- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Serious Question: Would anyone here fly on a SpaceX rocket?
Posted on 3/7/25 at 10:09 am to Lonnie Utah
Posted on 3/7/25 at 10:09 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
But it also puzzles me that he has so much money that SpaceX's mode of operation is to simply build things to fail. Over and over again.
Ever heard of WD-40?
Posted on 3/7/25 at 10:12 am to Btrtigerfan
quote:
SpaceX has yet to have a fatality. Do Boeing and NASA next.
They haven't been flying long enough yet. Give them time. Mistakes do happen. Odds are not in their favor that it will happen eventually.
Posted on 3/7/25 at 6:08 pm to concrete_tiger
quote:
why isn't Delta 2 dominating space flight then?
ULA retired it after 30 years of use.
quote:
Does the moon count? There's an actual live moon lander that hitched a ride on SpaceX.
The moon is not a planet, so no. Don't worry though, the delta 2 people (McDonnell Douglas) actually put men into lunar orbit and have 5 rockets on the moon.
quote:
ULA has a 100% success rate, but what good is it when you launch 4 times vs Space X launching 138 times?
Avoiding Kessler syndrome seems pretty obvious.
quote:
How are we even arguing this?
The og delta was the Thor pgm-17. They went from that to putting men in lunar orbit in less time than spacex from their first launch to yesterday. Getting slower progress, over a half century later, is not as impressive as the elon fanbois think.
Posted on 3/7/25 at 6:18 pm to Lonnie Utah
It sure beats the alternative of going up in a Boeing rocket and getting stuck in space for 8 months.
Posted on 3/7/25 at 6:21 pm to MoarKilometers
ULA couldn’t even build its own rocket engines. They bought them from Russia
Posted on 3/7/25 at 6:33 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Show me on the doll where daddy elon touched you
The Launch button.
Posted on 3/7/25 at 7:14 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
t's easy to support SpaceX's engineering approach when it's not our money,
It is our money, 38 billion and counting
Posted on 3/7/25 at 7:41 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Let me ask this question: If NASA was run like SpaceX, and exploded rockets almost every time they sent them up, how you would feel as a taxpayer?
That’s the point. It’s not taxpayer money.
How have they exploded rockets almost every time up? You anti-Elon people act like starship isn’t a completely new platform altogether. You ignore that they have now caught a 400 foot tall flying building 3 times in a row.
I would wager the next starship is a success. The problem occurred at almost the exact same moment as 7. This problem will be solved and on to the next. Meanwhile, we’ll hear not a fart from any other agency.
Posted on 3/7/25 at 8:01 pm to Lonnie Utah
Ignorant post of the decade.
quote:
“Failure is an option here. If things are not failing, you are not innovating enough.” – Elon Musk
Posted on 3/7/25 at 8:08 pm to UltimaParadox
quote:
It is our money, 38 billion and counting
Out of the money they were promised, $14.6 billion comes from NASA contracts. These cover things like delivering supplies to the International Space Station and creating a new moon lander. One contract is for launching NASA satellites, and another is for sending cargo to the Lunar Gateway, a space station NASA wants to put around the moon for future trips. The coolest part? They’ve got a deal to safely take down the International Space Station after 2030. The company is making a stronger version of its Dragon capsule, which will use its big engine to guide the station back to Earth so it can burn up in the atmosphere.
.
Posted on 3/7/25 at 8:09 pm to Lonnie Utah
If I were terminally ill, sure. What a story my offspring could tell
Posted on 3/7/25 at 8:34 pm to HeadCall
quote:
ULA couldn’t even build its own rocket engines. They bought them from Russia
None of the companies amalgamated into ula ever made their own rocket engines

ULA engines aren't causing RUDs either, so they have that going for them

Posted on 3/8/25 at 4:33 am to MoarKilometers
quote:
ULA engines aren't causing RUDs either, so they have that going for them
Kinda hard to blow up a rocket if you never launch any rockets
Posted on 3/8/25 at 5:43 am to Lonnie Utah
Sign me up!
As of March 8, 2025, SpaceX has completed 455 successful rocket launches. This figure is based on the Falcon 9 family, which has launched 458 times since 2010, with 455 full mission successes, three failures, and one partial failure, according to detailed tracking up to March 3, 2025. Including Falcon Heavy and earlier Falcon 1 missions, the total aligns with this count, though Starship test flights (like the four in 2024) are typically excluded from success tallies due to their experimental nature. The Falcon 9 Block 5, the current workhorse, has a 99.74% success rate over 390 flights. SpaceX’s reusable booster tech has driven this high success rate, with 414 of 427 landing attempts succeeding. Posts on X and web data corroborate this, citing 454–470 successes depending on exact dates and definitions, but 455 is the most consistent figure for full mission successes as of early March 2025.
As of March 8, 2025, SpaceX has completed 455 successful rocket launches. This figure is based on the Falcon 9 family, which has launched 458 times since 2010, with 455 full mission successes, three failures, and one partial failure, according to detailed tracking up to March 3, 2025. Including Falcon Heavy and earlier Falcon 1 missions, the total aligns with this count, though Starship test flights (like the four in 2024) are typically excluded from success tallies due to their experimental nature. The Falcon 9 Block 5, the current workhorse, has a 99.74% success rate over 390 flights. SpaceX’s reusable booster tech has driven this high success rate, with 414 of 427 landing attempts succeeding. Posts on X and web data corroborate this, citing 454–470 successes depending on exact dates and definitions, but 455 is the most consistent figure for full mission successes as of early March 2025.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 6:02 am to Cell of Awareness
quote:
“Failure is an option here. If things are not failing, you are not innovating enough.” – Elon Musk
I guess he should extend this take to rubbers or birth control pills....
Posted on 3/8/25 at 6:51 am to Lonnie Utah
Trump should rename the Gulf of America to the Gulf of Space X Wreckage
Posted on 3/8/25 at 8:23 am to Lonnie Utah
You're a mindless hack (exhibit A for a NPC) that is nothing but a pawn for the legacy media that has brainwashed you into hating Elon. Those are all experimental rockets you've shown, the failures make future iterations of the vehicle more robust and safe. Astronauts fly to space routinely on the SPACEX Crew Dragon capsule, which has returned all astronauts and civilians safe from 15 crewed flights to date.
Truly, GFY. One of you insane liberals is probably going to try to assassinate Elon, who otherwise will go on to be the most influential human in history.
Truly, GFY. One of you insane liberals is probably going to try to assassinate Elon, who otherwise will go on to be the most influential human in history.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 8:26 am to Lonnie Utah
I'd fly a SpaceX rocket before a Boeing built Delta Airlines plane at this point.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 8:29 am to Lonnie Utah
100%. Always wanted to go to space. Rather die doing that than going out like Hackman
Posted on 3/8/25 at 8:59 am to Lonnie Utah

Another poster whose wife beats up her phat arse pussy while screaming some African American dudes name.
I doubt anyone who posts on Tigerdoppings will ever be in a position to fly on a private jet much less a rocket to space.
Popular
Back to top
