Of course we're bashing on SpaceX. You've seen the reasons, and you seem to ignore or dismiss them.
SpaceX hasn't revolutionize anything (who do you know in the industry who is telling you that?).
They most certainly have revolutionized things. This is actually a very ironic thing I've seen happen:
1) SpaceX says they're going to achieve X
2) The industry says impossible, no, idiots, Elon Musk doesn't know what he's doing, can't be done, etc...
3) SpaceX achieves X
4) Industry and critics respond with, they didn't do anything revolutionary, well the tech already was known about, they got help from NASA, etc...
To which I ask, if they haven't achieved anything revolutionary, then why were their initial goals viewed as impossible by so many? Why haven't the other aerospace companies achieved similar?
For example, on vertically landing a rocket, I've read Elon was told by the chief engineer of a company that he'll never land a first stage booster, and even if he somehow did, it would be so thoroughly wrecked that he wouldn't be able to re-use it. Then after achieving such, I've seen critics go, "SpaceX wasn't the first to do it" (because someone before managed to land a wobbly mini rocket) and "They got help from NASA!" which is true, as in having access to the NASA technical archive, there was research that had been done on the concept of vertical landing rockets. But...did Boeing, Lockheed, ULA, etc...not have this same access? Why didn't they build on that research?
SpaceX has thus far achieved at least three, possibly four in a way, revolutionary milestones:
1) Vertical landing rockets
2) Reusable rockets (tied to #1)
3) Significantly lowered the cost of launching cargo and astronauts (tied to #1 and #2)
4) Revitalized the U.S. space program in that we are back to using American rockets to launch American astronauts, as opposed to the prior national embarrassment of having to rely on the Russians to launch us, who were also charging an arm and a leg. In addition, the money saved as a result is money NASA can put towards other things.
They're still using the same kind of fueled, phallic shaped, rockets; the space shuttle was a reusable vehicle; we've sent satellites to other planets and beyond our solar system so just the idea that we could get to Mars isn't revolutionary. Landing a booster on a floating pad is cool, but it's not revolutionary. How Perseverance landed on Mars was a revolutionary concept.
SpaceX is 0-2 on Starship whereas Boeing is 1-1 with Artemis in a shorter timeline. But who got results?
They are using fueled rockets that are an enormous improvement in many ways over everything else. And the Space Shuttle? The Space Shuttle was reusable, yes, but it completely failed in its goal of being what SpaceX has achieved. Shuttle launches were enormously expensive and the Shuttle, while reusable, was in no way reusable on a frequent basis.
As for sending spacecraft to other planets, the idea regarding Mars that would be revolutionary is sending humans. And landing a booster on a floating pad is very much revolutionary, as it used to be regarded as science fiction by the industry and still is for the most part as SpaceX is the only one that does it and repeatedly.
And while Boeing is 1-1 on Artemis, the launch was very late and they won't be able to launch again likely for another three years, if that. Nor is the rocket reusable. The vast majority of it perishes in the launch. In addition, while they managed to launch their spacecraft to the Moon, they are not capable of sending humans to the ISS. And considering the much smaller size of their spacecraft, I don't think it's a fair comparison. Whereas the Starship is designed to be completely reusable, both stages.
Consider this: if SpaceX blows up four, five, or six more Starships in the next three to four years but then gets the design nailed to where they can then start every six months launching one to the Moon and back, while Artemis is maybe on its second or third launch, and much more expensive, would you still view SpaceX as failing? Remember, getting to the Moon isn't the sole issue, its developing the capability to repeatedly launch spacecraft to the Moon, on a frequent basis and for a cheap cost. So that Artemis got to the Moon first means nothing unto itself.
