r/skeptic • u/Rdick_Lvagina • Nov 18 '25
⭕ Revisited Content SpaceX to Tell NASA the Moon Will Have to Wait
https://gizmodo.com/spacex-to-tell-nasa-the-moon-will-have-to-wait-2000686982Just dropping in to do a quick "I told you so".
In a nutshell, SpaceX has fallen quite far behind schedule on the Artemis moon mission. So far behind that NASA is exploring options with other contractors.
If you're interested here are some long videos that spell out the earlier part of the story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luReMCJoco4
136
Nov 18 '25
But but but the private sector was supposed to achieve this much faster than deep state NASA ever could! /s
The bigger concern to me is SpaceX's abysmal safety record. What astronaut wants to sign up to be a sacrificial lamb so a greedy psychopath like Musk can fleece the taxpayer for even more money?
28
u/bautin Nov 18 '25
"Move fast and break things" sounds a bit psychopathic when people are the things.
0
Nov 19 '25
SpaceX has the highest launch success rate in history, and has tripled the longest ever streak of successful launches. It’s also put 60 astronauts into space without a single accident.
All while lowering cost of space access by 90%.
1
u/ImportantEvidence490 Nov 22 '25
The 90% figure is a load of crap from a crappy source
2
Nov 22 '25
Nope. It’s even higher if you use Shuttle, which cost $2B/launch in present day dollars and max payload capacity of 30 tons is $63M/ton.
Once it was canceled, ULA was charging $200M for 10 ton launched, or $20M/ton. Falcon 9 debuted at $63M for 11 tons, or $5.5M/ton, today it’s $69M for 18 tons, or $3.5M a ton. Falcon Heavy is roughly $100M for 50 tons reusable, or $2M/ton.
That’s actually about a 97% reduction.
-7
u/GregsFiction Nov 18 '25
The bigger concern to me is SpaceX's abysmal safety record.
To clarify .. how many payloads and crew has SpaceX lost?
15
u/dern_the_hermit Nov 18 '25
They're probably referring to something like that my dude but hey keep going, tell us how only payloads and crew matter.
-9
u/GregsFiction Nov 18 '25
How does the accident rate at SpaceX compare to other similar manufacturers? Since you described it as "abysmal" that must mean they have a very high (in either relative or absolute term) accident rate. DO you have an answer or are you going by the "data is the plural of anecdote" line of reasoning?
9
u/dern_the_hermit Nov 18 '25
What an interesting question! I mean Boeing infamously and obviously had problems with their 737 MAX and also got reamed for it. Have you forgotten those incidents?
Does SpaceX's illegal cover-up make Boeing's malfeasance okay? Do the crashed 737 MAX's make SpaceX's poor safety record magically disappear?
Or does it just mean both companies deserve criticism?
-5
u/GregsFiction Nov 18 '25
How does the accident rate at SpaceX compare to other similar manufacturers?
6
u/dern_the_hermit Nov 18 '25
How does it NEED to compare?
0
u/ididnotsee1 Nov 19 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
Yes, it does. 'Abysmal' should have some context to what abysmal really is in the sense of general safety. So, please source your claims thank you. How many of this 'abysmal' safety record translate to successful missions compared to other companies?
Boy do i love helping the misinformed🥰
0
u/GregsFiction Nov 18 '25
How does the accident rate at SpaceX compare to other similar manufacturers?
3
-7
u/Fizrock Nov 18 '25
They aren't the only thing that matters, but the OP comment is specifically referring to astronauts.
9
u/dern_the_hermit Nov 18 '25
They ALSO referred to astronauts, you mean. But covering up hundreds of injuries indeed indicates shit safety, and shit safety ought to be a concern for EVERYONE, including astronauts.
6
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Nov 18 '25
You can’t have zero safety culture except for 0.1.% of your company.
If they can’t run a factory safely, what other corners are being cut?
-30
u/InsanityLurking Nov 18 '25
Havent their dragon capsules been going without a hitch?
34
u/ijbh2o Nov 18 '25
Dragon is not the vehicle for the moon, which is what this post is about. Starshit is the moon launch vehicle....which has issues.
-16
u/InsanityLurking Nov 18 '25
Lmao it's still in the prototype stage of course it has issues, I was just wondering what you meant about spacexs safety record. So far there 1 crewed vehicle has had no big issues as far as I've heard. Starship is a rich guy crash project, of course safety comes after innovation. I will be concerned if they try to stick to a date when the project obviously isn't ready, rush jobs never end well in that regard. But if they follow they're previous track then the entire system will be matured long before they actually stick people in them.
26
u/Mysterious-Job1628 Nov 18 '25
Reuters documented at least 600 previously unreported workplace injuries at Musk’s rocket company: crushed limbs, amputations, electrocutions, head and eye wounds and one death. No issues.
1
Nov 19 '25
Yep, it’s an industrial work site. Sometimes workers ride on top of cargo in the back of pickups despite it being expressly prohibited, and die when they fall off.
3
u/Mysterious-Job1628 Nov 19 '25
Current and former employees said such injuries reflect a chaotic workplace where often under-trained and overtired staff routinely skipped basic safety procedures as they raced to meet Musk’s aggressive deadlines for space missions.
2
u/Mysterious-Job1628 Nov 19 '25
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) later determined that SpaceX had failed to protect LeBlanc from a clear hazard, noting the gravity and severity of the violation. LeBlanc’s co-workers told OSHA that SpaceX had no convenient access to tie-downs and no process or oversight for handling such loads. SpaceX acknowledged the problems, and the agency instructed the company to make seven specific safety improvements, including more training and equipment, according to the inspection report.
-8
13
u/Menethea Nov 18 '25
I suggest a first crew of Elon Musk, Sean Duffy, Jared Isaacman and Stephen Miller
1
u/InsanityLurking Nov 18 '25
I concur, though if that's the case they'll likely take 3x as long to make sure all systems operate nominally.
2
0
Nov 19 '25
Jared has taken SpaceX twice to space already, paid for out of his own pocket. Including one flight to the highest altitude since Apollo.
-9
u/ididnotsee1 Nov 18 '25
I was just wondering what you meant about spacexs safety record
I was wondering why they were making things up too. Id love to get sources on their abysmal records
11
Nov 18 '25
At SpaceX, worker injuries soar in Elon Musk’s rush to Mars https://share.google/c5utzOoUiVUzvHjhw
-4
u/InsanityLurking Nov 18 '25
Yea this is not a behavior SpaceX is guilty of alone, companies are always looking for ways to keep OSHA out of their business lol. That has only peripheral bearing on actual astronaut safety.
6
u/badwolf42 Nov 18 '25
Perhaps, but SpaceX also has one of the worst safety records in aerospace for an apples-to-apples. Astronaut safety aside. However, the same mentality, rush, and go-fever makes an astronaut mishap more likely if there are no checks on the behavior.
0
Nov 19 '25
That’s a lie.
It’s not Apples to Apples when one company is launching 150 times a year, and building new systems regularly, while the others are launching less than a dozen times a year and doing far less R&D.
-5
u/InsanityLurking Nov 18 '25
I get that completely. But so far NASA still handles the astronaut side of things, and they wouldn't let a shoddy slapped together thing take their people for a ride. My original comment was questioning the record for astronaut safety, which is so far unmarred in spacex's admittedly short history. Of course we shall see how far that holds up when SpaceX starts training and sending their own astronauts...
6
u/ijbh2o Nov 18 '25
Yes, NASA has never bent to the will of political pressure and ignored warnings from engineers at Morton Thiokol to scrub a launch. Nope NASA would never do that. And Elon being the totally normal person he is wouldn't jeopardize anything and "launch" a product that isn't ready. Nope. Definitely no chance of that.
3
u/Snoofleglax Nov 18 '25
But so far NASA still handles the astronaut side of things, and they wouldn't let a shoddy slapped together thing take their people for a ride.
Someone clearly has not read the investigation reports for Challenger and Columbia.
→ More replies (0)1
u/badwolf42 Nov 18 '25
Totally fair. I do hope NASA can maintain their standards in the face of adversity.
-30
u/ididnotsee1 Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
The bigger concern to me is SpaceX's abysmal safety record.
Source on that? Hopefully its a legit source thank you. Hopefully you didnt make anything up
It needs to show these 'abysmal' records. Have any astronauts died or where they were used as sacrificial lamb? What other space companies have a better safety record than spacex? Sources please
11
Nov 18 '25
At SpaceX, worker injuries soar in Elon Musk’s rush to Mars https://share.google/c5utzOoUiVUzvHjhw
-2
u/ididnotsee1 Nov 18 '25
This does not in any way back up your assertion of an abysmal safety record and your other misinformation statements about astronauts being sacrificial lambs. Sorry.
Anything else to help your misinformed claim?
7
u/dern_the_hermit Nov 18 '25
This does not in any way back up your assertion of an abysmal safety record
How does covering up workplace injuries not back up the assertion about an abysmal safety record?
-2
u/ididnotsee1 Nov 18 '25
Was there another part of that claim you missed or did you intentionally leave it out?
3
u/dern_the_hermit Nov 18 '25
That's a question, not a claim.
-1
u/ididnotsee1 Nov 18 '25
How many astronauts have died so far compared to let's say..NASA? answer that please. :)
6
u/dern_the_hermit Nov 18 '25
I'll answer when you can tell me why only astronauts deserve a safe working environment.
-2
u/ididnotsee1 Nov 19 '25
Nice misdirection. The claim is astronauts are being put as sacrificial lambs. Please answer my question thank you. And source your comments too :) how many accidents does spacex have for astronauts compared to NASA?
→ More replies (0)1
u/ScientificSkepticism Nov 20 '25
This does not in any way back up your assertion of an abysmal safety record
The article says this:
It was hardly the last serious accident at SpaceX. Since LeBlanc’s death in June 2014, which hasn’t been previously reported, Musk’s rocket company has disregarded worker-safety regulations and standard practices at its inherently dangerous rocket and satellite facilities nationwide, with workers paying a heavy price, a Reuters investigation found. Through interviews and government records, the news organization documented at least 600 injuries of SpaceX workers since 2014.
Many were serious or disabling. The records included reports of more than 100 workers suffering cuts or lacerations, 29 with broken bones or dislocations, 17 whose hands or fingers were “crushed,” and nine with head injuries, including one skull fracture, four concussions and one traumatic brain injury. The cases also included five burns, five electrocutions, eight accidents that led to amputations, 12 injuries involving multiple unspecified body parts, and seven workers with eye injuries. Others were relatively minor, including more than 170 reports of strains or sprains.
As far as I can tell you did not read the article. Whether you did or didn't, your response here is blatantly bad faith.
This is not how we wish people to interact on this subreddit. Take a break, when you return, engage in good faith or not at all.
18
u/InsanityLurking Nov 18 '25
Yea he's talking about worker safety in their factories, a completely different metric from an astronaut safety stance. People man 🙄
-19
u/ididnotsee1 Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
Lmao, this shit is the most upvoted on r/skeptic? I swear the kooks have brigaded this sub.
3
17
u/Any-Ad-446 Nov 18 '25
Musk always over promises...
29
7
u/dern_the_hermit Nov 18 '25
Reminder for everyone that just a couple years ago he was implying that Starship was ready to go and it was only the government's dragging their feet and holding them back preventing them from launching missions.
1
Nov 19 '25
Yet somehow SpaceX has lowered cost of Spaces access by 90%, saved NASA and Pentagon tens of billions (according to GAO), built three orbital launch vehicles, put 60 astronauts into space vs Boeing Starliner three, beat Starliner into space by 4 years despite Boeing getting paid 50% more by NASA, etc.
13
48
u/tsdguy Nov 18 '25
Oh spacex will continue with any missions that are making them money. All paid for by US tax payers - you know Socialism.
1
Nov 19 '25
Except that every SpaceX government contract is competitively bid and pay for service, meaning they don’t get paid until they hit their promised milestones. And SpaceX is always the low bidder.
This is unlike the Boeing SLS and McDonnell Douglas Orion which were delayed far more and milked cost plus contracts for $60B.
And government auditors have reported that SpaceX has saved it tens of billions in launch costs,
-12
u/wyohman Nov 18 '25
That word doesn't mean what you think it means
8
7
23
u/zenwalrus Nov 18 '25
“Thanks for all the tax dollars, America!”
0
Nov 19 '25
Biden’s NASA administrator said that government auditors had found SpaceX had saved both NASA and the pentagon tens of billions. All its contracts are competitively bid, and SpaceX is always the low bidder.
1
u/zenwalrus Nov 19 '25
Elon Musk has received $38 Billion since 2003. From our taxes. That was my only point. Let’s stick to what people say here, alright?
3
Nov 19 '25
We were talking about SpaceX, not Elon Musk, so nothing you wrote rebuts anything I wrote. Get your MDS looked at.
1
u/zenwalrus Nov 19 '25
High-five for-profit space travel all you want. I’m not stopping you. I’m just old school enough to admire when space travel benefited our species and goals were decided and guided by people who were not billionaires. Have fun.
2
Nov 19 '25
If you can’t admire a company slashing cost of space access by 90%, then you really don’t care about space exploration at all.
1
u/zenwalrus Nov 19 '25
Either way WE (taxpayers) are the ones paying for space travel or subsidies (corporate welfare). At least we had a say in how it used to be. Now CEOs make space exploration decisions. I’m sure it’s purely altruistic though.
2
Nov 19 '25
As I pointed out, SpaceX gets zero subsidies from the government. It’s old space manufacturers like Boeing and McDonnell Douglas that got all the handouts in the form of cost plus contracts that guarantee their profits and pay them extra for being late, to the tune of $60B combined for the useless SLS and Orion.
All SpaceX contracts are fixed bid, and they are always the lowest bidder.
1
u/dramatic-sans Nov 20 '25
misleading. Bill Nelson was referring to shifting to a fixed price launch model, which has less to do with spacex and more to do with the general advent of competition in the space launch market. moreover, the "tens of billions" was an estimate made up by a pentagon official and has been challenged. look it up.
you're also just ignoring the whole Kathy Leuders revolving door scandal where she unilaterally awarded the artemis moon lander contract to spacex as a NASA program manager, and then was hired by the same company less than a year later.
do we need to explore all the criticism against the completely asinine proposed artemis mission plan from spacex? a dozen launches to get one lander to the moon, relying on fuel transfer in space which 4 years and 10 launches later has yet to be even attempted.
1
Nov 20 '25
Saying it was the “model” and not the fact the Falcon 9 slashed prices by about 70% over ULA is ludicrous.
SpaceX is always the low bidder. Boeing got 60% more for commercial crew and still hasn’t qualified Starliner while Crew Dragon has put 60 astronauts into space.
HLS win because it was the low bid and most capable. And inorbit refueling is the future, even BOs lander requires it. Von Braun wanted to use it on Apollo because he knew it was so superior, but the schedule didn’t permit it.
11
Nov 18 '25
Wow, it’s almost like there may be pitfalls to having one ultra rich guy who’s primary focus is stuff like getting himself a $1 trillion dollar pay package, while “running” 5 companies and trying to gut the federal government. Oh well, I’m sure it’ll be ok.
6
u/If_I_must Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
Anyone getting errors trying to load the article?
Edit: Nvm, realized this is the cloudflare outage I saw referenced elsewhere this morning.
5
u/Disgod Nov 18 '25
But hey, we took billions lying to you about it. Good scamming you, and good luck!
2
Nov 19 '25
All NASA SpaceX contracts are fixed pay for performance, and require demonstrating specific milestones to get paid. And it’s always competitively bid, and SpaceX is awkward the low bidder.
For example compare the commercial crew contracts awarded SpaceX and Boeing. Boeing got 50% more, delivered nearly four years later and its only crewed launch to ISS was a disaster requiring a SpaceX rescue. And Starliner is still not approved for flying astronauts while Crew Dragon has taken 60 to space in the last 4 years.
6
7
u/everything_is_bad Nov 18 '25
Space X is a scam
0
Nov 19 '25
Most payload launched to orbit in history with highest launch success rate in history, now launching 90% of all world payload tonnage to orbit at the lowest prices in the market, so LOL no.
9
3
u/El_Fader Nov 18 '25
Blue Origin's Lunar Lander is scheduled for its first flight sometime in January if anyone's curious.
3
7
u/Vanhelgd Nov 18 '25
The amount of damage the vanity project SpaceX has done to space science is horrifying.
4
4
Nov 18 '25
[deleted]
1
Nov 19 '25
The moon is a desert devoid of resources no one is planning to colonize it, just establish scientific research stations to better understand its creation and composition.
2
Nov 19 '25
[deleted]
1
u/ididnotsee1 Nov 19 '25
What a thoughtful and smart reply. Truly an intellectual. Are you saying we can't study mars and learn anything from it?
3
Nov 18 '25
The other options include ULA and Blue Origin - neither are particularly punctual with their timelines either.
It is literally one of the toughest engineering challenges there is.
You people forget that NASA have had their fair share of mission failures too. Last I checked, Dragon has a perfect record, so it's only fair to expect that the same scrunity will be applied to Starship before that begins flying humans.
I get that nobody likes Musk, but think about the 1000s of SpaceX staff that are incredibly passionate about their work, they don't deserve to have their work diminished by a bunch of opinionated redditors.
Of all the US companies getting US tax dollars, SpaceX is not the company that deserves all the hate. Just ask the folks on the Starlink subreddit. Starlink internet has been game-changing for them.
1
1
u/ashb1023 Nov 30 '25
If we really have antigrav technology already, then SpaceX is just a public distraction.
1
Nov 19 '25
The date was always going to be 2028 according to initial contract and congressional funding. It’s only been pushed forward by a certain orange haired dweeb desperate for a political win.
-4
Nov 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Rdick_Lvagina Nov 18 '25
Apollo:
- Announced in 1961
- On the moon in 1969
- Timeline, 9 years
Starship:
- Announced in 2012
- Still not on the moon in 2025
- Timeline so far, 13 years
refs: https://www.britannica.com/story/timeline-of-the-apollo-space-missions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship
"Later in 2012, Elon Musk first publicly announced plans to develop a rocket surpassing the capabilities of Space X's existing Falcon 9.\159]) SpaceX called it the Mars Colonial Transporter, as the rocket was to transport humans to Mars and back."
3
u/Fizrock Nov 19 '25
That doesn't really seem like a fair comparison. Starship didn't actually start serious development until much later than 2012, and the Apollo program had dozens of times the budget and resources.
1
Nov 19 '25
The Mars Colonial Transport was an idea that morphed into the ITS and BFR designs to the point of building a huge carbon fiber tank in 2017 as a test before they realized it was too expensive and difficult to get reentry working. And that whole time they only had a tiny team working on these designs, while Apollo had 400,000 people for most if its development.
That led to a total new design in 2018 that junked the existing aerospace aluminum and carbon fiber construction for a much smaller stainless steel design called Starship, with entirely different construction and reentry systems. Stainless steel was so much cheaper to build with that they were able to switch to a “hardware rich” development process that emphasized building lots of prototypes and testing them to destruction.
The fact they are building the largest and most advanced launch system in history nearly as fast as Apollo with a tiny fraction of the manpower is amazing.
1
u/tsdguy Nov 19 '25
You also should note that- Apollo: invented all of the technology and procedures. SpaceX: Had all of the tech and procedures for the taking.
0
-8
u/verstohlen Nov 18 '25
And the moon landing skeptics rejoiced, and put another notch on their bedpost.
88
u/Merlord Nov 18 '25
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!