this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
469 points (99.0% liked)
Space
10455 readers
19 users here now
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Falcon 9 is one of the most reliable rockets of all time. Yeah, their prototypes blow up way too often, but those never had cargo aboard because they’re in testing anyway.
Starship is a 100% categorical failure though. It'll never carry a payload.
I also tend to think Starship is a terrible architecture. They should just put a traditional second stage on top of Superheavy and get on with it already. It may not even be possible to re-enter such the ship from orbital speeds safely.
Tell me Falcon Heavy couldn't push a Crew Dragon to the moon.
It could but the Crew Dragon likely wouldn’t have the delta-v to land and return. That being said, I don’t think it’s crazy to do an “assemble in orbit” architecture consisting of multiple preparatory launches.
Hell, Starship is supposed to require like 10 refueling launches to go to the Moon. Couldn’t we just launch 10 Falcon 9s and assemble a badass landing system in orbit?
two launches, put lander in lunar orbit with one rocket, put the command module and crew up in another. Almost all of the hardware is man rated and ready to fly, just need a LM.
A Musk property can do nothing good while doing so much bad, my dude.
Musk is truly the worst of humanity, but just because he is vile scum doesn’t imply that everything he’s ever touched is bad.
Humans infuriatingly tend to assume that because a person is distasteful that everything associated with them must be stupid, broken, or unethical. This is not true, and is a logical fallacy called the “genetic fallacy” — judging something as good or bad based on its source rather than its actual merit.
Falcon 9 is excellent and gives NASA launch capabilities it doesn’t have, for a fraction of the price it was paying before for launch services.
But like, let’s take the Cybertruck as an opposite example. I wouldn’t care if Bernie Sanders himself invented it, it’s a piece shit vehicle.
I like SpaceX. They have done and continue to do some truly amazing things but I can't get excited for their successes any more because of their association with Musk.
If he we're just a shitty business man I'd get it and would just choose not to buy his products, but he's inserted himself into the workings of our government and our everyday lives. He's actively participating in tearing apart our democracy. Cool rocket, bro doesn't fucking cut it. It's like saying Hitler was a bad guy, yes, but he really helped revolutionize vapor transfer technology.
It's fine to continue to downvote me on this. I may be wrong, but the merit of what I said is what matters, right?