Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Elon Musks 5 Year Countdown!" video.

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.
280
@jameskelly3502 Great point, YOU ARE RIGHT and I checked it out and there's an explanation. Here's the second paragraph of that press release. "This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-10, Crew-11, Crew-12, Crew-13, and Crew-14 flights. The value of this modification for all five missions and related mission services is $1,436,438,446. The amount includes ground, launch, in-orbit, and return and recovery operations, cargo transportation for each mission, and a lifeboat capability while docked to the International Space Station. The period of performance runs through 2030 and brings the total CCtCap contract value with SpaceX to $4,927,306,350." SHOR EXPLANATION When people are talking about the US$70Million that's the LAUNCH. What you are talking about is the ENTIRE PROJECT with all the other stuff added in. As you can see there's a difference and quite often it can be a massive difference. Those 5 Crew Dragon missions average just under US$300million which means that on top of the $70M for the launch there's almost another $230M for each flight. This is not simply a NASA problem. Its actually a major problem with projects EVERYWHERE. For Example: Right now in Australia (as I'll explain) we have the AUKUS submarine project. The current Block 5 Virginia subs have a cost AUD$5 Billion each. The project cost for the 8 subs is AU$33-46 Billion each. From what information that's available there's AU$20-32 Billion for each sub that is currently unaccounted for. LONGER EXPLANATION and again I am Sorry to all if this if this is long. With almost every wonderful announcement the devil is in the details and the magic words in that announcement are indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity and related mission services. BACKGROUND I'm Australian but did my degree in America. It was in the late 80s during Reagan's Star Wars Program. Most of the department was on DARPA funding as were most of the postgrads. We all sort of new it was BS but we liked the funding and a lot of people got their MS & PhDs. I came back to Australia afterwards which wasn't good timing and I ended up in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. In 2002 I met Apollo 17's Harrison Schmitt and he mentioned Helium-3, which meant we might be going back to the moon for mining. So I thought I'd go off to the Australian Mining sector and get some experience building mines so I could then do the same on the Moon. Yeah I know that didn't work out, but what I got was an education in large multi-billion dollar contracting jobs and how contractors milk them for all they are worth. I also learned how to build complex systems in remote places and I know NASAs plans for a lunar base are crap because of these very issues of "other stuff." Its not only in engineering and in fact the worst cases In Australia are in government department consulting. Go and check out the PwC scandal. ISSUES WITH ENGINEERING and COST PLUSS CONTRACTS 1 mine site I worked on was the BHP Ravensthorpe Nickel project. Now you'd think BHP the largest mining company in the world would know how to get a mine built - WRONG. That job was budgeted at AU$1.5 Billion and ended up costing over AU$3.5 Billion and then they found out that someone had skimped on the drilling program and the ore body was nowhere near what they had expected in either quality or quantity. WHERE it really blew out was the cost plus contracting. We had an electrician just not show for work one day on that project. He turned up at dinner time in the mess wearing another companies shirt and proudly announced he was getting an extra AU$10 and hour. Working 60+ hours a week, which you do on site that adds up to a lot of money. Within days other electricians were being snapped up in similar ways and the pay rate went from about AU$35/hr to AU$65/hr in about a week as people bounced from company to company. For those who have never worked on cost plus contracting it goes like this. You have expenses (labor & stuff) and you hand them in and if the contract is cost plus 20% (which is common) then for every $1 of expense you get $1.20 in cash back. The reason why cost plus happens is that for large projects that go for several years you just cant plan everything. They can be made to work but the managers running them have to know what they are doing. This is why we see so many government and private sector projects blow out on their costs. So when those electricians went from AU$35/hr to AU$65/hr their actual employers went from charging about $60/hr to over $100/hr. Here's where that adds up. If you have a 100 people and they suddenly cost an extra $10 that gets passed onto the company and they return (at 20%) $12 for which means your profit margin just went up $200 per hour. So with something like SpaceX every time NASA makes an adjustment to a mission it means extra profit to SpaceX and its in their interests as a commercial company to max out those expenses. Here in Australia we have a litany of projects both in the government and in the private sector that have blown out with some projects going billions over budget. The worst private sector project I heard of was the Gorgon Gas project which blew out by $15 Billion. You'd think Chevron would know their job and know how to manage a project BUT THEY DIDN'T. The Australian Navy is not only buying submarines but new frigates and that project recently jumped from AUD$30 Billion to AUD$45 Billion. These things happen from contract variations and that word "variation" is the sound of cash being printed to a cost+ contractor. MORE EXAMPLES Back in the day before the ISS came into being there was the Space Station Freedom project. Me and Classmates all believed that was what we'd be building before heading back to the Moon. The 1st budget was USD$20 Billon and VP George Bush told them that was too expensive and to redesign it. The 2nd budget was USD$30 Billon and VP George Bush told them stop being ridiculous. The 3rd budget was USD$40 Billion and VP George Bush scrapped it, but not before a lot of money got spent doing those design studies. In the end the ISS cost America $120 Billion to build and I think the current estimate puts it over $220 Billion so far when you add in the operations AND NOBODY has ever explained where its all gone. The F35 program cost over a $Trillion in development AND NOBODY has ever explained where its all gone. Here in Oz other than submarines and frigates we also have a patrol boat project underway. The previous class cost under AUD$30 Million each and these new ones are AUD$300 Million each - more than 10x the cost to do the same job AND NOBODY can explain the costs. As part of Australia's AUKUS submarine project there was a AU$4.3 Billion dollar upgrade to facilities at the base near Perth. Knowing what they are basically doing I checked with a couple of people I know and that project shouldn't cost more than AU$1 Billion. Just 2 days ago they announced new plans and its now budgeted at AU$8 Billion with NO EXPLANTION what this extra AU$3.7 Billion is for let alone what most of the AU$4.3 was for. BACK TO FALCON 9/CREW DRAGON We know the cost of each Falcon 9 Crew Dragon launch is $70 Million but what you have shown is a fundamental problem in all these sorts of contracts. There's a lot more than just the basic costs than can be itemised and a lot of it we know nothing about. So you are right there's a lot more, but when we are comparing apples to apples we have to compare what we can. The reason we talk about the at $70 Million is because we know its real and we can compare it to other things. We know the Shuttle flights cost US$350-450 million each, but that doesn't include the development and operational costs. We know the Soyuz seats at the end cost US$80 million each but we don't know what other costs with training (including language training) were incurred. Hope that all explains it.
8
@darkpraxis Your right there are differences between the N-1 and Starship BUT AND THIS IS THE POINT they both have similar engine configurations with large numbers of smaller engines AND NEITHER (SO FAR) have proven they can handle engine failures in the outer ring. Look at Saturn 5, Artemis, N-1 and Starship which systems are similar and which are different and which (SO FAR) have worked. Its hard to say on the concrete reinforcement. I'm not a civil engineer and that's not my field but the photos clearly show there's rebar in the launch platform. That fact it was dead flat meaning it got the full force is the basic problem. The fact there is a small deflector in front of the fuel storage tanks is even more telling in their recklessness. Its like having the fuel fight from the film Zoolander. As I said I have a pilots license and have experience in hazard IDs & risk assessments for plant like that and its pretty damn obvious they IGNORED a lot of things and DO NOT deserve an FAA license to operate.
4
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
@Exkhaniber Thanks and sorry its so long but I am doing a lot of that type of costing and assessing work right now. I few years ago I put forward a AU$720 Million proposal for an Australian Space Program based on air launching. It was all about keeping costs down and focussing on what we needed which for Australia is Earth Observation technology to support our Agriculture and Tourism sectors. In Oz (combined) those 2 sectors employ about 850,000 people and are worth AU$255 Billion a year. So they are sort of massive to our economy. Considering both are highly vulnerable to Climate change I thought I'd at least get some questions. I got zip and the RAAF (our air force) got AU$7 Billion, which includes some of the Star Wars stuff that we we worked out back in the late 80s can NEVER WORK. So all this spending stuff is on my plate at the moment.
1