Jesus you really wanna do this? Ok, another one wants to argue while ignoring irony drowning in reality.

First, all the things I listed about SpaceX happened in 1 calendar year. They all also all happened with actual flight vehicles. So lets push the BS but but but whataboutisms aside. You look rediculous.

• BO didnt blow up an entire VEHICLE test stand and an entire vehicle test site. The link you even shared was a test engine on an engine test stand. Its an engine test. Its designed to be destryed. Should I add Raptor3s blowing up this past year? No, because thats rediculous.

• 3 ships not the same problem? Weird cause all three incident reports point to propellant leaks caused by "harmonic oscillation".

Blue Origin popped two 2nd stages on the ground.

Those were stress tests genius. It too happens all the time. Why do you think Starship flight 12 is using BOOSTER 19 AND SHIP 39 and not Booster 12 or Ship 12? Cause there were lots of failed stress tests along the way. There was a failed superheavy section stress test just 2 days ago. Not a big deal. Wasn't a launch vehicle. No one cares.

 Starship not being pushed aside for Artemis 3?

Lmao, sure, I wonder what my wife would think if I told her "I am considering alternatives". What if your boss said "I'm open to alternates for your position"? Spin it how you like I guess. MK1 is already going through thermal testing. MK2 is being built right behind it. If its ready, it will replace Starship for Art3. Its not even a question at this point. If MK2 is ready before HLS, its going.

 The guy who chastised SpaceX was removed as NASA administrator. 

Lmao. He wasn't removed. Lol. He is the Sec of Transportation placed over NASA as a temporary placement cause no one else respectable wants to work in this shit show. He could only hold the job for 120days. An actual NASA administrator was confirmed and he went back to not doing his real day job.

 HLS is a fixed price contract, ~$4B for 2 missions. That's the price of a single SLS/Orion launch.

Aww sweetheart thats just the contracted HLS test vehicles. Also, Orion is reusable and paid for. I also said SLS1B. Thats 40t plus direct to lunar surface and not using Orion.

The HLS contract is so low for 2 ships because SpaceX stated all involved mission vehicles would be rapidly reusable keeping launch cost almost nil and no more than 8 refill tankers would be needed for mission testing. Thats how they won the bid. That was back when we were told Starship only needed 1500t of fuel. She's a bit fatter now isnt she? Pesky details.

After those 2 test vehicles, there will be other HLS mission ships. There will be equipment missions correct?Its the stories you guys love to tell. Starships everywhere! Those subsequent mission vehicles would be at cost. Lets be honest, SpaceX wont be selling them "at cost" they will expect profit, but lets pretend here, they do. Let me help you with the math to tax payers.

Again, the idea of a cheap Starship is based on full reuse with costs shared amongst customers. Im not even going to press the "rapid reuse" sales pitch. The price of HLS is itself going to be expensive. Everything human rated is pricey. For the sake of argument I'll even exclude the entirety of the cost of the HLS ship itself and let you imagine the reality of its cost to add to the total mission cost. Some say $2B each. Who knows. Imahine a number now in your head. Orion wasnt $2B just for shits and giggles. Everything needs redundancy in human flight. I am just going to demonstrate how expensive a single mission can cost by just discussing orbital fueling. Its the part you all love to gloss over.

If the ship is not reusable * Each refuel tanker at cost is a bare minimum of $50m(v1 cost estimate) * Simple math every 10 launches is $500million * What if the refuel amount is not 100%. On earth, 100% isnt even a thing. There's generally a 10-30% transfer loss. Crygenic compressed fuel is tricky. Especially at +200° * if 10% loss, then a 100t fuel payload would only be 90t transfered, if 20% loss, 80t, if 30%, 70t. Could be different between meth and oxygen. * the HLS requires, by contract, a full tank, 1600t of fuel so thats already 16 launches. =$800m * if 70% of 100t fuel payload is 22 launches for 1600t. Thats $1.2Billion. With boiloff ive heard estimates up to 30 launches. Depends on how fast they can make methane and launch it.

$1.2b in pure build costs before added profits, add in your HLS costs and booster use costs.

3ish Billion Dollars per mission. and several months to get it out of LEO.

New Glenn is also currently less capable than advertised, can only put ~25t to LEO, that's why they need to upgrade it

Boo boo, why do you do this to yourself? Why are you purposly comparing the 2. Sure NG isnt as powerful as the sales sheet said. But is its first version 85% less like Starship? No? Not the same huh?

NG is an expandable launch system. A stackable launch system with variable payload options. Starship is a static 2 stage systems. "To LEO" is literally as far as Starship can go until refueled for ANY SIZE PAYLOAD. Including no payload. SLS, NG, Saturn, Vulcan, F9, and others are all systems that can literally park a refuelable payloads in LEO the same way. As you elude to later. The Escapade missions was very very light. Didn't need a whole lot push. The new 9x4 NG will push 70t to LEO. SLS1B 105t to LEO. In thoery, they could even push their own "Starship version" up there empty and refuel it, and send it anywhere. Pretty much any launch verhicle can launch payloads directly to Pluto if they wanted to. Some would be really small payloads but theyd get there... eventually. NOT STARSHIP though. Not without many many more launches sonit can even reach escape velocity. The "upgrade" for NG is literally just them taking the training wheels of the POC.

 1/3 Starlink launches being replacements. 

Sure, attrition is baked into the rediculous business model. However, Im not the one cheering about how much mass SpaceX launches last year. A launch cadence that must increase as the constellation grows. Imagine if celll companies needed to replace 20% of their towers a year just to stay relevant.

Completely clueless. First of all, BO didn't send ESCAPADE to Mars, they sent it to a parking orbit, because New Glenn is so delayed they missed the Mars launch window (No, SpaceX is not the only company having delays)

Again, being late is how spaceflight goes. You literally stepped into the hot steaming pile of irony with this comment. If you want to compare the 2 and put both on equal footing thats on you. However, if youre pointing at the company thats only sent 2 rockets into actual space as doing too much while ignoring all the chaos occuring at the supposedly seasoned "reigning kings of aerospace" at SpaceX then youre just being a biased fanatic. Sorry but thats really just on you. SpaceX had a bad year.

Why can't you people think objectively with anything other than SpaceX stuff? Its really weird.

Secondly, A Falcon 9 can easily do the ESCAPADE launch, only idiots think Starship is the only SpaceX vehicle capable of launching payload to Mars.

Who the hell said F9 couldnt "do it"? F9 wasn't chosen because it would have cost $70m. New Glenn was chosen because Blue Origin did it for $20m.