Starship IFT-4 launch today (June 6)

[wraper]

To build something and have it work perfectly first time you have to do an absolute insane amount of testing and simulations on every nut and bolt and then on every module made out of them. The paperwork and man hours required are enormous. Not to mention the inefficiency caused by the number of people that need to be involved. (unproductive meetings etc)  It can be done, NASA does this. But it's like trying to write a professional software application but you're not allowed to hit compile on the entire program until it's finished. You're only permitted to compile and test low level functions in isolation.

Being did this with CST-100 and it blew up in their face spectacularly. Several years later, they finally launches astronauts and it still had serious issues.

Whereas Starship doesn't after several years?

There is only bias here.

Except Starship that is currently launched is an experimental vehicle SpaceX develops on their own while Starliner was made according to the contract with NASA and was supposed to work on the first try. SpaceX made crew Dragon with less money, way less issues and hauling astronauts to ISS since 2020.
EDIT: If you didn't notice it's the 4th orbital launch, 1st one was a year ago.

[wraper]

There is only bias here.

That's rich from you. Shitting on the most successful and innovative company in the industry as if they don't know how do do stuff.

[coppice]

To build something and have it work perfectly first time you have to do an absolute insane amount of testing and simulations on every nut and bolt and then on every module made out of them. The paperwork and man hours required are enormous. Not to mention the inefficiency caused by the number of people that need to be involved. (unproductive meetings etc)  It can be done, NASA does this. But it's like trying to write a professional software application but you're not allowed to hit compile on the entire program until it's finished. You're only permitted to compile and test low level functions in isolation.

Being did this with CST-100 and it blew up in their face spectacularly. Several years later, they finally launches astronauts and it still had serious issues.

Whereas Starship doesn't after several years?

There is only bias here.

Now that is a truly absurd comparison. Starship is very much experimental. It does the basics of rocketry pretty well, and all its issues are where they are breaking new ground. Nobody has got full reusability to work right. The best by far that anyone has done is the reusability SpaceX has achieved with the Falcon 9. Rocket labs seem to be making good progress. The Space Shuttle's reusability was a farce. They could have build new launchers each flight for less than its refurbishment cost. The places where Starship is having issues are some of the key ones where shuttle had issues. No great surprise there. Things like reusable heat shields are hard. Shuttle's was a horrible mess. This might well defeat Starship, but only hard work and experiment will tell.

CST-100 is just a rehash of things that were being done in the 1960s, with some modern control software. Its core design was also supposed to be nailed before the contract was signed, to the point with it should have been entirely D, and no R.

[CatalinaWOW]

Everyone these days seems have forgotten a competent safety culture.

Considering that Falcon 9 rockets have highest consecutive successful launch record in history by far, yeah, sure. One must do like NASA with their Space Shuttle program. Knowing a problem for 9 years, why bother iterating the design if it still works... 7 astronauts exploded, oopsie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

The commission criticized NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes that had contributed to the accident. Test data since 1977 demonstrated a potentially catastrophic flaw in the SRBs' O-rings, but neither NASA nor SRB manufacturer Morton Thiokol had addressed this known defect. NASA managers also disregarded engineers' warnings about the dangers of launching in cold temperatures and did not report these technical concerns to their superiors.

I don't think you can make that Falcon reliability claim. It would only show a poor understanding of formal statistics. That would require a suitable hypothesis and hypothesis test and it would need to be compared against other launch providers like Roscosmos. If you can quote a suitable p-value for your assertion, I'd love to talk about it.

Lets put a null hypothesis down (H_0): SpaceX launches have the same success rate as Roscosmos.

 

300+ successful concecutive launches tell me all I need to know. Show me anyone else with a track record even close.

Thus proving you have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand what I wrote.

I haven't done the math, but I suspect neither of you can support your claims.  The successful launch count for SpaceX suggests that the are at least in the ballpark with Ruscosmos on safety.  Without computing a p number your assertions of lack of safety are as baseless as the opposite claim.