Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Thunderf00t" channel.

  1. 4
  2. 4
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. HEY THUNDERFOOT YOU MADE A MISTAKE. I work in Industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Those 2 robots you show at 37:30 have been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. The company I left in 2001 was the (then) Kuka and Adept agent in Australia and we knew what our competitors could do. The robot on the left of your shot is a standard 6 axis anthropomorphic arm and those have been around for decades. The robot on the right is a 4-axis "Spider Robot" (just put "4-axis spider robot into google"). I know that BEFORE the year 2000 ABB had one of those available. The thing that you are NOT highlighting in that part of the video is that the spider robot is locating the items its picking off the conveyor using vision guided robotics. Notice how all those parts are randomly arranged and the spider is arranging them in organised groups so the other robot can place them on the next conveyor. There is a camera upstream of the robot looking down on the conveyor which has an encoder on it. The vision system identifies the location and orientation of each part and with the encoder on the conveyor translates that to the Spider which can then pick it up and orientate it and put it back down in the right place so the other robot can pick up the groups of 4 parts. I know how that stuff works because I had that technology demonstrated to me by an Adept Engineer when I visited their Cincinnati Office in 1998 or 99. They weren't using a Spider robot at that time. They were using a small high speed SCARA robot. So I know for a fact that technology has been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. So SORRY Thunderboy but your 15 years is wrong its at least 25. Fyi - I actually did aerospace and if you would like I'd be happy to show you how truly stupid they are being with the Artemis program. Its worse than most people realise. The closest I have seen anyone expose the real depth of the issue is Destin (another Aerospace) who has the YT channel "Smarter Every Day." For anyone interested put "smarter every day artemis" into the YT search and the top item should be titled "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" posted 4 Dec 2023.
    4
  10. 3
  11. ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. As an aerospace engineer this totally craps me out and for a slightly different reason than most here might think. My gripe isn't so much that these things (like Hyperloop) are garbage its that they are preventing people from SpaceX and Tesla form appreciating the incredible achievements of others. There are some great people in these companies doing great work and getting no recognition or credit. At Space X the achievement of actually getting a rocket that can fly humans into space (Crew Dragon & Falcon 9) is extraordinary. If you compare it to Boeing's effort with Starliner and take into consideration the resources and experience Boeing has access too then it really is an extraordinary achievement. BUT THEN Elon comes along with the idiotic garbage of going to Mars on Starship. I don't understand how it can be the same company. On transport its the same. I spent many years in the Australian automotive sector and for Tesla to actually have the effect it has on the entire car industry is borderline miraculous. Yes there's some issues with the cars, but then every major manufacturer has had recalls. Tesla's a long way short of the VW diesel fake engine emissions fiasco. The fact Tesla is manufacturing and selling several 100 thousand cars each year is incredible and it has changed the world. Unless you have a actually been in the industry its hard to explain just how hard it is just getting a new model into production. One of the main companies I worked with was Hella and the effort it took just for a new headlight & taillight on an EXISTING car was a huge effort. So taking a completely new vehicle and getting it into mass production is an extraordinary achievement BUT THEN Elon comes along with a truck he claims will pull a load from 0 to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds. AND THEN Elon comes along with driver less cars, taxis and trucks. AND THEN Elon comes along with Hyperloop, a 118 year old idea (Robert Goddard 1904) and claims he thought it up. AND THEN Elon comes along AFTER Hyperloop is exposed and NO its not trains in tunnels its cars in tunnels. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️
    3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. Aerospace engineer here - and that's the sort of reply I wish we'd see more often. The best report on G0F I saw in the last 4 years was by DW (German). It still here on YT and titled "Gain-of-Function: Should supercharging viruses be banned?" They bring up what Ron Fouchier the Dutch scientist did with Avian Flu and it didn't take much to find out what he did AND HOW DAMN SCARY IT IS. Normally avian flu can't infect humans but the rare times it does its more lethal than Ebola killing over 60%. What was even crazier than making that variant of avian flu was that he wanted to publish how he did it. The Dutch government stepped in and said "NO". He took it to court and the court also said "NO" because like the Dutch government they knew there were people on this planet who'd use it. It was Fouchier's work that (in part) led to the moratorium on GoF, because NOBODY was really aware of what was being done in some of these labs. As an engineer I know quite well how very intelligent people can sometimes be utterly blind to the outside world and Fouchier is an example of that. It became well know that Shi Zhengli (the head virologist) in Wuhan was also like that. Plus Wuhan became the go to place where certain work could still be doen despite the moratorium. I'm amazed that after all that has happened we haven't had a proper public discussion on research funding and the oversight of research. I know there's stuff that's been going on in engineering research for decades that should either be shut down or NOT be funded because its either a waste of time and resources or that its too dangerous or that there's significant fraud going on.
    3
  26. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Just some perspective on Crew Dragon and SORRY that this is long. First I absolutely agree that there's massive issues with Elon Musk and how he does business that's perfectly obvious. There's also no doubt the Gwynne Shotwell has said some dumb things which Thunderf00t and others have pointed out. I am also of the same opinion that both Starlink and Starship are doomed to fail (see below). If we are going to fairly judge Falcon9/Crew Dragon then it needs to be compared against its actual competition. You pointed out that a Falcon9 launch costs $67 Million. I have seen Crew Dragon costed at $70 Million. Crew Dragon delivers 4 people to the ISS on each flight making it a cost of $17.5 million per astronaut to the ISS. The last seat an American had on Soyuz has been reported at $80 Million for 1 person. The Space Shuttle cost $350-450 Million per launch and despite its ability to carry up to 8 people it only ever delivered 3 to the ISS for a crew rotation but the others on a flight did stuff while there so its harder to cost but its safe to say it cost over $80 Million for each astronaut who stayed and did a stint on the ISS. However the Space shuttle could also deliver at the same time 16 tons of cargo to the ISS and that's basically 4-5 times Cargo Dragon. So when you consider the Space shuttle on each flight did the equivalent of 5-6 Falcon 9s its in the same ball park as Falcon 9. Here's the ugly comparison - Boeing Starliner the Boeing Max-8 of space flight. The Boeing Starliner which has had more than $550 Million in US Government money ($92M in 2011 and another $460M in 2012) for development is yet to fly successfully. According to Wikipedia Boeing has incurred costs between 2020 and 2022 of $883M and considering its cost plus contracting the US tax payer will eventually cop those costs. So for more than $1.3 Trillion (with a 't') the Boeing Starliner has flown twice for 1 failed mission and 1 partly failed mission. Basically Crew Dragon is NOT a major step forward or a revolutionary rocket. It is however an improvement on what NASA had especially following the demise of the Space Shuttle. Importantly compared to its main opposition (Starliner) it "looks" pretty magical but that's because Starliner really sucks. Crew Dragon is a step backwards so that NASA can go forwards. Thunderf00t has been around enough engineering project and research work to know that at times you simply have to step backwards because you've run into a wall. Going back to the SPACE SHUTTLE and heads up I did a comprehensive review of its history several years ago as part of the lessons learned section of a proposal. Its basic dry weight is 75 tons. So before you even give it people and cargo you have to lift 75t around 200km and then accelerate it to around 25,000 kmh. Those numbers get bigger going to the Space Station which is why its LEO payload is listed as 30t and its payload to the ISS is listed at 16t. So that 75t is a massive cost but it was sort of offset by reusability, but even that had issues. On top of those fuel costs the Space Shuttle required a lot more manpower to service it than first planned. Its one of the main reasons manned space flight stalled. All the things needed to go further and do things like build a lunar base needed people working on the technologies needed. Not only did the Space Shuttle consume money it also consumed the time people needed to do other things. THAT'S what made the Space Shuttle a failure. Technically it was an amazing achievement but for manned space flight it cost us 30-40 years. STARLINK It will fail just like the Iridium satellite phone system failed. Its a solution to a problem that does not exist. This is what kills many (what people think are) great ideas. If you are in a remote location it might provide a service but for anyone with an easy link to broad band then what does it offer? Plus the optic fibres that broad band is based on don't need to be replaced every few years in the same way the Starlink satellites drop out of orbit. Plus if you want to upgrade your broad band system Bob the Builder's mate Eric the Electro-tech can drive to the network hub and swap out the nodes. 🤷‍♂🤷‍♂ STARSHIP Not long after the Soviet Union collapsed the Russians released a trove of information on their lunar program based around the N-1 rocket. Go have a look at the arrangement of the motors in the N-1's first stage. YES Starship has a similar arrangement and when you know what the issues with the N-1 were, which I have known for over 20 years having read reviews on the N-1 back in the 1990s. The big problem the N-1 had was if they had a motor failure in the outer ring they needed to shut down the motor directly opposite or the off centre load would make the rocket uncontrollable. The Soviets had a system to do that automatically but it failed to work properly and the N-1 did a very similar thing to what we saw with Starship. Starship not only has the same inherent issue of the N-1 their control system for handling engine failures has the same issues the Russians had in the 1970s. Clearly that first flight showed it does NOT have the control range to handle the sorts of failures it had. But that's nothing. STARSHIP LAUNCH SITE. I have spent most of my engineering career in industrial control systems which has included safety systems. I had the second highest qualification available in that area at one stage. SO I AM FORMALLY TRAINED in assessing sites and systems for hazard identification, risk assessments and risk mitigation strategies. That launch site should never have been approved. for use. 1) The launch pad had no thrust diverter and when you consider the mass flow out of those engines (~26 tons per second at over 3.2km/s) and its just slamming into a flat surface. Look up the Wikipedia page for the N-1 and look at the size of the 3 exhaust tunnels. No one should have been surprised that the launch platform failed and chunks of concrete were ripped up and tossed 100s of meters. 2) Right beside the launch pad are the rocket fuel and oxygen storage tanks. If you look at the photos it had a small deflection barrier less than 1/2 the height of those tanks. That barrier means they expected rocket exhaust gases to head towards those tanks and they were left seriously exposed. On basic safety grounds that site should never have been allowed to be used for such a launch and quite possibly ANY LAUNCH. For anyone who wants to hold Gwynne Shotwell to account this is your opportunity. As the Chief Operating Officer and a highly qualified engineer she should KNOW BETTER should be held personally accountable. I have a pilots license and that's the sort of thing that gets airlines grounded and in some cases LOSE THEIR OPERATING LICENSE. SORRY to all this is as long as it is. I mostly agree with Thunerf00t and others like Common Sense Skeptic but I also think that a few things need better context. Especially that applies to comparing Crew Dragon to its competition which in the case of Boeing Starliner its a lot better than some people think, but I'd agree with anyone who says its neither revolutionary nor an ideal solution BUT IT DOES WORK.
    3
  27. 3
  28.  @Lucien86  You misunderstood my reference comparing Stockton Rush to Elon Musk. It has NOTHING to do with things like Falcon or Falcon Heavy. It has to do with Elon the PERSON not handling people who disagree with him for which there's a mountain of evidence. You don't have to lecture me on Falcon I actually defend that part of Space X. There's a contingent of people who just love to bash Space X along with Elon and they hate it when I correct them. Falcon has been a staggering success. YES it is NOT the mind blowing leap forward in rockets that Elon harps on about. In fact most of what it does was done long before Elon or Space X ever existed. I regard the Space Shuttle as a successful failure. It was successful in that they made it work. It was a catastrophic failure in that 2 crashed and its costs were nothing like that promised. What SpaceX has done is take a step back, a step sideways and a step forward. So its no giant advancement but it is something that has allowed NASA to get back to having its own system. Also Gwynne Shotwell gets a lot of flack and occasionally its warranted when she parrots Elon. The basic reality is that her and her team have built a reliable and reusable rocket. They have then got it man rated and successfully sent people into space. What the SpaceX detractors seem to ignore is that without Crew Dragon NASA and the Western Partners in the ISS are at the mercy of the Russians and the Russians were upping the price. Also the Elon detractors who bash SpaceX never hold Boeing to the same scrutiny and their system deserves to be panned. Boeing got a lot more money than SpaceX to develop a crew system. They took a lot longer and so far there system has being Boeing Reliable which is now a meme. So understand I am a huge fan of Gwynne Shotwell and her team and the Falcon program. Yes they took a lot longer to get up to Crew Dragon compared to what NASA did in the 60s but then they had staggering resources during the 60s. People forget just how many people they threw at the Apollo program. I think it was around 400,000 and they weren't just who you could find and recruit they were the best of the best that America had. On the other hand I can't stand Elon Musk and his BS. He does have 2 talents that he's seriously underestimated on. 1) He knows how to get non-technical people to respond to an idea. As in he can sell an idea to an audience like he has with Starlink which is just another "who really needs, other than the people selling it, technology." 2) He can also identify technical people who can get a task done which he's shown at SpaceX. On that in particular he's seriously misunderstood. BUT when he forgets to get the right people or he ignores them like he did at Neuralink, Hyperloop and a few other places it becomes a disaster.
    2
  29. 2
  30.  @Thunderf00t  I don't know if you saw my last comment on the other video, but I do control systems and one of my main projects between 2006 & 2011 was an industrial bio-conversion plant in Perth, Western Australia that processed Municipal Solid Waste (NSW). As a Brit I'll assume you know where Perth is. Sorry if this is a lengthy reply but if you want any further material I'll see what I can get you. Keep up the good work. I just hate technology scammers. I don't know if in your work you've had to deal with a control system engineers but I have to deal with all types of engineers and technologists - mechanical, chemical and in that case microbiologists. Early on I asked what made their process special so I got an personalized education in the microbiology of composting. My job wasn't to make the bacteria do its funky stuff it was to build a control system that included the tools to let the microbiologists make the bacteria do its funky stuff. So there are many details about the bacteria I never was privy to. It was just this stuff they called "water" except it was dark brown and smelt awful. I'd describe it as biologically active liquor. Their process was pretty novel in how fast it worked (21 days). In the natural environment composting can take anywhere from months to years depending on all sorts of factors - the microorganism types (worms, slugs, etc.), bacteria types (single cell bugs), temperature, moisture, oxygen levels, existing soil type, light or lack of light,.... etc. The list is quite lengthy. That's not that great for industrial processes where they want consistency. Most of the OTHER processes developed did things like heap up the compost into mounds out in paddocks and left to ferment in situ. That releases lots of stuff (CO2, CH4,.... etc.). Other places simply dumped it into an unused quarry or open cut mine and cap it with a giant rubber sheet and tap the gas as its produced. Other processes munch/mince it all up and put it into silos so they can tap off the combustibles like methane. If not watched those silos can get so hot they catch on fire. In these processes you do get more than methane. I know I had to engineer the electrical system to handle hydrogen. There wasn't much of it but there was enough to influence the electrical design because hydrogen ignites so easily. And yes many of the clowns promoting hydrogen have no idea. Mostly those systems that put compost into silos and leave it alone take 60-90 days (not hours) to decompose a batch into compost. The variation mainly comes from the time of year. Municipal waste has EVERYTHING we put in the wheely bins - food waste, cloth, plastics, metals, grass clippings, leaves,.... etc. So just giving people the impression that Lomi can provide "composted" material in 4 hours is pretty much garbage. The company I was working with had come up with a way to handle the seasonal changes and make the process extremely rapid by tailoring the bacterial decomp. They could do a batch of the organic fraction of municipal waste in 21 days complete cycle. Raw waste came in and was smashed in a giant tumbling garbage smasher. Almost a Lomi on Superman level steroids. After that the metals, sand, glass and plastics were removed and finally it was loaded into a vessel (about 4-5 stories high) where it was introduced to the bacteria. At that stage there was oxygen and the process was aerobic and produced CO2. After the vessel was full it was sealed and once the bacteria had finished consuming all the oxygen was when the real magic started. Certain bacteria are not like mammals, birds, etc. When the oxygen runs out they don't die they switch their metabolism. In a sealed container that process is gradual and we could watch it happen on the gas analyzer data. The bacteria would start consuming organics and oxygen producing C02 but as the oxygen ran out it would switch and start consuming organics and CO2 producing methane and a few other hydrocarbons. Eventually the bacteria would consume all it could. We'd see that on the gas analyzer as methane had stopped being produced. After that we reintroduced air and with it oxygen. Since this step was abrupt rather than gradual the sudden introduction of oxygen would kill the bacteria. After a few days of aeration all that was left was sterile very high quality compost. All Lomi is, is the first step in a process like that. Its just a smashing and grinding machine. *Laughably you can do the same thing with an old blender or nutri-bullet for a lot less than $500. Just blend up your scraps with some water and put it all in a cloth bag. Squeeze out the water and/or hang it somewhere to drain like they do for cheese making. Put the drained off water on you plants because it will have all sorts of organics. Then put the mashed up stuff in a composter and let nature do its stuff. That or spend $20-40 million and build a system like I worked on.
    2
  31. 2
  32.  @herrschaftg35  YES - I am well aware of the IEA data and have been following their reports for a few years now. That's NOT the point the point is the cost of the NEXT GENERATION of power stations NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE is going to be astronomical. PARTLY because material shortages are going to keep prices high. PARTLY because the corporations who build large scale stuff are completely out of control on standards, profits and tax. PARTLY because the giant wealth shift of the last 40 years has broken every economic system in the developed world. PARTLY because we have driven 80% of our populations into Universities instead of balancing our education across the skill base we need. WORST OF ALL - a whole bunch of nations are going to try and do this at the same time which will send specialist labor and material costs even higher. Do you get where I am going? There's a bunch of factors coalescing into a MEGA-SHlTSTORM because of 40+ years of "Greed is good" stupidity. I tell my fellow Australians that we don't have any of the people we'd need to build just 1 nuclear power station let alone the 8 or more we'd need and their answer is just like its been for cars, TVs and mobile phones - "We'll buy from overseas!" PROBLEM IS EVERYONE ELSE is also in the same situation and they need their people at home doing the work they need done. Simon Michaux who I mostly agree with until it gets to the subject of what to do next recently said and I AGRRE 100% with him on this point. He basically said: "Its not that we can't do the energy transition but we need a better plan."
    2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. Aerospace Engineer - Your 100% right on the first point and sort of maybe on the second. Like Thunderf00t I had my time in Academia but actually walked away from my PhD Scholarship in disgust at the behavior of my supervisors. Mine just simply admitted to financial fraud to my face one day. I've spent the last 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation across a bunch of industries mostly manufacturing and mining. On one hand I absolutely agree that Elon Musk is a techno-charlatan BUT the reason he's got away with it is because he's actually done a couple of good things. I spent a chunk of my career building small production cells for the Australian automotive sector and I can tell that entire sector needed a super monster kick in the arse. In some ways its a brilliant industry and in others its easily one of the worst run industries on the planet. Mining is worse by the way. Sorry to all but, its an inescapable fact, that Tesla has shaken the automotive industry and given it the kick it needed. Love him or hate him it can't be denied, but that doesn't mean Elon is innocent either. All the stupid claims about FSD technology and other stuff was crap and garbage and he deserves all the scorn he gets for it. On the SpaceX front there's also a giant hit and miss. The Falcon rockets which Elon had effectively zero to do with have been a gigantic success. Its even more obvious when its compared to Boeing Starliner which so far has had 2 partially successful uncrewed test flights. Despite being originally scheduled for its first crewed flight in 2017 is yet to fly a person anywhere. Meanwhile Crew Dragon had 3 successful test flights followed by a manned test flight followed by 9 successful crewed missions a with 2 more crewed missions currently attached to the ISS. On the flip side just to show Elon is stupid. He's had little to do with Falcon & Crew Dragon, but been heavily involved with Starship and that's almost as bad as Boeing's Starliner. I wont go into it because its pages long. I'd say Elon has 2 things he very good at. 1) Identifying people who are technically very good at their job. Without that Tesla and SpaceX would have nothing. 2) Identifying what the non-technically trained general public will latch onto as the next super technology. In that respect he's like PT Barnum, the Warner Brothers, Walt Disney, Vince McMahon and many of the other entertainment industry leaders have been like - Elon knows what the general public will buy into.
    2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Playing a little bit of devils advocate and NOT defending the BULLSHlIT. Elon has done a couple of very good things BUT THEY DO NOT excuse all this nonsense and garbage that just wastes everyone's time. 1) TESLA has dragged the car industry off its collective butt and made them move on from ICE (Internal Combustion Engines). Having worked in the automotive industry they are an industry that is incredibly slow at innovation. That comes from how much it now costs to develop any new car. A previous client of mine was Hella the head and tail light manufacturer. Just the tooling for things like head lights can run into millions of dollars. Its why they quite often reuse one cars headlights or tail lights on another car. A famous example of that were the Toyota Corolla tail lights on the Lotus Esprit. So for ANYONE to get the main stream auto sector to shift is nothing to be belittled. THAT SAID - Elon has also MONSTROUSLY MISLEAD people over things like self driving cars and whether its even possible to make enough batteries to replace 1.5 Billion ICE cars with hybrid or electric or the 500 million ICE trucks in the world. 2) SPACEX has similarly dragged manned space flight out of the multi-decade failure of the Space Shuttle. YES the Space Shuttle might have been an amazing technical achievement but it was a long term disaster because of how much it sucked up in both in money and manhours. That's why going back to the Moon hasn't happened. The Space Shuttle consumed the money and instead of people doing lunar projects they were working on keeping the Space Shuttle flying. If you want to fairly compare Crew Dragon then compare it to Boeing's Starliner which was funded in parallel to Crew Dragon. DESPITE the same level of funding and development time Starliner is yet to fly a single crewed mission, while Crew Dragon currently has 4 active vehicles C206 Endeavor (4 flights), C207 Resilience (2 flights), C210 Endurance (3 flights) and 212 Freedom (2 flights). Despite the fact that Crew Dragon is not very innovative and can even be considered a technological step backwards from the Space Shuttle it also saved the manned space program from OBLIVION, which is more of an indictment on the entire program than it is a gold star for SpaceX. On the other SpaceX's Starship, that really is the joke that Thunderf00t and others describe. As for Elon's Mars proposals they're so bad they make the worst 1950's sci-fi films look like inspired documentaries. If Thunderf00t did wants to do a video with me on the whole "Can Mars be terraformed?" subject then I'm IN, because despite the fact I will defend a couple of Elon's successes I am farking tired of his nonsense. FYI - back in 1987 a NASA engineer gave me and my fellow classmates a special lecture on the project he'd just finished at NASA on terraforming. YES back in 1987 NASA had worked out how much bunk terraforming Mars was and I'd be happy to explain what he said.
    2