Starship is just obscene. The thing is never going to work for its designed purpose once you understand what the mission looks like (basically insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit)
What's wrong with this? Lots of launches is fine until we build the scale required to make a proper depot worthwhile. (Which, by the way, is part of Artemis's plans. Though currently it looks like a bunch of glued-together Starship tankers.)
The only question is whether the cost of flying all those missions would be prohibitive: by the stated goals, starship should be able to do the refueling missions cheaper then an SLS launch.
Obviously if it can't then it's failed, but the point of it is cheap heavy lift to LEO which is very obviously quite valuable.
Building a big specialty rocket to get to the moon is waste.
In space, you can't do that kind of repair/maintenance, you have to make sure the refueling is PERFECT. And this is with deep cryogenic propellants that very much like to boil off and cause pressure increases in the tanks they are contained.
That problem hasn't even been touched yet. In order to make Spaceship X happen, they need to figure one refueling out, which is difficult given the fact that Raptors run on cryogenic propellant that likes to boil off, then they need to figure out how to do 10 in a row without any issues, which is exponentially difficult.
And then there is the whole thing about everything working well for trip to Mars, and back.
And if there is a configuration that exists that can do all of that, its very unlikely that a company under the leadership of someone as Musk can ever figure this out.
For interplanetary travel, things need to start from either orbit or the moon. This has been known for quite some time.
Starship's true purpose is to compete with airlines in trans oceanic flights.
Musk has said so many times but then he intentionally obfuscates it with all the Mars and Moon talk.
But remember that you heard this before it was widely realized to be true; Starship isn't about going to Mars. Starship is about going to China.
And too fragile/explodey for niche military uses (long range troop drops?)
But for military use - think logistics. Rapid delivery of equipment to unusual places. This applies to civilian purposes as well. All kinds of use-cases for speeding up cargo.
The entire economics of Starship and rapid reusability was presented at the beginning of the Starbase work, way back when Hoppy was a thing. He's been sticking to the plan since then. You might want it to be fiction, but he's been very good at figuring out business plans to leverage his ultimate goals.
Not very good on delivering tech though, which is what makes it more fiction than not.
Tesla easily has the best vehicle software + OTA and has since the S in 2012. It still feels better than most new vehicles.
You can buy a Tesla (including Cybertruck) today that will do 95+% of drives with 0 intervention. It may not be 100% autonomous yet, but there isn't anything obvious limiting the last step.
The robots exist but are still being developed. Within 5 years, it is hard to imagine them not becoming super valuable within factory settings.
Sure: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/05/the-vehic...
https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-drivers-are-paying-big-buc...
https://www.thestreet.com/automotive/tesla-employees-shared-...
https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-04-15...
https://www.torquenews.com/17998/after-software-update-left-...
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/tesla-autopi...
the cases are endless...
>The robots exist but are still being developed. Within 5 years, it is hard to imagine them not becoming super valuable within factory settings.
Yeah, let's check back in 5 years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaSupport/comments/1poig9a/night...
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/when-a-software-upda...
There have been many accusations about sudden accelleration, but except for the Cybertruck's pedal-cover slide, there has never been a proven case of a Tesla autonomously accellerating into a crash. But these accusations come a lot, because people are always wanting to shift the blame away from themselves and the automaker seems like an easy target.
And the Mars missions so far are just delayed.
Yeah, after almost half a century, they passed 70s-era Soyuz numbers.
>Tesla changed the automobile from ICE to BEV in a way people wanted to buy and was practical as a replacement for any use
The magic of EV subsidies (for both Tesla and buyers).
>And the Mars missions so far are just delayed.
The magic of that statement is that it can be true at any point in the future!
Surely it's too fragile/explodey for military use - the whole thing's a very volatile fuel tank - could it survive being shot at, even a single high-powered rifle bullet (during landing, or even post-landing) without going boom?
Falcon 9 is clearly proving that doesn’t have to be the case.
Transportships even reduce speed to reduce costs.
If the payload doesn't pay for all of this, it was a huge R&D investmen from the american people to Musks scifi ideas
NASA also another 6 Billion upfront to SpaceX for Dragon and HLS.
So yes the american paid for the R&D of SpaceX.
SpaceX took the 'risk' but either succeeding or not in your main business is hardly a risk if you need to succeed anyway to have that business.
If not for SpaceX, the American People would have paid more to the ULA group for what has clearly turned out to be inferior results, since ULA has received far more money for far fewer services.
SpaceX was the underdog.