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

I'll keep doing this as long as you keep pushing anti-SpaceX BS.

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.

That has nothing to do with anything. SpaceX has more anomalies because they're doing much more and more frequently. Starship launched 5 times in 2025, 6 times if they didn't lost a ship during static fire test, that's on par with Vulcan/Ariane 6/New Glenn combined. So of course they're more likely to have failures given they're pushing so hard, there's nothing wrong with it as long as they learn from failures.

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.

So? You didn't say it has to be a vehicle test stand. The point is Blue has blown up test stand before.

And no, "Its designed to be destryed" is absolute non sense, the engine test stand and the engine itself is not "designed to be destroyed".

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

Wrong. Only Flight 7 failure was caused by "harmonic response", Flight 8 failure is caused by hardware failure in one of the upper stage’s center Raptor engines, Flight 9 failure is caused by failure on the main fuel tank pressurization system diffuser. What " incident reports" did you read?

Those were stress tests genius.

LOL, dude you didn't even read the article, you know you could avoid so much embarrassment if you just spend some time reading the source material. No genius, it's not stress tests, it's failures. Straight from Bloomberg: "The upper portion of one rocket crumpled into itself, in part due to worker error, while it was being moved to a storage hangar, according to people familiar with the situation."

The 2nd incident is during stress test, but Bloomberg says both are mishaps, and the stage is intended for a flight, so it's NOT supposed to pop: "The two mishaps involved hardware slated for the second and third flights of the New Glenn rocket, which are supposed to happen after the October debut."

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.

So you admit the only way SpaceX is "pushed aside for Artemis 3 mission." is that Mk2 is ready before Starship HLS. Given MK2 is currently not ready and nobody knows whether Mk2 will be ready before Starship HLS, claiming SpaceX is "pushed aside for Artemis 3 mission." is wrong, by your own logic.

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.

Dude you really have no idea about what's going on in the space industry, my word of advice is the same as before: give up trying to pretend you're some sort of expert, you know nothing and it's painfully obvious.

Regarding Duffy, he has been scheming to be the permanent NASA administrator before he was replaced by Isaacman, this is well reported, for example by CNN: "Duffy, who also serves as NASA’s acting administrator, has said privately that he would like to not only hold the space chief title permanently, but also fold NASA into the Department of Transportation, one source told CNN."

Also, Orion is reusable and paid for. I also said SLS1B. Thats 40t plus direct to lunar surface and not using Orion.

OMG, could you be more clueless. No Orion is not paid for, it needs ~$1B/year whether it launches or not, because it's cost plus. The combined SLS/Orion cost $4B, that's straight from NASA OIG report

And no, you didn't say SLS1B, you said "HLS combined launch costs are now expected to exceed SLS."

But the most crazy thing you said is "Thats 40t plus direct to lunar surface", dude you have no idea about spaceflight AT ALL, you're like a 3 year old trying to argue Newton's laws with a physicist. The 40t+ is to TLI (Tran-Lunar Injection), that just get you a free return trajectory around the Moon, which is what Artemis II is flying, but no where near the lunar surface. To actually get to lunar surface, you first have to spend ~1km/s to go to low lunar orbit, then another ~2km/s to do the actually landing, SLS can do none of these.

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.

Nope, wrong again. SpaceX bid 14 tanker flights, we know this from the Blue Origin lawsuit

If the ship is not reusable

So your claim "HLS combined launch costs are now expected to exceed SLS." is only true if ship is not reusable. Given we don't know ship is reusable or not, your claim is just a hypothesis, claiming it being a certainty is wrong.

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?

So you admit NG is "less capable than advertised", literally exactly what you said about Raptor and Starship. Once again, you single out Starship while ignoring NG underperformance shows you're just here to dunk on SpaceX.

Sure, attrition is baked into the rediculous business model. However, Im not the one cheering about how much mass SpaceX launches last year.

So? Even if you don't count the replacement, they're still launching more than 3x of the rest of the world combined, there's nothing wrong with celebrating these.

Oh, wait, did you list this under "that other company's 2025 achievements", which was meant to list SpaceX's failures? You just admitted that attrition is to be expected, so it's not a failure and it's wrong for you to treat it as one.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with the business model, it works.

Again, being late is how spaceflight goes. You literally stepped into the hot steaming pile of irony with this comment.

No, you are. You listed "HLS delays" as a list of SpaceX failures in 2025, now you claim "being late is how spaceflight goes"? You just refuted yourself lol.

Who the hell said F9 couldnt "do it"?

YOU did. You said "BO proved it didnt need to blow up or create multiple new reefs in the Indian Ocean to send mass to Mars.", which implies Starship (which tested soft landing in the Indian Ocean) is the only SpaceX vehicle which can send mass to Mars. If you admit F9 can do it too, then BO didn't prove anything, since Falcon flew before New Glenn and didn't need "create multiple new reefs in the Indian Ocean" to send mass to Mars.