In terms of human lives put at risk to launch satellites, his self landing boosters are way better, yes
Lol no way. I remember watching a video that showed the reliability of other systems and what we have seen from SpaceX so far, being SpaceX plain murder.
Oh, my mistake. You meant is Starship better than shuttle, i was still talking about the undeniably successful rockets that have been going up regularly
Because i already acknowledged Starship isnât done
whatâs the reliability so far?
Id have to google it
You can argue the same for Steve Jobs. But people like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk must have done something right. They are/were highly successful and you know they made it big when haters around the globe are talking about them as âpeopleâ rather than talking about what theyâve accomplished.
Bill Burrâs take on Steve Jobs is pretty good.
Remote work is not endingâŚcut it out. It was here before the pandemic. For most of the 9-5 people, it maybe ending. I mean you canât let these commercial real estates go bankrupt right?
Of course. But mainly marketing and lying.
Letâs find out!
Since March 2006, SpaceX has launched 5 Falcon 1 and 171 Falcon 9 rockets. Of these 3 Falcon 1 and 2 Falcon 9 launches were complete failures and one Falcon 9 launch was a partial failure. That gives SpaceX a success rate of more than 97% making SpaceX one of the most reliable launch providers ever.
And thatâs all the Falcon launches. Their crewed launches have a 100% success rate so far.
Shuttle is a weird thing to compare against anyway:
Let me spell it out for you: out of five ShuttlesâColumbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavorâtwo met a disastrous and fiery fate. Thatâs a 40% vehicular failure rate (updated) and a flight failure rate of 1.5%. This would have grounded any other vehicle permanently.
Soyuz would be a better comparison: that has a 98% success rate, slightly higher than SpaceXâs 97%. If we excluded the very early Falcon 1 launches, theyâd probably win.
As for Starship, we should probably compare to SLS, which has so far cost taxpayers about $23 billion and has nothing but a string of aborted test launches to show for it.
2 Likes
Not sure where this number is coming from⌠anyway, worth watching. It explains costs savings and safety considerations, with numbers way less optimistic than yours:
It might be a bit outdated though, since itâs one and a half years old now.
Some @admin feel free to move all this Musk discussion to a new thread.
From the numbers I quoted above from the Wikipedia page:
- Total launches:
5 + 171 = 176 - Failed launches:
3 + 2 = 5 - Failure rate:
(5 / 176) * 100 = 2.841% - Success rate:
100 - 2.841 = 97.159%
1 Like