I have a rover-sized shoebox. It is about the same size as the rover CMU is making. It isn't on the moon though.

They could go to the Moon without SLS. Here is a video describe some of the obvious options. Basically, it would be a lot cheaper to go to the Moon without SLS and it would take nearly zero development beyond what is already needed for the planed lunar landings.

No, you just didn't quite read the comment you replied to.

I generally prefer to include engine development in vehicle development, but plenty of people disagree especially when the engine development happened before the development of a particular vehicle. Merlin was developed for Falcon 1, though there were continued improvements over time.

No one who read that source and understood the context would honestly say "Elon isn't being completely honest or more likely is miscategorizing costs somewhere". You were just confused.

You should actually read that link. That $300 million figure is for Falcon vehicle 9 development. It does not include Dragon development, engine development, or building launch sites and factories.

You are thinking about the COTS contract that included developing Falcon 9, developing Dragon, and multiple launches.

Rocket Lab got to orbit with less and SpaceX got to orbit with not too much more.

Are you calling the DC-X a suborbital rocket? That seems like a stretch, it never made it to space or close. DC-XA got 3140 meters up. That is about a quarter as high as a normal commercial aircraft flights.

Fortunately this is a fixed price contract, so Boeing only gets paid as they meet milestones.

Second stage anomaly which I assume means a loss of the vehicle. First launches are hard and getting that far into the mission is significant.

It seems like you are not particularly interested in a discussion that involves dealing with reality.

"Nope" what? Do you honestly think that maintaining the ISS is cheap? Did you get confused and reply to the wrong comment, or do you simply have no idea what you are talking about?

> cheap

Maintaining the ISS is not cheap.

Did you mix me up with someone else?

You are being more than a little bit ridiculous here. Do you honestly believe that anyone in this thread claimed or implied that Musk is a god emperor? The comment you replied to said that Musk has contributed massively, which you now agree with. Does that mean that you too are "pretending that he’s a god emperor"? Obviously not. Try to be honest.

You started out with some false claims about Musk's contributions at SpaceX. Multiple people have given you calm and polite replies explaining why your claims are false. It is okay to admit that you were wrong. It is okay to acknowledge someone's contributions even if you dislike them.

Their current competition is reusable Falcon 9 and the competition for their in-development rockets is Starship.

You might be surprised to learn that SpaceX was also doing very well before Musk bought Twitter.

Bezos and Shatner went up on Blue Origin's New Shepard. They are a direct competitor to Virgin Galactic and have had much more success.

Stoke looks good to me, but of course they have not proven much so far. I also would not rule out Firefly.

They are SpaceX Starlink satellites.

It's an alternative history science fiction show. It starts with the Soviet Union being first to land on the moon and America increasing efforts on the Apollo program.

I really liked the first season. It is still clearly fiction, but they focused on making it as realistic as possible. After that they stopped caring about imagining an alternate history that makes sense and instead focused on personal drama.

Starship will be the third super heavy lift launch vehicle currently operational, once it is operational.

Peter Beck was not wealthy when he started Rocket Lab. Elon musk was a millionaire when he started SpaceX. Clearly it does not take a billionaire to start a successful space company.

They have test fired several of them. It is a hard problem and they have had their share of difficulties in development, but it looks like they have gotten it to work. Time will tell.

Your own failure to understand is not a mark against Shotwell. It is incredibly obvious that there is not a "hard limit" on rocket reliability, unless by "hard limit" you are talking about asymptotically approaching 100%. Difficult problems are difficult, but that does not make them impossible. People said the same thing about air travel. People said the same thing about speedy ground travel.

When you have an idea that makes sense intuitively, try to think about it rationally and see if it makes sense logically as well.

Is there any source you would believe?

Can you give an example of something she doesn't seem to understand, other than how to make a $400 million dollar rocket?