- 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: SpaceX Starship Flight Test 9 | Booster explodes over Gulf, Starship tumbles after SECO
Posted on 5/28/25 at 11:40 am to Galactic Inquisitor
Posted on 5/28/25 at 11:40 am to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
At this point, NASA has a better success rate.
It has been 5073 days since NASA has put an astronaut into orbit. There are teenagers now that have not been alive to see NASA put humans into space.
NASA success -
1967 - Apollo 1, 3 astronauts killed
1986 - Challenger Disaster, 7 astronauts killed
1999 - Mars Climate Orbiter burns up, used metric units; contractor used imperial units—nobody caught the error.
1999 - Mars Polar Lander crashes, software mistakenly thought the spacecraft had landed and shut off its engines too early.
2003 - Columbia Disaster, 7 astronauts killed
James Webb Space Telescope - cost rose from $1 billion to $10 billion
In the 1960s when NASA was operating like SpaceX now, they lost and estimated 150 - 200 rockets. There were somewhere between 1300-1500 rockets launched back then. 10%-15% failure rate in the early 60s that got better towards end of decade.
Falcon 9 has a greater than 99% success rate and 0 fatalities.
1
Posted on 5/28/25 at 12:51 pm to DarthRebel
SpaceX is a NASA vendor and mostly exists to do NASA's bidding (with exception of starlink launches). Why do people keep pitting them against each other?
Posted on 5/28/25 at 12:52 pm to DarthRebel
They need a lander. Starship was meant to be the lander.
But it’s likely a clean sheet landed launched on SLS or Falcon Heavy would get certified before Starship Lander.
But it’s likely a clean sheet landed launched on SLS or Falcon Heavy would get certified before Starship Lander.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:43 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
NASA is funding Starship, so I'd say their success is tied at the hip.
I think Starlink is funding Starship more than NASA.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:49 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
SpaceX is a NASA vendor and mostly exists to do NASA's bidding (with exception of starlink launches). Why do people keep pitting them against each other?
This started when NASA choose to pursue the SLS as I recall.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:55 pm to wallowinit
quote:
Good topic! It seems every time there’s anything having to do with Elon an amazing amount of hateful ignorance spews forth much as a knee-jerk reaction unabashedly proclaiming look how stupid I am! And they don’t care that they appear to be absolute morons. Interesting behavior.
Isn’t he being paid 5 million bucks a day for this crap? But no it’s elon, no one can complain about him since he’s also president.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:11 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
SpaceX is a NASA vendor and mostly exists to do NASA's bidding (with exception of starlink launches).
While NASA was important for their startup success, they are only currently 10%-15% of their annual revenue now. NASA has awarded them a few billion dollar contracts, but those are spread out of years.
quote:
Why do people keep pitting them against each other?
We are not pitting them against each other, it is just a comparison of their origins and response to one of the local blue trolls claiming NASA has a better success rate. It is factually not true and easily proved.
NASA paved the way for this and their past failures are why SpaceX and other private companies can succeed. NASA was more a pioneer than SpaceX will probably ever be, and they deserve the respect they earned. While SpaceX is trying to figure how to catch a booster, NASA had to figure out what rocket was in the first place and do it with pencil and paper.
Modern NASA is a mess of bureaucracy and it is OK to point that out. We can respect what they have done for the betterment of humanity, but also disagree with what they have become in modern times. Washington killed NASA though, not the men and women who worked there.
SpaceX is 1960s NASA with computers. We are going to see some wild things over the next 2 decades.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:30 pm to jcaz
quote:
But it’s likely a clean sheet landed launched on SLS or Falcon Heavy would get certified before Starship Lander.
We will see. I think people get lost in the fact with rapid iterative development there is physical failures and the old school way of taking several years to get 1 launch perfect. Every Starship lost so far, was supposed to be lost. Either through RUD or scrapped. There have been 9 launches and they only used 8 boosters. IFT 10 may also use a previously flown booster. This is bringing down cost and time of development. Booster is 75% there probably, not to rapid reuse phase yet. Ship was pretty solid in V1 form, V2 is bigger and different. If they kept the V1 design, we are probably not having this conversation. V3 is around the corner with new 3rd version of Raptor engines. V3 Raptors are legit next level design not a single company or country can mimic.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:37 pm to DarthRebel
For the downvoter, here is the answer from Duck Duck Go AI
Starlink revenue was $13 billion in 2024, and $8.7 billion in 2023. Funding from NASA was a fraction of that.
quote:
SpaceX's Starship development is primarily funded by internal resources from the company, including revenue from its Starlink satellite service, which is expected to generate significant income. In contrast, NASA's funding for similar projects, like the Human Landing System, is contingent on meeting specific milestones and is part of a broader budget that supports various space missions.
Starlink revenue was $13 billion in 2024, and $8.7 billion in 2023. Funding from NASA was a fraction of that.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:45 pm to Clark14
Elon is President...good, as I have more faith in his ability to act than your ability to critique.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:48 pm to Free888
quote:
For the downvoter
There are people that want to ignore facts and just be mad at Elon, Tesla and SpaceX here
I must DV, you said something nice about good about SpaceX
Posted on 5/28/25 at 7:20 pm to DarthRebel
I've shared this before, but Gwynne Shotwell is who makes things happen at SpaceX. She is no wallflower. Musk chose her and chose well.
Without SpaceX, the US would need to rely on Russia to get Astronauts to the ISS. Blue Origin still struggles to have fault free launches. ULA the child of McDonald Douglas and Boeing don't even have their own rocket engine.
The money SpaceX gets from the US is a fraction of what the other players charge and the success rate isn't close. That's why the Space Force, NASA, and the Department of Defense are happy to do business with them.
Starship, when perfected will be able to put more cargo in orbit and cheaper.
Without SpaceX, the US would need to rely on Russia to get Astronauts to the ISS. Blue Origin still struggles to have fault free launches. ULA the child of McDonald Douglas and Boeing don't even have their own rocket engine.
The money SpaceX gets from the US is a fraction of what the other players charge and the success rate isn't close. That's why the Space Force, NASA, and the Department of Defense are happy to do business with them.
Starship, when perfected will be able to put more cargo in orbit and cheaper.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 7:26 pm to jcaz
quote:
But it’s likely a clean sheet landed launched on SLS or Falcon Heavy would get certified before Starship Lander.
I don’t think anyone else is even seriously working on one.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News