So, lets see if I got this right.

Saturn V, 13 launches, 100% success rate.
SpaceX Starship, 9 launches, 0% success rate.

Seems to me that Nazi rocket engineers are not what they used to be...

@Nick_Stevens_graphics This is something that has been bothering me a lot. People keep treating SpaceX like a success, but within 20 years of the US space program we'd landed on the moon. SpaceX is 20 years in and can't even reliably build a rocket that gets into orbit.
@reflex @Nick_Stevens_graphics
That isn't really true. The Falcon 9 has been so successful at launching Starlink satellites that people are seriously worried about LEO getting too crowded. It's only the ultra heavy Starship that's having problems.
@VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics You mean the one that's comparable to what NASA historically was launching? That's the one that's having problems?
@reflex @Nick_Stevens_graphics
No. The one that's comparable to existing launch systems- except that it's reusable- has been working great. Maybe too well in the sense that they're sending up so many satellites that people are seriously talking about Kessler Syndrome. It's only their new system that's designed to be bigger than Saturn V that's having problems.

@VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics I just looked it up and Saturn V had 12 successful launches, 1 partial but non critical failure, and started operation in 1967. So I guess it's safe to say that despite all the advantages of starting a program today, Musk has yet to catch up with what NASA was capable of in 1967.

Not much of a flex, honestly. Looks a lot like the Soviet N1 based on track record.

@reflex @VATVSLPR

N1 is my specialist subject.

Korolev expected it to take 10 launches to me crew rated.

There was VERY high confidence that they would get it by flight 6, when it was cancelled with flight5 having been rolled to the launch pad and test-fuelled.