IBTL. 😁

I hope that the lunar lander will be reusable.  It would be such a waste to just leave part of it on the Moon.

The whole point of reusable rockets and landers is to save money to make continued missions more viable economically.

One last thing: I just love it when someone lectures me about how bad my gasoline-powered vehicle is and then posts pictures of his gas-guzzling race car.😏

Dave

4 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I hope that the lunar lander will be reusable.  It would be such a waste to just leave part of it on the Moon.

 

If its the SpaceX HLS, then yes it will be, Dave. In the previous reply I assumed it wouldn't be and was wrong.

Pretty sure the Blue Origin and other alternatives won't be, but don't quote me on that.

On 10/25/2025 at 7:22 AM, dave2013 said:

One last thing: I just love it when someone lectures me about how bad my gasoline-powered vehicle is and then posts pictures of his gas-guzzling race car

“One last thing” … I wish!  I just love how you don’t read my posts when I admitted to the error of my ways with my “gas-guzzling” race car and how I “changed” my ways (stopped racing in 2014) because I can change and adapt.  But hey since when have you ever actually not been selective and out of context … just pick the bits you want and go with it out of context.  Obviously “change” is not something you can work with because once you “believe” there is no “un-believing” for you.  

On 10/25/2025 at 1:02 AM, martin-w said:

Yes, its the first time you've heard that the alloy is a proprietary formula

Not what I said … I was quoting you where you indicated proprietary and cheaper.  You admit you don’t know the “special proprietary” formula, none of us do but we do know it costs more than other variants of SS.  Apparently the same “special proprietary formula” used in Tesla Trucks … yeah that’s not bringing much confidence.  

I’m not going to belittle you about your lack of knowledge regarding Space Shuttle test flights because you can google it just like anyone else and/or SpaceX … not this isn’t a contest.  The space shuttle didn’t just magically appear, it went thru 5 test flights and ZERO actual space flights prior to being used.

You don’t contest that the Starship has not yet had a single fully successful test (3 catastrophic and 1 heavy damage, and another minor damage).  And YES, those failures can be a result of SS … re-entry structural stress failures (absolutely can be attributed to materials used), other failures related to excessive vibration (the rigidity of SS could be the source), other materials are better at dampening vibrations.

My “approach” … to disagree with you about the use of SS?  That’s an “approach”?  You haven’t countered the facts, you just keep telling me I know nothing about NASA/SpaceX programs.

I’ll believe SS + the special sauce Musk formula will work when I see 90%+ success rate be it with testing or actual human flights.  Are you disputing these Starship failures?

Does your “rally the troops” really change anything and relevant to anything?

 

16 hours ago, SayAgain said:

 

You don’t contest that the Starship has not yet had a single fully successful test (3 catastrophic and 1 heavy damage, and another minor damage).  

 

 

You again, several times now, confirm you know nothing about Starship.

I suspect you added the word "fully" so you could claim that something other than the test items was an issue. Sorry, you can't. The tests had objectives they needed to complete, in all six flights those objectives were met. Furthermore, in some flights they deliberately modified the angle of attack and other parameters to test the edge of the envelope, knowing failure was likely. But you, of course, wouldn't be aware of that due to your lack of knowledge of the Starship program.

 

 

Quote

"As of mid-October 2025, there have been 6 successful Starship test flights out of 11 total attempts. The most recent, the 11th flight on October 13, 2025, achieved all major objectives and is considered a success. "

 

Edited October 29, 2025Oct 29 by martin-w

18 hours ago, SayAgain said:

 And YES, those failures can be a result of SS … 

 

No they weren't. It's not about "can" or "could" It's about "was." And Only one failure "was" due to Stainless Steel.

And that was a very early SN1 cryogenic pressure test, on the ground, where a weld failed. And the purpose of SN1 was to test that very weld technique

We know why the failures occurred. There was exhaustive investigation into each failure. The FAA insisted on it before return to flight. Only one was due to a weld on a SN1 test. Do you want a list of the causes for the others? 🙄 Again... Stainless steel is working, the multitude of engineers at SpaceX aren't morons, and they will no doubt continue using Stainless Steel whether it agrees with your advanced rocket science knowledge or not. You are displaying the well known cognitive bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. You have little knowledge re Starship and thus overestimate your competence.

Personally, I don't care what they use, they could use ABS plastic if they wanted... but to claim Stainless Steel isn't working or a bad choice, when you have limited knowledge of the Starship program, and it obviously is, makes zero sense. 

 

18 hours ago, SayAgain said:

You haven’t countered the facts, you just keep telling me I know nothing about NASA/SpaceX programs."

 

Wrong! Yes I have countered with facts. Like the fact that all investigations into the failures found that SS (a weld) was the cause of ONE failure. And no, I said you know nothing about, specifically,  Starship or Artemis. Proven again with your claim that there have been no successful Starship test flights. There have been SIX. I doubt you've watched one launch.... because you hate Elon. 🙄

 

18 hours ago, SayAgain said:

I’ll believe SS + the special sauce Musk formula will work when I see 90%+ success rate be it with testing or actual human flights.  Are you disputing these Starship failures?

 

Of course not. You are disputing the successes. Failures are expected with the rapid iterative development philosophy that prioritizes real-world data gathering over exhaustive pre-flight analysis. 

As you've already been told, there is no time to spend carrying out very exhaustive and time consuming pre-flight analysis, when NASAs schedule precludes that, thus, they build them fast and test them fast, learn from any failures and thus make rapid progress. You may not agree with that philosophy, given you are a rocket scientist and ace engineer, but SpaceX doesn't care what you think. 

You are also making the obvious mistake of comparing the Shuttle, with Starship. They are two entirely different systems with spaceship having FAR more capability. Starship V4 is expected to have a maximum payload capacity of 200 tons. The Shuttle had an absolute maximum payload capacity, on a good day, of a mere 27 tons. Starship will be fully reusable. The shuttle wasn't fully reusable. Starship will fly to the Moon, some 384,400km. The Shuttle was stuck in Low Earth Orbit.

Thus, you do your argument no favors at all by comparing a 142 meter high Starship with a 200 ton capacity, the largest and most capable rocket ever created..... with the Shuttle. 

 

"Does your “rally the troops” really change anything and relevant to anything?"

 

I've no idea what that is supposed to mean. I'm simply countering your obviously wrong claims. 

Edited October 29, 2025Oct 29 by martin-w

17 hours ago, SayAgain said:

disagree with you about the use of SS

 

Disagree as much as you like, it doesn't change facts. The nice thing about facts is that they remain facts whether you agree with them or not.

Here's some facts. 

 

 

Quote

 

Based on the successful test flights of the Starship system, SpaceX's use of stainless steel is widely considered a successful innovation. The company's unique approach to a common material has demonstrated that it is highly effective, cost-efficient, and suitable for the extreme thermal demands of spaceflight. 

Key advantages that confirm the success of using stainless steel include:

• Performance in extreme temperatures: Stainless steel retains its strength and does not become brittle at the extreme cryogenic temperatures required for storing liquid oxygen and methane propellants. Conversely, its high melting point allows it to withstand the immense heat of atmospheric re-entry. Traditional aerospace materials like carbon fiber and aluminum would degrade under these conditions.
• Low-cost and rapid manufacturing: Compared to expensive and labor-intensive alternatives like carbon fiber, stainless steel is significantly cheaper and easier to work with. This allowed SpaceX to rapidly iterate and build multiple Starship prototypes for testing, accelerating the development cycle and enabling their "build, test, fail, fix" philosophy.
• High strength-to-weight ratio: Though denser than carbon fiber, SpaceX found that stainless steel's superior strength at both high and low temperatures allowed them to use thinner sheets. This enabled the overall structure to be more weight-competitive than initially expected, especially when accounting for a simpler, less-weighty thermal protection system.
• Innovative heat protection: Instead of relying solely on heavy heat shield tiles, the stainless steel hull supports a novel "transpiration cooling" system. This design uses a double-walled structure with micro-perforations to bleed coolant, such as water, across the surface during re-entry. This cools the hull and reinforces the overall structure.

 

 

Quote

 

• Overcoming perception: The aerospace industry generally considered steel too heavy for rocketry. SpaceX successfully challenged this assumption by proving that the material's unique temperature performance, low cost, and ease of construction were more valuable for building a rapidly reusable, multi-planetary vehicle.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2025Oct 29 by martin-w