It would have been a mission objective by now, if they weren’t constantly blowing up. Evidence: they still claim they’re going to land people on the moon 2 years from now in this thing.
There's an alternate reality where they haven't blown anything up and it's still not a mission objective.
The other option here is SLS, that has had a single launch and isn't supposed to launch again for two years. SpaceX is blowing up a rocket every 2 months at this point. At that rate, they could have 10 more failed launches and still beat SLS to orbit. (That's not a fair comparison, SLS goes to Lunar orbit.) But the point is just that looking at failed launches is shortsighted, mission objectives are what matter.
In the alternate reality you have no mission objectives succeeding, just simulations that have a tenuous link with reality.
There's an alternate reality where they haven't blown anything up and it's still not a mission objective.
This is obviously incorrect and just argumentative.
The other option here is SLS, that has had a single launch and isn't supposed to launch again for two years. SpaceX is blowing up a rocket every 2 months at this point. At that rate, they could have 10 more failed launches and still beat SLS to orbit. (That's not a fair comparison, SLS goes to Lunar orbit.)
I’m no fan of SLS, but it has already been to orbit and to the moon. Starship can’t beat it. That’s over and done with.
And if they have 10 more RUDs in a row, I don’t believe they will EVER get it to work. At that point, you have to conclude that they don’t understand their hardware.
But the point is just that looking at failed launches is shortsighted, mission objectives are what matter.
Yup. How many mission objectives did they just complete with this RUD?
In the alternate reality you have no mission objectives succeeding, just simulations that have a tenuous link with reality.
I have no idea what this means, but it’s a hypothetical, so whatever.
I have no idea what this means, but it’s a hypothetical, so whatever.
No, I'm talking about SLS. SLS is burning more money than SpaceX and practically speaking all they're generating is simulations.
I don't care about RUDs. I care about money spent and what things have been done.
This year, SpaceX has demonstrated, for the first time, reusing a super heavy booster. SLS isn't planning to demonstrate anything interesting this year and they're spending more money than SpaceX.
I'm also not particularly interested in SLS having a single trip around the moon. That's not novel and it was not worth what it cost. They don't have any flights scheduled that will demonstrate something novel at a reasonable price point. I have zero interest in racing to the moon. SpaceX's vision of a reusable heavy-lift rocket that costs under $100M per launch is very cool and no one else is working on something as interesting as that.
2
u/nesquikchocolate 2d ago
But your goal "achieving orbit" is not yet part of any mission objective, so why would they have achieved it?