No. It seems much too early to draw this conclusion. SpaceX’s Falcon program also looked like a guaranteed fail. But it has been the most astonishing success i

No. It seems much too early to draw this conclusion. SpaceX’s Falcon program also looked like a guaranteed fail. But it has been the most astonishing success in affordable orbital launch tech in human history. The essay’s comparison to the deliberately disposable throwaway Saturn V (which had massive additional costs being buried in various agency budgets for congressional pork games and international prestige) - this sounds like a very weak argument. (Edit - Nobody can deny that Saturn V/IVb and Apollo were heroic achievements in their time, and that SpaceX succeeds because it stands on the shoulders of giants, but we have moved on). >“weight. Starship weighs far too much” Now, that is a pertinent observation. The crazy number of missions that are needed just to refuel the most basic mission out of GEO orbit with Starship! But the SpaceX excuse for that would be that their launch cadence and cost is designed to make this manageable and economical. (But not yet, obviously). Let’s talk again after 20 more failed Starship tests. Then this essay could have greater credence. (Edited) I wonder if it would have been safer for SpaceX to just keep building on the Falcon technology? Instead of being mad ambitious with Starship.