar or Martian surface for flights to or up from the surface to orbit? Also finally what does everyone think that SpaceX will now have to demonstrate they can land Starship just
with propulsive landing for their Moon surface landings instead of lifting body or parachutes which wouldn't work on the Moon with virtually no atmosphere?

Regarding access of astronauts to the lunar or eventually Martian surface from the living quarters of the SpaceX Starship I learned that SpaceX has thought of a possibly remedy to that problem. According to a recent article in Space Daily with title Protests over SpaceX contract put timetable for lunar return in limbo dated May 7, 2021 by Paul Brinkmann with link https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/..._timetable_for_lunar_return_in_limbo_999.html at the end of the article there is a statement about the elevator that SpaceX apparently plans to use for crew access to and from the lunar surface from the SpaceX living quarters near the top of Starship. The competing company to SpaceX for the lunar lander, Dynetics mentions and criticizes the elevator system SpaceX apparently plans to use to bring astronauts on Starship to the lunar surface. A Dynetics spokesperson further stated in criticism to the SpaceX lunar lander proposal: "No elevator design has even been successfully used in actual lunar conditions." I am glad to hear SpaceX has thought of a way to get their astronauts on board Starship to the lunar surface and back into the Starship living quarters but agree it is unproven technology. Does anyone else have further information or thoughts in this regard?

 

[Slarty1080]

Correct to say that a lift on the Moon is "unproven technology", but how difficult can it be? Lifts have been around for hundreds of years in a vast range of sizes and types and given some competent engineering with consideration for the environment that it will be deployed in it really shouldn't be rocket science.

Rather than criticize the lift (of all things) that SpaceX want to use on the Moon, it might have benefited Dynetics more to ensure that the real rocket science in their own proposal added up. According to NASA Dynetics bid involved a substantial negative mass allocation (it was too heavy).

"Of particular concern is the significant weakness within Dynetics’ proposal under Technical Area of Focus 1, Technical Design Concept, due to the SEP’s finding that Dynetics’ current mass estimate for its DAE far exceeds its current mass allocation; plainly stated, Dynetics’ proposal evidences a substantial negative mass allocation. This negative value, as opposed to positive reserves that could protect against mass increases at this phase of Dynetics’ development cycle, is disconcerting insofar as it calls into question the feasibility of Dynetics’ mission architecture and its ability to successfully close its mission as proposed. While Dynetics recognizes and has been actively addressing this issue during its base period performance, its proposal does not provide sufficient details regarding its plan for executing on and achieving significant mass opportunities, especially when in the same breath, the proposal also identifies material additional mass threats. I concur with the SEP that collectively, Dynetics’ mass margin deficit at this juncture, coupled with insufficient substantiation as to precisely how Dynetics will address this issue, creates a potent risk to successful contract performance."

 

[Slarty1080]

As a substantial number of you may have heard, in the last week or so (middle of April 2021) NASA made its decision of what space companies and systems to work with further for a lunar surface lander
for the Artemis program to bring US and partner astronauts back to the Moon to stay and eventually onto Mars. From what I read beforehand NASA was going to select two of the 3 contenders to
fund for further development of their systems. The three proposed lunar lander systems are from Blue Origins, Dynetics and SpaceX with their Starship. It turns out NASA only selected Starship. What does everyone think of the possible issues with this selection? For instance what does everyone think that this could encourage NASA to mothball the Space Launch System in favour of totally relying on SpaceX for the crewed program for NASA for both the surface or orbit of the Moon or Mars? Also what do people think that this selection by NASA of SpaceX will mean the lunar lander
could dwarf the Deep Space Gateway? Also what do people think that access stairs will be needed now for Starship to get astronauts down to ground level and back up to the passenger area
of Starship from the lunar or Martian surface for flights to or up from the surface to orbit? Also finally what does everyone think that SpaceX will now have to demonstrate they can land Starship just
with propulsive landing for their Moon surface landings instead of lifting body or parachutes which wouldn't work on the Moon with virtually no atmosphere?

There are issues with selecting just one provider. Two providers would definitely have been preferable to ensure competition and backup capability and the political fallout will be serious. But to be honest the blame should be laid firmly at the door of the US Government. They specified the time frame, they specified the funding, they then underfunded the program. So NASA was caught between a rock and a hard place and can hardly be blamed for making the best of it.

I suspect that the political calculus assumed that NASA would have to ask for an extension to the 2024 deadline if none of the programs were affordable. No one expected SpaceX to come in with such a low bid and no one expected a stand in NASA Administrator to make a robust stand on committing to actually building something by the original deadline as the only reasonable option. And it has certainly caused a political brouhaha.
https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-would-direct-nasa-to-select-a-second-hls-company/

IMO the political critters, by enlarge, don’t give a damn about space. From their perspective the space program just creates cover for a jobs creation program and any senator with a big aerospace company in their state wants that company to get a slice of the action cash and jobs. The tragic state of the SLS only goes to show how damaging, costly and inefficient all of this politicking is.

NASA is not able to cancel the SLS. NASA has to work within the instructions given to it by the US Government and the US Government wants SLS built so SLS is being built and only the US Government can cancel it.

The key event over the next 3 years or so (IMO) will be what happens to the SpaceX Starship system. If Starship lives up to half the promises made in terms of cost and payload (which seems probable) then even the US Government will have to accept the world has changed and there will have to be a total reassessment of what America wants out of Space and how to achieve it with an order of magnitude more capability. At that point SLS will hopefully have flown a few times and can be cancelled without too much loss of face.

If Starship fails utterly to achieve its goals (not at all likely IMO – but it can’t be ruled out) then it will be a sad day indeed. It will mean the US will probably achieve as much in the next ten years in space as it has achieved in the previous ten years, with much public money being spent by many companies in the process.

Are stairs needed to get down to the surface? No, not really. In this day and age it really should be possible to build a robust reliable working lift even on the Moon as well as a backup host for emergencies.

Yes SpaceX will definitely have to demonstrate that Starship can make a propulsive landing on the Moon and I believe this is one of the requirements of the HLS program. Landing on the Moon should be a lot easier than landing on the Earth, although will be a lot more costly in terms of propellant used as there will be no atmosphere to slow it down.

One of the real issues that SpaceX will need to focus on with the landing are the new rocket engines required to make a soft landing on the lunar surface. These should be simple (by rocket engine standards) but nevertheless will require extensive testing and proving and will be more complex than any lift by many orders of magnitude.

Note parachutes would not work for Starship even on Earth as it is far too heavy for any practical system (100++ tonnes).

 

[Kerry the Dragon]

It means SLS is doomed to failure. That Artemis will fail miserably, and that Artemis 3 will kill everyone aboard.

It also means that NASA will suffer from a catastrophic PR disaster, dooming it and all US space travel to permanent extinction.

SpaceX has no safety features built into Starship. Their tests have consistently proven that Starship cannot land, propulsively or otherwise.

And the vaunted SN-15 test, which supposedly landed successfully, blew up a few minutes after touchdown causing a casualty, and nearly causing a fatality. (A woman's head was nearly decapitated by the debris. Fortunately doctors were able to save her.)

Yet NASA, in a numbskull move, has approved them and only them to be the sole lander for SLS. It's almost as if they want their own astronauts to die.

Our best bet is to revive an older, yet proven technology like we did for SLS. Technology that has proven, over 133 missions, that it works quite well. No powered flight testing was ever done on this technology, AND one of the ground test articles was turned into a powered flight vehicle, this vehicle provided at least ten missions without a single safety infraction.

This technology is also partially reusable, yet more reusable than SpaceX's technology ever will be. (75% fully reusable for it, over 33% reusable for SpaceX on a good day, and 0% reusable for SpaceX on a bad day.)

What tech is this you ask? Well, the official name is the "Space Transportation System", but we civilians know it as the Space Shuttle.

Proven safe, proven effective, proven not to explode unless someone at Mission Control botches the launch procedure or the safety inspection.

Unlike a certain SpaceX vehicle known for exploding far too often.

 

[DanIAm]

And the vaunted SN-15 test, which supposedly landed successfully, blew up a few minutes after touchdown .

Here it is being moved from the pad 3 weeks after it successfully launched, it was a bit more successful than you think.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlp4AFj9_no&t=25s

 

[Kerry the Dragon]

Here it is being moved from the pad 3 weeks after it successfully launched, it was a bit more successful than you think.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlp4AFj9_no&t=25s

Nope, that was a mockup.

 

[Slarty1080]

It means SLS is doomed to failure. That Artemis will fail miserably, and that Artemis 3 will kill everyone aboard.

It also means that NASA will suffer from a catastrophic PR disaster, dooming it and all US space travel to permanent extinction.

SpaceX has no safety features built into Starship. Their tests have consistently proven that Starship cannot land, propulsively or otherwise.

And the vaunted SN-15 test, which supposedly landed successfully, blew up a few minutes after touchdown causing a casualty, and nearly causing a fatality. (A woman's head was nearly decapitated by the debris. Fortunately doctors were able to save her.)

Yet NASA, in a numbskull move, has approved them and only them to be the sole lander for SLS. It's almost as if they want their own astronauts to die.

Our best bet is to revive an older, yet proven technology like we did for SLS. Technology that has proven, over 133 missions, that it works quite well. No powered flight testing was ever done on this technology, AND one of the ground test articles was turned into a powered flight vehicle, this vehicle provided at least ten missions without a single safety infraction.

This technology is also partially reusable, yet more reusable than SpaceX's technology ever will be. (75% fully reusable for it, over 33% reusable for SpaceX on a good day, and 0% reusable for SpaceX on a bad day.)

What tech is this you ask? Well, the official name is the "Space Transportation System", but we civilians know it as the Space Shuttle.

Proven safe, proven effective, proven not to explode unless someone at Mission Control botches the launch procedure or the safety inspection.

Unlike a certain SpaceX vehicle known for exploding far too often.

It would appear that you do not understand what SpaceX is doing with its experimental Starship test program. Look what happened to the Falcon rocket trials, a dozen or more crashed into the sea or into a barge, but what does that prove? It proves that SpaceX were able to refine their rocket in the light of experience and they do not now crash. SpaceX are fully aware that some of their experiments are almost certain to end in a crash. But sometimes the best way of discovering why something doesn’t work is to try it and see what breaks then fix it.

If there’s any one who ought to be referred to as numskulls it’s the critters in Congress who don’t give a damn about the goals of space policy or what’s built or whether it works or not. All they care about is aerospace jobs in their own states and they will vote for any policy that is likely to provide that. That’s why the US space program is in such a state. No one in Congress had imagined SpaceX would put in such a low bid for the HLS or that a stand in NASA Administrator would actually be bold enough to choose the only system that was affordable and had any chance of meeting the deadline.

I think you are also confusing the Space Shuttle with SLS. 90% of SLS will end up at the bottom of the ocean shortly after launch and none of it is reusable. You are also confusing Falcon 9 with Starship and experimental tests with operational vehicles.

 

[Kerry the Dragon]

What exactly has Starship done? Crash, fifteen times straight that's what.

SLS is doomed to failure if Starship is involved in any way whatsoever. It's highly likely Starship will kill the Artemis astronauts.

That's what SpaceX is doing with its' experimental Starship test program. Gearing up to kill people.

Additionally, what happened to the Falcon rocket trials? Six out of every seven Falcon Nine series rockets launched, crash and burn on landing. And that still happens today.

So:
Falcon Nine = Failure
Starship = Atomic explosion level failure
SpaceX = Total, epic, murdering failure

I'll put this in logical language with an IF-THEN statement even a third-grader can understand:

IF SpaceX is involved in Artemis or any other NASA project, THEN the project is doomed to epic, tragic failure along even greater lines than the Challenger AND Columbia Disasters combined.

Hell even the disaster-prone Russian N1 in the 1960s had a better record than SpaceX!

In conclusion:
SpaceX = Can't land a flea on a dog
SpaceX = Can't land at all
SpaceX = Can't learn
SpaceX = Disaster
SpaceX = Worst space program in the entire history of manned space flight.

SpaceX should be banned from ever flying again, IMHO. It's just too dangerous to fly SpaceX.

I wouldn't trust them to launch a new strain of COVID-19, let alone launch people into orbit.

And the only thing more dangerous to the aerospace industry than an unvaccinated person with COVID-19, is a Musk cult member with a Falcon/Starship fetish.

 

[Slarty1080]

What exactly has Starship done? Crash, fifteen times straight that's what.

SLS is doomed to failure if Starship is involved in any way whatsoever. It's highly likely Starship will kill the Artemis astronauts.

That's what SpaceX is doing with its' experimental Starship test program. Gearing up to kill people.

Additionally, what happened to the Falcon rocket trials? Six out of every seven Falcon Nine series rockets launched, crash and burn on landing. And that still happens today.

So:
Falcon Nine = Failure
Starship = Atomic explosion level failure
SpaceX = Total, epic, murdering failure

I'll put this in logical language with an IF-THEN statement even a third-grader can understand:

IF SpaceX is involved in Artemis or any other NASA project, THEN the project is doomed to epic, tragic failure along even greater lines than the Challenger AND Columbia Disasters combined.

Hell even the disaster-prone Russian N1 in the 1960s had a better record than SpaceX!

In conclusion:
SpaceX = Can't land a flea on a dog
SpaceX = Can't land at all
SpaceX = Can't learn
SpaceX = Disaster
SpaceX = Worst space program in the entire history of manned space flight.

SpaceX should be banned from ever flying again, IMHO. It's just too dangerous to fly SpaceX.

I wouldn't trust them to launch a new strain of COVID-19, let alone launch people into orbit.

And the only thing more dangerous to the aerospace industry than an unvaccinated person with COVID-19, is a Musk cult member with a Falcon/Starship fetish.

It’s clear from your post that you hate Elon Musk and SpaceX. But argument by repetitive statement is not a very convincing one no matter how many time you repeat it. There is all too much anger and ranting on the internet so I won’t add to it here and judging by your response you have not read or considered what I wrote anyway. I do hope that one day it will become cool to think about things rather than doing reactive bull based on no knowledge.

 

[DanIAm]

Additionally, what happened to the Falcon rocket trials? Six out of every seven Falcon Nine series rockets launched, crash and burn on landing. And that still happens today.

On your metric (failure to land), you've banned almost the entirety of the history of spaceflight.

Apologies to everyone if I get the details wrong, I ain't a rocket scientist.

The useful comparison is against the rockets in the same class, e.g. the Delta IV or SLS from the States, Long March rocket (China), Proton or Soyuz (Russia), Arianne rocket (Europe) which are all expendable systems launching big payloads to orbit and beyond. You don't seem to have an issue with their utter lack of successful landings, they aren't reusable and burn up on re-entry/crash into the sea or stay up in space as junk. Tens of billions of dollars have been thrown away on one use rockets, it is a good thing that this is changing.

The point of these rockets is to launch payload, the measure of Falcon is 125 successful launches out of 129, landing it's first stage (and they sometimes capture the fairings as well), is an additional thing, not the primary thing that Falcon 9 does, that it's peers are incapable of. Even then it is not fully reusable, the 2nd stage is wasted, which Starship will remediate if it get's through it's development and testing successfully.

Falcon has 4 launch failures in it's history of 120-130 launches. Partial failure of B0006 launched 8th October 2012 (dragon reached the ISS, but the secondary satellite didn't reach it's orbit), B1018 with an issue in it's 2nd stage on 28th June 2015 and B1028 that exploded during a static fire test on the 3rd September 2016. As for the 4th failure with B1043, the Zuma satellite (a military satellite) in 2018, it successfully went to it's orbit and the rocket landed and was reused, but the satellite (very expensive one) didn't get to it's orbit.

re: Landings - or not-landings (explosive and other).

There have been 80 launches since the last failed launch in 2018 (Zuma), that is a good track record and done at a good price (compared to 2 billion for an SLS launch, which is outrageous). If a rocket is marked as expended, they were launched without a plan for recovery - for example, a launch to higher orbits such as Geostationary means it doesn't have enough fuel to land, so not recovering the rocket does not necessarily equate to failure.

So, in those last 80 launches, there have been 4 expended, 71 successful landings and 5 failed landings from 22 rockets. Of these, B2049 and B1051 have flown 10 times each, B1058 and B1060 have launched 8 times (and most of the others several times). Compare that to the competition that doesn't land at all...

 

[Kerry the Dragon]

On your metric (failure to land), you've banned almost the entirety of the history of spaceflight.

Apologies to everyone if I get the details wrong, I ain't a rocket scientist.

You did get the details wrong, and nearly 100% of what you said, was lies.

Let's get what you had correct done first, so you can't say I don't say anything good:
You're right in the fact that I don't care about non-reusable rockets landing. They're not meant to so obviously they're not counted in my metric; something which only applies to reusable craft.
You're also obviously not a rocket scientist, nor do you know anything about rockets since you got so much wrong.

Now, moving on to the second half, the stuff you got wrong:

1. You got my metrics wrong, since you clearly didn't recognize the blatantly-obvious facts that I was ignoring spacecraft that aren't meant to land. (If you thought my metrics included spacecraft that cannot physically accomplish them, then you don't even have a grasp of the blatantly obvious. Can't land if you're not meant to, duh!)

2. You got Falcon's record wrong. Six out of every seven launches (2/3) of the Falcon 9 have crashed and burned, a record that has remained unchanged since they started launching. Falcon 9 has not had 4 failures. 2/3 of 127 is not 4, it's 85. (Rounding up, the proper number is 84.66667)

3. You got the waste of money, waste of resources, and waste of people continues with SpaceX. In fact it gets even greater with their rate of launches and their rate of failures.

4. You completely missed one of the measures (plural) of reusable rockets. First, the point you stated, "to launch payload", is valid for reusables. However, there's a second measure which you missed entirely, and that point is "to be reused," a point which SpaceX fails miserably at. (2/3 of Falcon 9s fail, 100% of Falcon Heavies have failed, 100% of Starship prototypes have failed.)

5. You also got the comparison wrong. The best comparison to Starship is the old Soviet N1, which was supposed to carry huge loads, yet never failed to crash and burn with a gigantic explosion the size of an atomic detonation. Precisely like Starship.

So here are the numbers of notable accidents had by the Big Two space programs (NASA and the Russian programs ROSCOSMOS and the Soviet space program) in comparison to SpaceX, a list going all the way back to the 1960s:

NASA: 3 (Challenger, Columbia, Apollo 1)

Russians: 10 in the Soviet era alone (Nedelin, Valentin Bordarenko, Vokshod program, N1 program, Soyuz 11, 7k-T No. 39, The explosion of a Vostok rocket on March 18th 1980, Kosmos 434, and the September 1983 pad explosion of a Soyuz) multiple since.

SpaceX: 85 (again, I'm rounding up, the proper number is 84.66667.)

Obviously SpaceX shouldn't be trusted by NASA or by the Department of Defense. They're way too explosion prone. They do not fulfill their promises and they can't land a flea on a dog.

So why the hell is NASA trusting them to build a lander for human beings, on one of the most important missions mankind has ever embarked on? I sure as hell wouldn't, since doing so runs counter to known facts about their ships.

Artemis is a mission that could bring great glory and fame or, if the lander explodes as SpaceX's always do, doom and shame. SpaceX should not be allowed to fly on Artemis, or at all. They're too inexperienced, too explosion prone, and far, far, FAR too unsafe to ever be allowed to fly.

You wouldn't allow a baby barely out of the crib to build a rocket and launch you into space, would you? That's the best comparison to SpaceX right now.

EDIT: Sorry for the extraneous commentary before. I keep getting angry at some of you and attacking you instead of your ideas. Sorry again.

<<Extraneous commentary removed by moderator>>

 

[COLGeek]

Civility is a requirement for all to participate in the forum. Attack ideas with facts and sources. Don't attack each other.

 

[Slarty1080]

You did get the details wrong, and nearly 100% of what you said, was lies.

Let's get what you had correct done first, so you can't say I don't say anything good:
You're right in the fact that I don't care about non-reusable rockets landing. They're not meant to so obviously they're not counted in my metric; something which only applies to reusable craft.
You're also obviously not a rocket scientist, nor do you know anything about rockets since you got so much wrong.

Now, moving on to the second half, the stuff you got wrong:

1. You got my metrics wrong, since you clearly didn't recognize the blatantly-obvious facts that I was ignoring spacecraft that aren't meant to land. (If you thought my metrics included spacecraft that cannot physically accomplish them, then you don't even have a grasp of the blatantly obvious. Can't land if you're not meant to, duh!)

2. You got Falcon's record wrong. Six out of every seven launches (2/3) of the Falcon 9 have crashed and burned, a record that has remained unchanged since they started launching. Falcon 9 has not had 4 failures. 2/3 of 127 is not 4, it's 85. (Rounding up, the proper number is 84.66667)

3. You got the waste of money, waste of resources, and waste of people continues with SpaceX. In fact it gets even greater with their rate of launches and their rate of failures.

4. You completely missed one of the measures (plural) of reusable rockets. First, the point you stated, "to launch payload", is valid for reusables. However, there's a second measure which you missed entirely, and that point is "to be reused," a point which SpaceX fails miserably at. (2/3 of Falcon 9s fail, 100% of Falcon Heavies have failed, 100% of Starship prototypes have failed.)

5. You also got the comparison wrong. The best comparison to Starship is the old Soviet N1, which was supposed to carry huge loads, yet never failed to crash and burn with a gigantic explosion the size of an atomic detonation. Precisely like Starship.

So here are the numbers of notable accidents had by the Big Two space programs (NASA and the Russian programs ROSCOSMOS and the Soviet space program) in comparison to SpaceX, a list going all the way back to the 1960s:

NASA: 3 (Challenger, Columbia, Apollo 1)

Russians: 10 in the Soviet era alone (Nedelin, Valentin Bordarenko, Vokshod program, N1 program, Soyuz 11, 7k-T No. 39, The explosion of a Vostok rocket on March 18th 1980, Kosmos 434, and the September 1983 pad explosion of a Soyuz) multiple since.

SpaceX: 85 (again, I'm rounding up, the proper number is 84.66667.)

Obviously SpaceX shouldn't be trusted. They're way too explosion prone. They do not fulfill their promises and they can't land a flea on a dog.

So why the hell is NASA trusting them to build a lander for human beings, on one of the most important missions mankind has ever embarked on?

Artemis is a mission that could bring great glory and fame or, if the lander explodes as SpaceX's always do, doom and shame. SpaceX should not be allowed to fly on Artemis, or at all. They're too inexperienced, too explosion prone, and far, far, FAR too unsafe to ever be allowed to fly.

You wouldn't allow a baby barely out of the crib to build a rocket and launch you into space, would you? That's the best comparison to SpaceX right now.

<<Extraneous commentary removed by moderator.>>

You are woefully misinformed about NASA launch failures. NASA had 4 launch failures in 1960 alone:

Explorer S-46 / IE-B (Juno second stage malfunction)
Echo A10 (Delta second stage failure)
Mercury Atlas 1 (Lost after 59 seconds)
Pioneer P-30 (Atlas-Able second stage failure)

There were another 8 NASA failures in 1961, 4 more in 1962 and so on (and on and on - rocket science is hard)
http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/Scfam-failures.html

Here’s the video of a few early US rocket failures

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8


If you were only listing fatalities then SpaceX has had none so far. Based on this and your inaccurate reporting of the launch record of Falcon 9 and lack of any references to back up these assertions, why should anyone here believe anything that you say?

 

[Kerry the Dragon]

Civility is a requirement for all to participate in the forum. Attack ideas with facts and sources. Don't attack each other.

With respect, sir: This entire thread runs counter to all known facts and respectable sources with regards to SpaceX.

 

[Kerry the Dragon]

You are woefully misinformed about NASA launch failures. NASA had 4 launch failures in 1960 alone:

Explorer S-46 / IE-B (Juno second stage malfunction)
Echo A10 (Delta second stage failure)
Mercury Atlas 1 (Lost after 59 seconds)
Pioneer P-30 (Atlas-Able second stage failure)

There were another 8 NASA failures in 1961, 4 more in 1962 and so on (and on and on - rocket science is hard)
http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/Scfam-failures.html

Here’s the video of a few early US rocket failures

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8


If you were only listing fatalities then SpaceX has had none so far. Based on this and your inaccurate reporting of the launch record of Falcon 9 and lack of any references to back up these assertions, why should anyone here believe anything that you say?

Inaccurate? With respect, where exactly do you get your reports from, sir? Wikipedia?

My reporting is accurate. And I have proof, ranging from articles:

SpaceX : a history of fiery failures | by Louis Anslow | Timeline

To video, even video from SpaceX itself:

View: https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ

 

[COLGeek]

Folks, this thread has run its course. Thank you to all who contributed.