> To be fair, they're also doing launches at a pace NASA could only have dreamed of back then.

That's like comparing how many containers Maersk moves today with how much sea cargo was moved back in the age of discovery.

Also, Saturn V worked and fulfilled it's mission, whereas Starship blows up.

I’m sure if the government gives SpaceX 200B a year to build a more reliable starship they can do it without blowing them up.

Actually, this version 2 of Starship was explicitly designed for lower the dry mass of the vehicle. It seems like SpaceX is exploring the lower limit on acceptable mass, and thus strength, of the Starship. This is a development program, after all.

This comparison doesn't make sense, the USD 200B/year was to invent the capabilities, do trailblazing work on something that needed to be proven even feasible as a concept, to do fundamental/foundational work, not to productionalise technology.

I'd expect SpaceX to do much more now than NASA in the 60s if granted USD 200B/year, considering they are already standing on the shoulders of giants.

Well sure, but they don’t have 200b a year. They’re doing more with (much) less.

Starship hasn't had a mission yet that I'm aware of. I love the Saturn V but I don't think this is a fair comparison. Just because your software didn't compile first try doesn't mean it's bad. Those two vehicles fundamentally have different approaches to development and that's fine.

> Starship hasn't had a mission yet that I'm aware of.

Then you will agree that comparing an unproven launcher which seems to be far far away from being able to fulfill a similar role is a very silly endeavour, let alone talk about it as a vast improvement which just so happens to blow up.

I don’t think it’s _that_ silly, there are plenty of cases where comparisons are useful. SpaceX’s development approach is radically different from traditional aerospace, but it’s clearly working for them. A bunch of Falcon 9s blew up too, and now it’s one of the most reliable and frequently used launch platforms in history. Why would you expect Starship to follow a completely different trajectory?

> Saturn V worked

Its impressive how ignorant HN is about how many failures the S5 had during testing, falling for cold war propoganda at full speed

Testing on the ground and problems with what most people would call the payload (Apollo 1 & 13), sure.

But we're comparing to SpaceX launches. Plenty of Raptor engines have blown up on the ground too.

There were 13 Saturn V's launched and all of them basically performed their mission (Apollo 6 being a bit of an exception) with 0 rapid unplanned disassemblies...

Apollo had plenty of failures during testing, including one that killed three astronauts.