Here’s a nice Washington Post headline:
SpaceX has a partially successful test flight
The subhead tells the real story.
SpaceX successfully launched its Starship on May 27, but the rocket lost control mid-flight and eventually fell apart.
They failed to recover the reusable booster, which exploded, and the second stage was tumbling out of control, and exploded. SUCCESS!
This was the ninth Starship launch, and none of them have “succeeded” by any reasonable meaning of the word. Maybe someone needs to teach the editors at the WaPo the word “failed”? Somehow, I think they’re going to need to use that word a lot in the next few years, in lots of contexts.
Here’s a detailed breakdown of the flaws in Starship design, with Elon Musk at the top of the list of problems.
Musk isn’t an engineer and doesn’t understand iterative design, and now SpaceX and NASA are facing a sunk cost fallacy.
You never achieve iterative design with a full-scale prototype. It is incredibly wasteful and can lead you down several problematic and dead-end solutions. I used to engineer high-speed boats — another weight- and safety-sensitive engineering field. We would always conduct scale model tests of every aspect of design, iteratively changing it as we went so that when we did build the full-scale version, we were solving the problems of scale, not design and scale simultaneously.
SpaceX could have easily done this. They already proved they could land a 1st stage/Booster with the Falcon 9, and Falcon 9’s Booster could launch a 1/10 scale Starship into orbit. Tests of such a scaled-down model would help SpaceX determine the best compromise for using the bellyflop manoeuvre and retro rockets to land. It would help them iteratively improve the design around such a compromise, especially as they will be far cheaper and quicker to redesign and build than the full-scale versions. Not only that, but these tests would highlight any of the design’s shortcomings, such as the rocket engines not having enough thrust-to-weight ratio to enable a high enough payload. This allows engineers to do crucial, complete redesigns before the large-scale version is even built.
If you have even a passing knowledge of engineering, you know this is what iterative design looks like. So, why hasn’t Musk done this?
Well, developing a Starship like this would expose that making a fully reusable rocket with even a barely usable payload to space is impossible. Musk knows this: Falcon 9 was initially meant to be fully reusable until he discovered that the useful payload would be zero. That was his iterative design telling him Starship was impossible over a decade ago, as just making the rocket larger won’t solve this! But he went on ahead anyway. Why?
Well, through some transparent corruption and cronyism, he could secure multi-billion-dollar contracts from NASA to build this mythical rocket. But, by going for full-scale testing, he could not only hide the inherent flaws of Starship long enough for the cash to be handed over to him but also put NASA in a position of the sunk cost fallacy. NASA has given SpaceX so much money, and their plans rely so heavily on Starship that they can’t walk away; they might as well keep shoving money at the beast.
This is why Starship, in my opinion, is just one massive con.
That is the real reason why Starship was doomed to fail from the beginning. It’s not trying to revolutionise the space industry; if it were, its concept, design, and testing plan would be totally different. Instead, the entire project is optimised to fleece as much money from the US taxpayer as possible, and as such, that is all it will ever do.
To be fair, they never planned on recovering the booster this time. It was scheduled to make a soft splashdown into the Gulf.
That is enough failures in a row at 9 to force a long re-evaluation of the whole program.
And it should result in a major change to the program or even perhaps starting over with a new design.
I’ve seen articles that claim that if SpaceX was public, by now Elon Musk would have been
asked to resignfired.They. Made. Progress.
Space X and esp their Starship rocket team of workers, engineers and highly intelligent people made progress.
They learned.
Starship flew and separated and achieved some – but not all – of its goals set for this specific flight – so, yeah, a partial success.
Not a full one but a partial one. Not a total failure but a partial one. Mixed results. This time,
SpaceX launch, fly, learn, repeat. They get there in the end. There’s along history of them working by thsi trial and error method and they do end up getting there. Starship will get there eventually too.
FWIW The flight can be watched (no longer live) here – lift off at the 4 hours 6 mins mark here via NASASpaceflight so folks can watch, listen and assess for themselves. 6 hrs & 11 mins total but easy to skipthrough tothe flight itself at timepoint already noted.
Progeress is being made, flights are happening more flights and more succesasful flights will come, I’ve no dounbt of that.
Also do I have to mention every single time that SpaceX is a lot more than just its horrid CEO and I wish he was no longer incharge of it but his team include a lot of good people too and that SpaceX private space agency has accomplished some absolutely astounding things that peopel kept saying culdn’t be doen until SpaceX did them?
What part of that don’t people get?
Aren’t people here meant to be pro-Science incl rocketry science? Pro- learning and experimenting and attempting progress? Also capable of seeing nuances not just B&W, Musk = bad therefore everything Musk do = bad? Aren’t we smarter & better than that?
Here’s a thought, how about you design a rocket that works rather than something looks like it should be flown by Buster Crabb in a 1930s Republic Serial!
Just like Musk’s rolling dumpster, it all about sci-fi aesthetics, not practicality.
You would think it would be in Bezos’s interest to make Musk’s space company appear as inept as possible in favor of his own. If this isn’t a clear enough sign there’s a billionaires club, I don’t know what is.
I think what Musk is doing to SpaceX is similar to what he did to Tesla: Tesla’s first vehicles were basic, functional devices that actually did a thing that people wanted done, and Musk was mainly just concerned with getting resources together to build them and didn’t have much to do with the actual design. But then, after they were selling well, he insisted on the engineers including a lot of specific things in the design of the Cybertruck, which is kind of a mechanical monstrosity that, even though it is doing poorly in the market, he is too personally invested in to give it up. And there is a good chance it is going to sink Tesla.
And SpaceX also got started making a basic, functional launcher that has become very popular, with Musk not having been that much involved in the actual design. But again, he apparently made a lot of demands on what Starship was supposed to look like, and it may well also be a mechanical monstrosity that, in the end, isn’t able to do what it is supposed to do and may end up sinking the company.
Is anybody in their right mind going to board one of these things to go to Mars? They say it’s a 2-year round trip but they can’t get them to work for more than a few minutes before they blow up. They need to get an unmanned version to Mars, land it safely and return it to Earth first. At this rate that’s still a long way off. Still, I suppose that anything that keeps Musk away from DOGE is a good thing.
FWIW Scott Manley’s expert assessment of this flight here – SpaceX Builds Largest Reusable Booster, Also Makes Door That Won’t Open – Starship Flight 9 Recap approx twenty minutes length – almost.
Note : haven’t yet had time to watch it in full myself. Just started doing so & don’t have enough time given time just rockets away on me these days.
I don’t carry any water for Musk – I’d piss on FelonMusk’s face if he wasn’t on fire – & I could.
But i am an unapologetic fan of SapceX the space agency and the wodners it has built and flown.
By these lights I can boast of several partially successful romantic relationships. Thanks Washington Post!
@7. seversky : When its ready and proven enugh to do so – yes.
I’m not against space exploration. I just don’t think private enterprise is the best way to do it. Most of us don’t pay much attention to the Chinese space program, but we should. They are actually ahead of the U.S. at the moment. They have a space station orbiting earth, and they don’t need another nation to help them get their astronauts there and back. They have landers and rovers on the moon. Their space program aims to achieve a crewed lunar landing by 2030 and establish a lunar research station in the following years. Like the U.S., they have successfully sent probes to Mars. They have a heavy-lift vehicle engineered to carry payloads exceeding 50 tons. China is also preparing more planetary exploration. While Musk is fiddling around with his exploding rockets, China is actually getting the job done. If anyone ever sends humans to Mars, my bet is the Chinese will be there first.
Aphorism (?) : The difference between SpaceX & Musk is that Spoce X is Science suceeding eventually and Felon Musk is bigotry failing eventually.
I watched NASA’s Curiosity rover land on Mars in 2012, this was one of the most exciting things ever. It was based on solid science, funded by the government, checks and balances, all that. Now billionaires blow up toy rockets and let the parts rain down over oceans with no care in the world, no responsibility or accountability. While slashing NASA’s budget. Of course China is winning the space race, as the USA is being dismantled and sold for parts.
StevoR @3:
People who work for an evil Nazi scumbag.
It’s Jeff Bozos. What did you expect?
Also Will Lockett? He ain’t no rocket scientists – literally.
Okay he’s got some experience with building boats.
Boats ain’t rockets
Will Lockett – as I’m sure I’ve written here before on other threads – lacks credibility here and has a massive axe to grind and a hatred that exceeds his expertise here.
Sure I’m biased too. We all have our biases.
But when it comes to rocket science, I’m gonna listen to and respect and appreciate those who actually know their rocket science.
Specifically those actual rocket scientists working for SpaceX.
Not some rando would be minor journo with very little if any credibility here to over-ride the people and engineers and actual qualified expert rocket scientists who keep proving him wrong by doing what people like him keep saying they cannot do befroe they actually prve them wrong by doing it.
@Rob Grigjanis – 30th May 2025 at 9:31 am : Werner Von Braun worked for Nazis too. He got the UsoA to the Moon as well. Just because their boss is evil doesn’t mean those employed as scientists by him doesn’t mean they don’t know what they’re doing. Or have their own agendas and different better dreams. Fair point but.. yeah, that.
@ Autobot Silverwynde : Uh, what?! Its Musk’s private space agency. Not Bezos.
Not that either of them are actual rocket scientists either. Just CEO’s taking the credit for their workers work.
StevoR @16:
Engineering is engineering. Have you addressed Lockett’s specific points in that regard?
You’re gonna listen to the people who are given direction by Musk, and almost certainly watch what they say because they value their jobs?
@ ^ Rob Grigjanis : I’m gunna listen to people who are rocket scientists and know their rocket science and rocket engineering over an individual whose expertise is marine not aeronautical or rocketry.
I’m gunna listen to the people – plural – that NASA trusts not the person, the op-ed poison pen writer – singular – who.. well, who exactly trusts and why? Based on what?
SpaceX has a record of doing astounding things and roving their abilities to do those. They have earnt the right to be trusted and respected here by making the dreams and visions and goals they set reality by their hard work and thought and efforts :
https://interestingengineering.com/science/destination-mars-15-incredible-spacex-milestones-past-and-future
OTOH Will Lockett (again.. Who TFis he? We should listen to him why?) has.. argued online against this amazingly surprisingly successful private Space Agency naysaying the people that have actually accomplished the awesome stuff they said they’d do and then actually did online and has built boats and thus we take his word for .. what and why?
Y’know, I think I’ll just come out and say it – I think pretty much all this space exploration technology is an irresponsible waste of time and money.at best and immoral mid-life-crisis masturbation for billionaires at worst.
We know what’s out there within our reach, and it’s mostly rocks and nothing. Space exploration was the wide-eyed dream of the Cold War era, but it achieved very little. There were a few spin-offs like satellites and non-stick frying pans, but mostly it just gave us more dangerous weaponry. It is the fatuous nostalgia of the baby boom generation brought up on schmaltzy space operas with chrome-silver ray guns and US imperialism among the stars.
We have problems enough down here. More than enough. Too many. We need social technologies to help out the billions of starving and oppressed. We need wealth redistribution and a fundamental re-think of our political order. Inasmuch as we need new material technology, we need things that will help stabilise the climate and better cope with all the damage we’ve done to it – damage caused by the kinds of industrial excess these space exploration projects come out of.
Come back to me in a couple of centuries when we’ve figured out how to live on earth successfully. Then, maybe, we can talk about going to visit all the rocks and nothing.
Y’know, I think I’ll just come out and say it – I think pretty much all this space exploration technology is an irresponsible waste of time and money.at best and immoral mid-life-crisis masturbation for billionaires at worst.
We know what’s out there within our reach, and it’s mostly rocks and nothing. Space exploration was the wide-eyed dream of the Cold War era, but it achieved very little. There were a few spin-offs like satellites and non-stick frying pans, but mostly it just gave us more dangerous weaponry. It is the fatuous nostalgia of the baby boom generation brought up on schmaltzy space operas with chrome-silver ray guns and US imperialism among the stars.
We have problems enough down here. More than enough. Too many. We need social technologies to help out the billions of starving and oppressed. We need wealth redistribution and a fundamental re-think of our political order. Inasmuch as we need new material technology, we need things that will help stabilise the climate and better cope with all the damage we’ve done to it – damage caused by the kinds of industrial excess these space exploration projects come out of.
Come back to me in a couple of centuries when we’ve figured out how to live on earth successfully. Then, maybe, we can talk about going to visit all the rocks and nothing
The spaceflight and astronomy community is filled with indifference and cowardice with regard to the activities of SpaceX. Few within it will acknowledge that stopping creeping fascism is more important than the success of his rocket flights, which enable his continued chaos. Yes, I’m going to rain on all your parades by pointing out that whatever good you think comes from the hard work of SpaceX engineers and technicians, the fact is that their participation in his enrichment is enabling harm. Enormous harm. To our citizens and others.
Hatred is being deliberately sown on his platform, through his own well-documented demands and desires. Hatred and threats to women, to transgendered people, to Jews, to nonwhites. He pushes anti-vaccination propaganda, which carries a massive death toll. He pushes pro-Russian talking points with regard to the Ukraine War, echoing the propaganda of an enemy of the United States – the murderous death cult of Vladimir Putin. His “government efficiency” cons are transparent methods to gain access to private information from multiple agencies. His firings of key science & medicine research personnel will kill millions.
I shouldn’t have to point out that juvenile rationalizations such as “space and spaceflight are so cool!” are just indicators that you find your own entertainment more important than the lives of your fellow citizens, especially those who are marginalized.
“But we can walk and chew gum” you retort. “We can celebrate and encourage the marvel of exploration while also condemning bigotry!” you say.
No. In this particular case, you can’t. Because the perpetrator of both of those things is the same person.
Which means that to stop the source and continued energy of the hatred and anti-American chaos means he must be stopped. His source of financial energy must be choked off. You cannot have it both ways. You have to pick a side, whether you’re an astronaut, an engineer, or a cafeteria worker at SpaceX.
Believe me, I get the marvel. I’ve been a close follower and enthusiast of the American space program my entire life. I was at Cape Canaveral in the summer of 1983 to witness Sally Ride’s first flight on the Space Shuttle. I met Buzz Aldrin and got him to autograph a copy of the Case For Mars program that I attended (now known to be a pipe dream, of course). I can name the crew of every Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo flight. I’m old enough to remember watching Apollo 17, the Apollo-Soyuz test program, Skylab, Pioneer, Viking, Voyager.
But if one man had been responsible for the ongoing funding and execution of those missions, and had as his personal mission to harm millions of innocent people for no reason other than bigotry, I would be happy to see it all stopped.
“What about Wernher von Braun,” you ask. “We wouldn’t have gotten to the Moon without him.” Good question.
Yes, we would have. Perhaps not by 1969, but we would have. Plus, it’s not a very apt comparison. Difference is, Wernher von Braun never again advocated Nazi ideology after being rescued and employed by the USA in September 1945, just after the end of WW2. But Musk today blabs nonstop anti-Semitic and white supremacist crap while the US Government lets him launch our National Security Agency payloads – spy satellites that are supposed to protect us all.
The stars and planets will still be there when we mature enough to realize what’s more important – thrills or lives. And yes, in the case of Musk, those things are mutually exclusive.
Until he’s no longer in the picture, no longer pulling strings, no longer setting out to harm innocent people, I cheer for every single one of his rockets to fail. Everyone who helps him is culpable for the hatred he propagates. There’s no avoiding it. It’s time to grow up.
Also capable of seeing nuances not just B&W, Musk = bad therefore everything Musk do = bad? Aren’t we smarter & better than that?
That’s not our reasoning and you know it. Our reasoning is that #PhonyStark has proven himself ignorant, incompetent, dishonest, narcissistic and not at all credible; therefore every venture he has a hand in should be considered SUSPECT. Especially when he’s surrounded by fawning fanboys mindlessly misrepresenting almost everything he and his companies do.
…SpaceX private space agency has accomplished some absolutely astounding things that peopel kept saying culdn’t be doen until SpaceX did them?
Such as…? All I see is a big rocket going to Earth orbit. NASA have already done that, years ago; and as John Watts @11 points out, the Chinese are doing far more than that now.
They get there in the end. There’s along history of them working by thsi trial and error method and they do end up getting there. Starship will get there eventually too.
“There” being…where, exactly? Also, the point of this article is that PhonyStark’s refusal to do more iterative design means more “trial and error” — at greater expense — than is really necessary.
Also, PhonyStark is not at all comparable to Werner von Braun. The latter was not a bigoted nazi CEO or business owner; he was much more of a public servant, first of the Hitler regime, then of the USA; and his work got more and better results than the former’s because he was more competent and honest, and less egotistical. Also, the latter was a much bigger fan of safety and good engineering practices than the former.
But when it comes to rocket science, I’m gonna listen to and respect and appreciate those who actually know their rocket science. Specifically those actual rocket scientists working for SpaceX.
What about actual rocket scientists who work, or worked, for anyone else? Do they suddenly not count?
Seriously, StevoR, your fanboy defensiveness is showing, and it ain’t pretty. Or credible.
I have an extensive, credible, technical background. It includes working for 20 successful years in aerospace. I was tested and elected a senior member of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. This is not meant as bragging, just establishing that I have the background to make these remarks.
I have read numerous reports by true technical professionals that ALL say this:
Muskrat spacex operates by irresponsible, endless blundering using trial and error instead of using proven design and test methods. They waste BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to launch defective rockets again and again, causing pollution, destroying property, turning their fake ‘city’ into a ‘love canal’ environmental supersite. Their starlink is an unnecessarily expensive, under-performing, unreliable, highly politicized source of massive low earth orbit pollution. Their boring company is just an abandoned hole in the ground. The cybertruk is an overpriced, ugly rusting metal monstrosity that doesn’t even function as a working truck. The muskrat doge cockroach army’s waste and destruction is only rivaled by tRUMP and naziyahoo. As Rebecca Watson said, ‘because Musk couldn’t code a “hello world” to save his life’.
StevoR makes some very good contributions to this blog. However, his endless pandering, fanboy remarks about spacex are not useful.
And, more to the point of PZ’s headline, mainslime media; their normalizing and soft-pedaling of bs is aiding and abetting the destruction of what’s left of this ‘circling the drain’ society.
@17: Bozos owns the Washington Post.
This is a very handy table of the first 23 years of SpaceX accomplishments in comparison to NASA. Nothing new, of course.
:reads #19:
The incredible things SpaceX has done is made really cool but extremely expensive fireworks. Seriously. StevoR, stop simping for Muskrat; he literally doesn’t care that you exist. 😒
It became clear that Space X was more scam than serious effort when Musk decreed that the Big Rocket be called “Starship”. It is not interstellar-capable, therefore it is not a starship.
One or two crashes might have been excusable but something that always ends in disaster just isn’t real. Loads can be calculated and structures can be modeled. Entire airplanes can be designed in a computer. Trial and error is not a viable engineering path. Rockets are not new, you can’t compare with Goddard when no one knew how to calculate rocket forces and airflows, especially beyond the speed of sound. Now we do. SpaceX is run by grifters.
Well, this comment got eaten twice already, so let’s see if third time’s the charm
Y’know, I think I’ll just come out and say it – I think pretty much all space exploration technology is an irresponsible waste of time and money.at the moment. Immoral mid-life-crisis masturbation for unimaginative billionaires.
We know more or less what’s out there within our reach, and it’s mostly rocks and nothing. Space exploration was the wide-eyed dream of the Cold War era, but it achieved very little. There were a few spin-offs like satellites and non-stick frying pans, but mostly it just gave us more dangerous weaponry. Now it’s just the fatuous nostalgia of the baby boom generation brought up on schmaltzy space operas with chrome-silver ray guns and US imperialism among the stars.
We have problems enough down here. More than enough. Too many. We need social technologies to help out the billions of starving and oppressed. We need wealth redistribution and a fundamental re-think of our political order. Inasmuch as we need new material technology, we need things that will help stabilise the climate and better cope with all the damage we’ve done to it – damage caused by the kinds of industrial excess these space exploration projects come out of.
Come back to me in a couple of centuries when we’ve figured out how to live on earth successfully. Then, maybe, we can talk about going out to visit all the rocks and nothing.
Test comment – are all my remarks being eaten, or just the long one?
Did the debris actually fall on the ocean…only. There was concern raised prior to the launch by downrange island nations about debris falling on their people. It’s one thing to blow US tax payer money on these “experiments”…NASA did plenty of that particularly in the late 50s and early 60s because Communism!!!!…but potentially harming people who just happen to live under the flight path is a different matter.
Funny…
When Musk took over Twitter, I was reading articles saying: “Musk is an engineer, not a software developer, that’s why Twitter will fail under Musk”
Now I’m reading: “Musk is not an engineer, that’s why SpaceX will fail under Musk”
I’m eventually hoping for: “Musk is Musk, that’s why everything fails under Musk”
cartomancer @29: I’ve seen two short ones in this thread.
Another example of how decent and caring the muskrat and spacex are:
In Other Words, LEAVE!
Starbase, Texas, has notified some residents that they might “lose the right to continue using” their property as they do today, according to a memo obtained by CNBC.
The town, home to Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is considering a new zoning ordinance and city-wide map.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/29/elon-musk-spacex-starbase-texas.html
perhaps the fact I used the word “masturbation” automatically put it into some kind of moderation queue? Or the Evil Capitalist Overlords decided I was a danger to their future malign schemes.
Y’know, I think I’ll just come out and say it – I think pretty much all this space exploration technology is an irresponsible waste of time and money at the moment.
We know what’s out there within our reach, and it’s mostly rocks and nothing. Space exploration was the wide-eyed dream of the Cold War era, but it achieved very little. There were a few spin-offs like satellites and non-stick frying pans, but mostly it just gave us more dangerous weaponry. It is the fatuous nostalgia of the baby boom generation brought up on schmaltzy space operas with chrome-silver ray guns and US imperialism among the stars.
We have problems enough down here. More than enough. Too many. We need social technologies to help out the billions of starving and oppressed. We need wealth redistribution and a fundamental re-think of our political order. Inasmuch as we need new material technology, we need things that will help stabilise the climate and better cope with all the damage we’ve done to it – damage caused by the kinds of industrial excess these space exploration projects come out of.
Come back to me in a couple of centuries when we’ve figured out how to live on earth successfully. Then, maybe, we can talk about going to visit all the rocks and nothing.
there we go!
I sort of agree with cartomancer @35 here: there’s lots of wonderous things to discover on other planets and solar systems — but there’s even more wonderous things in our own planet’s biosphere. Things we really NEED to learn about, understand, preserve and protect, for our own sake as well as for the sake of discovery. And we can engage with all that wonderous stuff NOW, without having to wait for some unheard-of technology to be invented, and without having to spend huge amounts of money or resources on ginormous-scale building projects.
Reaching and colonizing other planets really seemed more feasible back in the 1970s. Most of the discoveries we’ve made since then has only clarified how difficult, dicey and dangerous such ventures would really turn out to be. (And no, SpaceX isn’t competent to deal with any of that — all they do is ground-to-orbit rockets, and that’s only the simplest part of such a venture.)
Manned space travel isn’t a dead end, but given our current state of technological advancement, it’s something we need to back off from, in order to concentrate on more pressing needs and more achievable goals.
@3 StevoR
Oof. I could describe Jill Stein’s presidential campaigns that way and there would be less copium involved.
one thing seams clear at this point Musk is way more flash then substance. He has enormous wealth with which he has built more wealth . He has enthusiasm but he does not seem to have the patience to do the hard part of step by step needed to really accomplish his goal. Like a kid at play he rushes ahead with his “vision” disregarding all the detail work required just rushing toward the ticker tape parade and acting all petulant and but hurt when people point out the obvious obstacles and details he ignores in his haste.
the concepts are OK some even admirable, the execution however is not so stellar in reality
Datum: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-much-money-did-spacex-make-2024
Not many people fail that badly, eh? ;)
Elon Musk is a festering purple hateful nazi turd that should just be flushed already, but I don’t think counterfactually underplaying the accomplishments of SpaceX (wherever they came from — hard to believe at this point that it ever had much to do with Musk) helps. The plain truth is, SpaceX has definitely done a lot of very impressive things, and continues to do them:
— In 2024, SpaceX had 133 successful launches — more than 1 every 3 days. That beats their own previous record of 96 in 2023, 60 in 2022… No one else has ever come close.
— By mass, they launched more than 85% of everything put into space last year.
— They did all that with the same 20 boosters. Most of those were used in 2023 too.
— At retail prices, Falcon 9 can launch a kg to LEO for about 1/20 what it used to cost to do that on the Shuttle. Thousands less than the nearest non-reusable competitor. (And if you have the payload to justify it, Falcon Heavy is even cheaper.)
— Falcon 9 Block 5 has a 99.8% success rate in 425 flights. If my math is right, that’s a failure rate about 6 times better than the Shuttle. Except for way cheaper, and on a far higher cadence of reuse.
Frankly, SpaceX is so far ahead of everyone else at the moment that their success is a problem in and of itself. Not just because of Musk’s incandescent toxicity, and because relying on billionaires to provide public works sucks, but because it would actually just be nice if taxpayers/NASA/DoD had a competitive alternative or three that could actually provide a useful launch vehicle at a decent price, rather than yet another pork delivery machine.
And while Starship may yet turn out to be ill conceived, I don’t think that’s at all clear yet. It took quite a few spectacular failures before Falcon worked fully too. And Starship has already accomplished quite a lot: most powerful rocket stage in history, first flying (and mass-produced) full-flow staged combustion engine, first booster returning to its own tower…
Certainly, the argument about a “scale demonstration” seems kind of foolish. IIUC, the physics just don’t really work that way. Like, propellant/dry mass/payload scaling laws are very much size dependent. And there’d be tricky issues with engine size/count/placement that wouldn’t transfer from a demonstrator to the full article. Ditto all the problems they’re apparently battling now (pogo oscillations popping fuel lines and whatnot) which would likely be completely different on a scale system. Same for how very different mass/surface area ratios would dramatically change the re-entry and heat shield parameters. Etc., etc. Basically, AFAICT, most or all of the “design” problems are scale problems at the same time. There’s really no separating the two — the scale mandates certain parts of the design, and then the design only works at a certain scale.
I’d distinguish here between space exploration and space colonization. We’re nowhere near ready to colonize space yet, and anyhow there aren’t really any desirable places to live apart from Earth. But it’s still worthwhile to send probes to other parts of the Solar System and improve our scientific knowledge.
“Man falls off cliff and is still alive halfway down.”
shermanj @24: Don’t forget their
TheralinkNeuralink company, which has been about as incompetent and irresponsible about their testing and test-animals as SpaceX has been with the messes they make. Have they put anything on the market yet? Still no direct brain-to-Internet interface yet?One area where space exploration and space travel has been an unqualified success is in scientific discovery. We know vastly more about our solar system and the wider universe, as well as about earth itself, thanks to technology in earth orbit and beyond. Any assessment of the usefulness of space exploration that does not take this into account is woefully inadequate.
Space exploration has always had its share of critics from both ends of the political spectrum, who consider it a waste of resources. I think that these criticisms reflect a very narrow view of usefulness, in which only things that immediately help people are worth doing. By that standard, most basic scientific research should not be funded because it does not have an immediate, obvious use. I believe this is basically the same kind of thinking that is leading the Trump administration to want to save money by slashing funding for science that they consider “useless”.
@ Trump enabler and de facto Trump voter beholder : ” I could describe Jill Stein’s presidential campaigns that way (making progress) and there would be less copium involved.”
No you couldn’t liar.
Stein made no progress only acted – again – to deny the leftwing relatively progressive candidate the win they might otherwise have had. Which Stein did twice in 2016 and last year. She should NOT have run – either time but especially the second one.
@26. Autobot Silverwynde : “@17: Bozos owns the Washington Post.”
Okay, yeah, I’d forgotten that. He does too. Fair enough.
@28. Autobot Silverwynde : “The incredible things SpaceX has done is made really cool but extremely expensive fireworks. Seriously. StevoR, stop simping for Muskrat; he literally doesn’t care that you exist. 😒”
Oh FFS! I cannot stand that fascist douchecanoe Musk and have made that very clear on this blog including repeatedly on this thread alone. Please re-read what I noted in my first comment here #3 :
Plus my # 8 :
In addition to my #12.
Bold added for the hard of reading comprehension here because, seriously. All in just this thread.
What part of a company is NOT just and much more than its CEO do some folks not grok here? Liking the work a particular company does, does NOT mean you are a fan of it’s CEO. Dunno how many times that needs to be said here before some get it..
All corporations are evil. All of them.
@49: You’re getting awfully upset over “not” simping. Which means you’re simping, dude.
@ ^ Autobot Silverwynde : No. It means I’m pissed off at being misrepresented and lied about.
Also SpaceX is a private space agency not a corporation.
@50 Autobot Silverwynde wrote: All corporations are evil. All of them.
I reply: I agree. And, that is proven every day in the abuse and destruction they cause.
And, spacex is a corporation
https://www.britannica.com/money/SpaceX
SpaceX | Spacecraft, Rockets, & Facts | Britannica Money
1 day agoWhat is SpaceX? SpaceX is an American aerospace company founded in 2002 by Elon Musk that helped usher in the era of commercial spaceflight. Its name in full is Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. Where is SpaceX located? SpaceX is headquartered in Hawthorne,
@47 Raging Bee pointed out the abusive, deadly monkeying around the muskrat did with neurlink, which has, after years of messing around, still not contributed any significant benefit to our society.
@43 John Morales pointed out the massive money spacex has garnered.
I reply: I don’t dispute your assertion at all. However, I, and our organization are not alone in having a values system that measures the success of any endeavor by how much decency and caring it shows, not how much money it can steal from the populace.
Well that’s OK, as long as they’re not carrying it in one of his exploding rockets, self-driving cars, or Cybertrucks!
KG @55: They do not explode! They disassemble rapidly in an unscheduled manner.
Re: KG @55:
Tesla is hiring humans to control its ‘self-driving’ robotaxis
Donnie Darko therapy meme
Waymo uses what it calls a “fleet response agent,” a human assistant the vehicle can ping when it gets confused by a complex traffic scenario. These agents can view real-time exterior camera feeds, examine a 3D map of what the vehicle sees and even rewind the footage like a DVR to get better context.
By which time it will almost surely be too late for the human to do anything about whatever problem the vehicle reported.
If I was one of those “fleet response agents,” I’d just take over whatever cab I was watching, without waiting for a trouble ticket. We all know the company would make the human agent the fall guy if anything went wrong anyway; so I might as well cover my own six as best I can.
There’s also the question of signal lag time from cab to base, and from base back to cab…
Autobot @51: I notice StevoR didn’t address anyone’s substantive objections to his simping. So, yeah, he’s simping.
@52 StevoR
How dreadful. People have the wrong idea of you — you’ll just have to deal with it. Think of it like I do: that you have made the correct enemies and that history will vindicate your position.
[meta]
I notice you haven’t specified what you imagine anyone’s substantive objections to be to his perceived “simping”.
(Such is your style of objection, I note)
StevoR has gone to great pain with emphases and stuff to point out most unambiguously and strenuously that he reckons Elon is a total shit person and he’s happy to denigrate him personally; given that, when you personally imagine he’s “simping” towards Elon thereby you are utterly contradicting the facts.
He’s quite genuine about it, has been, has mentioned how he soured on him years back now.
(FWTW)
—
You know, ‘simping’ might refer to being a simpleton, in which case…
[OT]
beholder, people have the right idea about you — you’ll just have to deal with it, you Trump enabler you. :)
@ ^ John Morales : Truth and thankyou.
Bombshell NASA admin news – Jared Isaacman is out because he’s not pro-Trump enough :
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2025/04/03/infinite-thread-xxxv/comment-page-7/#comment-2266938
Trump to announce his new NASA cheif pick “soon.”
@48. springa73 :
Quoting for Truth.
I do think too many here lose sight of this reality and of the inspiration – incl inspiring people’s intrest indoing science generally – and intangible cultural benefts space exploration proivides. Always remember the money gets spent here on Earth and provides jobs here on Earth and, actually, is – relatively – NOT all that much or anywhere near as much as too many people mistakenly think it is.
A few years ago – okay maybe a decade or so by now the way time rockets awayNADSA’s entire budget wa ssomething like less than 1% of the total USoA budget.
@ ^ NASA’s budget is just 0.3% of the USA’s budget – in 2025. A tiny fraction. So many better areas to focus on as wasteful spending that deliver everyone so much less.
Source : https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/nasa-budget
Again, note this encourages and inspires a love of science in people, brings new knowledge and understanding of our cosmos and the money is spent at home and creates jobs at home.
Plus, of course, we can spend $$$ on and do and focus on many more than just one thing at a time. It isn’t either / or BUT both / &!
That so many people in the, can we still call it a horde here on Pharyngula are actively being anti-science and anti-progress and anti-learning and exploring when it comes to space incl esp human spaceflight really disappoints and surprises me. Thought y’all knew and were much better than that..
Hisham Muhammad:
If people cannot feel a sense of awe and wonder and joy when they see Starship fly then I gotta say I think there’s something badly broken inside them.
Fuck Musk! Sure.
But just.
The things people,
SpaceX people build and fly .
Can people really not appreciate and be awed, imnpressed by, filled with wonder, by those?
Becoz.. yeah. Really.
I know I’m biased & emotional & subjective – no apologies for that (am human here) -but ,, still.
Something wrong with those who cannot feel awe and wonder and joy at what Space X do I reckon.
If you cannot appreciate a Starship launch. a Space Shuttle launch, an Apollo launch. then I am so sorry for you. You have my pity ..and imcomprehension.
I’m sorry for you. So, so sorry
I wish you could feel as I do.
When you see astounding things actually come true and lift off and fly.
And I do not understand how you cannot feel things at all. .Feel awe, wonbde and joy at all.
^ Wonder
@69 Stevor
Its just a pointless spectacle that would’ve been more impressive 30 years ago, amounting to in each case – an environmental disaster with no upside.
@ ^ erik333 : Tell us you don’t understand and don’t appreciate reality and science without telling us you don’t understand and don’t appreciate reality and science huh?
I wish you thought and knew and felt better. You have my pity FWIW.
Also. google is your friend. Starship aint Apollo
Both those programs. Well, worth flying and teach us things and make progress. Worthwhile. Awesome. Human. Achievements..
We built those. We flew those.
Us.
As a species. .
If you cannot appreciate that and those and their significance then more pity for you.
I wish you could and would. I really do.
StevoR @67:
Oh, do fuck off. If people don’t share your enthusiasms, there’s something wrong with them? I’ve been watching rocket launches for nearly sixty years. The magic has gone.
I get a sense of awe and wonder from lots of things. Beethoven’s 6th symphony. Koyaanisqatsi (especially the rocket rapidly disassembling at the end). Sunrise over Lake Ontario on a clear winter morning. Working through derivations in various physics fields (even after the umpteenth time I’ve done them). I could go on.
Should I think there’s something wrong with people who don’t share my sensibilities? Funny, but I don’t. I reckon they have their own sources of joy, wonder and awe.
I can’t feel any wonder at the accomplishments of SpaceX because it is inextricably linked to Musk and his deranged tendencies, and will be for the near future. SpaceX is as tainted as the “great architectural achievements” of the Nazis and similar projects. Making any use of them is only acceptable if it is combined with a strong antifascist effort.
Markus, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russian-Ukrainian_War
I do think too many here lose sight of this reality and of the inspiration – incl inspiring people’s intrest indoing science generally – and intangible cultural benefts space exploration proivides.
No one here is against space exploration, nor have we forgotten the numerous benefits that have come from same. We’re just against SpaceX. Please don’t confuse the two — they’re not the same thing.
Furthermore, as others have said here, whatever good SpaceX does is more than offset by the money and power they bring to their racist nazi owner. As long as SpaceX is owned and ruled by Phony Stark, it is doing humanity more harm than good by enriching and empowering him.
[Raging Bee, pretty sure StevoR intended to refer to crewed space exploration vs probes]
[SpaceX is not crewed space exploration either.]
No, SpaceX is not crewed space exploration, it is in fact a highly-profitable privately-owned corporation.
Two topics you’ve mashed together, RB, being:
— that SpaceX was founded by Elon who owns around 42% of it, so it’s perforce doing humanity more harm than good regarless of what it does, and
— that space exploration is a waste of money, which StevoR countered by appealing to the psychological benefits to those with a sense of wonder or similar, such as he.
Now, consider the quotation to which you retorted; that was the second topic, but you responded by repeating the first and ignoring the second. FWTW.
ScottManley has another video here – 25 mins long.
@78. Raging Bee : “SpaceX is not crewed space exploration either.”
Huh? SpaceX very much definitely is human space exploration sending crews to the ISS, historically flying over the Earth’s poles – as in the geographic as well as the nation of Poland which really isn’t wher ean english translationf it says it probly should be – and being the first private space agency to perorm an EVA and the first and oen of only two* to transport astronauts to the International Space Station.
Note the list of Crew <Dragon flights here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2#Crew_Dragon_flights
Which, well, an awful lot of the word success in the green colouyred box at that page when scrolling through. Seems like the people there might, y’know, actually know what they’re doing – Felon Muskrat aside.
Also a meme and slogan seen ages ago but one that seems apt right now :
Asteroids are nature’s way of asking – hows that space program coming along?
.* The only other one being the Boeing Starliner which, yeah, didn’t exacvtly end inreasoundi8ng success either with SpaceX needed to return thsoe Boeing brought there.
“SpaceX very much definitely is human space exploration”
And it would undoubtedly be the company that in 300 years sends Ripley to the Alien planet.
No, rorschach, it would be the Company that in 300 years sends BURKE to the Alien planet.
touche
;)
@ ^ I don’t think SpaceX is lasting 300 years.
Doubt we will.
Still. It ain’t over yet.
@ ^ I don’t think SpaceX is lasting 300 years.
Doubt we will.
Still. It ain’t over yet.
How it ends and what good comes of it and what lessons are learned and where we go afterwards, well those are the questions.
Some of them anyhow.
How will we see them answered?
Hopefully well in ways that help us all?
StevoR: We’re already seeing those questions answered: SpaceX is enriching a lying, stupid, bigoted, drug-addled traitor, who has been consistently acting in bad faith and disregard for his country’s laws. He can’t be trusted, and neither can any person or company who answers to him. And we have good reason to believe SpaceX is scamming our government to soak us for more money than we really need to give them. The good they’ve done so far, while considerable, doesn’t even come close to outweighing the harm, and isn’t at all likely to do so in the foreseeable future.
@ ^ Raging Bee : Is SpaceX really enriching Musk tho’? Or is it actually costing him more $$$ than its bringing him?
Dunno. Hence asking.
StevoR @89: The American taxpayer is enriching Musk.
Elon Musk’s empire has benefited from $38 billion in contracts and government aid
So what, Rob?
What, the Government is not supposed to pay contractors?
As for subsidies, well, that’s par for the course; when one looks at scale, it’s a smallish part of it. The fossil fuel industry gets the bulk of those. Nothing special about SpaceX in that regard.
Here, from the (argh!) Cato Institute:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget-0
See? Even the libertarian mob is against it! ;)
It’s ok John. We know you admire billionaires simply because they are billionaires*. Do you have fantasies about being one?
Kind of like Argentinians admire Maradona for getting away with handball.
Nothing to do with admiration, Rob. You are mistaken in that.
Singling out one fish in a pond, that is why I put some context behind your claim.
“Kind of like Argentinians admire Maradona for getting away with handball.”
Do they? If you say so.
But you know, nothing special about that, if that’s the case.
Pretty sure every parochial fan does the same with their own celebrity players.
—
You know what I notice? That you didn’t even attempt to try to dispute my own claim.
(Obvious why, no?)
[oh, yeah; you can use the escape character to avoid the markdown from chomping your whitespace-led asterisks*]
* like this.
That figure is based on a broad definition of corporate welfare, which includes direct cash subsidies and indirect industry support.
In other words, lumping lots of different things together in one vague category and pretending they’re all equally indistinguishably evil, without ever having to think in concrete real-world terms. Just like libertarians always do (case in point: “collectivism”).
See? Even the libertarian mob is against it!
No, they’re really not — it’s just another attempt to co-opt progressive-left rhetoric when it suits them. I’ve never heard of them making it a central issue in any campaign, except maybe when they’re attacking government attempts to encourage new technology such as renewables or recycling.
Don’t like the source, RB? Heh.
But no worries.
Here: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent-totals
Notice that the first Musk-related business there is ranked 16th, that being Tesla.
SpaceX doesn’t make the list (only the first hundred businesses are shown).
That’s for subsidies, not for contracts.
—
If you don’t like that, there’s Wikipedia:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#Comprehensive_analyses)
Point being, Rob is singling out one recipient of subsidies and contracts out of many, as if that were particularly significant. Perspective, that I can provide.
So you cited someone else whose “comprehensive analysis of corporate welfare” also lumps a wide variety of programs together under one category? Thanks for proving my point.
Point being, Rob is singling out one recipient of subsidies and contracts out of many, as if that were particularly significant.
Point being ignored, we’re singling out SpaceX because it’s run by a lying, stupid, bigoted, drug-addled traitor, who has been consistently acting in bad faith and disregard for his country’s laws, and whose business practices should not be rewarded by ANY taxpayer money, however tiny a part of the overall spending picture it may be.
SpaceX has a record of doing astounding things and roving their abilities to do those. They have earnt the right to be trusted and respected here…
They do all that with OUR MONEY, in response to OUR DEMAND. WE are the ones who’ve earned the right to respectful treatment from those who choose to take our money.
I wasn’t referring to the veracity of their claims given their intent (though I’m pretty sure your jaundiced perception is causing you to misread them).
Care to attempt to adumbrate your point that you imagine I have proven?
Because your point initially was that libertarians “attempt to co-opt progressive-left rhetoric when it suits them”, presumably by using progressive-left rhetoric.
Anyway.
If you don’t like lumping together, consider Rob’s second-hand claim that “Elon Musk’s empire has benefited from $38 billion in contracts and government aid”.
Does that lump any less? I put it to you it lumps no less.
Yeah, I know. Perfect case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Um, chicken and egg.
Consider that, until the enterprise can satisfy OUR DEMAND, they ain’t gonna get OUR MONEY.
(Do I need to elucidate the inference chain for you?)
Consider that, until the enterprise can satisfy OUR DEMAND, they ain’t gonna get OUR MONEY.
Um…they already have our money, remember?
Um… they didn’t, until they were big enough to get our money.
(Your acumen is known to me)
Does that lump any less?
Actually, yes, it very clearly lumps a LOT less.
“Actually, yes, it very clearly lumps a LOT less.”
Let’s see:
Claim A: “Elon Musk’s empire has benefited from $38 billion in contracts and government aid”;
Claim B: “That figure is based on a broad definition of corporate welfare, which includes direct cash subsidies and indirect industry support.”
B is about corporate welfare, whereas A is about [corporate welfare + contracts].
Lumpier, that is.
B is about “Elon Musk’s empire”, which is not limited to SpaceX, but includes Tesla, and so forth.
Lumpier, no?
So. Care to explain why you reckon the opposite is true?
[meh – I was trying for B and A but typed B and B — which reminds me it’s time for brekky]
A, B, A and B, B and B, whatever, neither of those were the two claims I was comparing anyway…
Look, you wrote “In other words, lumping lots of different things together in one vague category and pretending they’re all equally indistinguishably evil, without ever having to think in concrete real-world terms.”
I’m pretty sure “Elon Musk’s empire” is not the most specific thing ever; topic is SpaceX, and the talk is about other stuff, not least Elon.
Hating on SpaceX (or Tesla) because they are associated with Musk is stupid; again, that has nothing to do with their merits. They are run just like any other Big Busine$$, and notice (again) that list I provided and the facts at hand.
Here, again: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent-totals
Notice that the first Musk-related business there is ranked 16th, that being Tesla.
SpaceX doesn’t make the list (only the first hundred businesses are shown).
That’s for subsidies, not for contracts.
(One fish in a pond, and 16th rated :)
—
Basically, people are picking on StevoR because he wrote #8:
“I don’t carry any water for Musk – I’d piss on FelonMusk’s face if he wasn’t on fire – & I could.
But i am an unapologetic fan of SapceX the space agency and the wodners it has built and flown.”
But no, sez Rob; Musk is evil and therefore SpaceX is evil, though so are all the other businesses that run in the USA; amoral and profit-driven, that’s a given, so StevoR is wrong.
‘Simping’, I think, was that your term?
—
Look; I get you’re trying to defend the indefensible, and therefore can’t actually dispute the reality.
Why you yet persevere is left to the imagination, RB.
Look, you wrote “In other words, lumping lots of different things together in one vague category and pretending they’re all equally indistinguishably evil, without ever having to think in concrete real-world terms.” I’m pretty sure “Elon Musk’s empire” is not the most specific thing ever…
Read that comment of mine again SLOWLY, fool — I wasn’t talking about “Elon Musk’s empire” in that sentence of mine you quoted.
Hating on SpaceX (or Tesla) because they are associated with Musk is stupid; again, that has nothing to do with their merits.
We don’t hate SpaceX because they’re “associated” with PhonyStark; we mistrust it and doubt its credibility because it’s RUN by PhonyStark. And that has a LOT to do with the company’s merits.
They are run just like any other Big Busine$$…
First, no, they are not run “just like” any other big business; and second, you seem to be begging the question of whether a company in SpaceX’s position SHOULD be run like a profit-making business in the first place when it’s explicitly taking on the functions of a government agency, with responsibilities to the people that private companies normally don’t take on unless they’re forced to do so by law.
Look; I get you’re trying to defend the indefensible, and therefore can’t actually dispute the reality.
Why you yet persevere is left to the imagination, JM.
“Read that comment of mine again SLOWLY, fool — I wasn’t talking about “Elon Musk’s empire” in that sentence of mine you quoted.”
Your attempted condescension is duly noted, but the very subject was corporate welfare, with Rob insinuating that were it not for such largesse, he wouldn’t be rich and have the company; specifically it was in Rob’s link in the immediately preceding comment; it’s the very topic at hand, as I’ve already told you, and the basis for condemning StevoR’s appreciation of SpaceX.
Be aware that your sentence not those terms is ignoring that those were the terms at hand, and to which my response related. How can you not notice that?! Sequential comments!
More to the point, “lumping lots of different things together in one vague category and pretending they’re all equally indistinguishably evil” was what I was addressing.
Read this again, deliberately — which you yourself quoted and to which your response is addressed, and from whence I quote:
“I’m pretty sure “Elon Musk’s empire” is not the most specific thing ever…”
—
What am I defending? I thought I was attacking shitty claims, and demolishing them.
For example: “First, no, they are not run “just like” any other big business”
Context is corporate welfare; you lost the plot long ago, and are basically acting just like a chatbot.
Anyway, I know this is become stupid. So, I hereby cease feeding you on this thread.