Comments by "Fred Bloggs" (@fredbloggs5902) on "SpaceX: BUSTED!! (Part 1)" video.

  1. I used to come here for the science. Now I come here to laugh at Phil Mason’s mindless ranting as he destroys his own credibility and career.
    29
  2. If a new Falcon-9 costs $62m. The first stage and fairing are reused. First stage costs $36m Fairing costs $6m That’s a total of $42m If they each do 7 missions that’s $6m per mission Add the cost of the rest of the rocket at $20m ($62m - $36m - $6m). That a mission cost of $26m. If they’re charging $50m that’s a nice profit margin.
    28
  3. If a new Falcon-9 costs $62m. The first stage and fairing are reused. First stage costs $36m Fairing costs $6m That’s a total of $42m If they each do 7 missions that’s $6m per mission Add the cost of the rest of the rocket at $20m ($62m - $36m - $6m). That a mission cost of $26m..
    14
  4. I used to watch thunderf00t for the genuinely interesting science... ...now I watch thunderf00t to see what deranged rant he’s having this time.
    12
  5.  @zombielinkinpark  - Thunderf00t being an academic is clueless about the real world, he’s probably never held down a real job in his entire life. He clearly has that snobbery of thinking he’s superior to everyone else. Those who can, do, those who can’t, teach.
    10
  6. Thunderf00t no longer cares about facts.
    9
  7.  @paulos9900  - when SpaceX quote the launch price to a customer, I’m guessing they don’t bill the customer a month later for all the extras you’ve dreamed up on top of the original quote.
    6
  8. That’s a reflection of how his audience has changed.
    6
  9.  @alejandroalonso8642  - the calculations showing thunderf00t is wrong are very simple and his lies are blatant. Eg. The Falcon-9 is human rated having already taken crew to the ISS twice.
    6
  10. This being a factual statement of a crime and not opinion is defamation per se. I suggest you change the wording.
    5
  11. Give examples or admit you’re clueless
    4
  12.  @lewispowell1681  - except the shuttle was a death trap that killed people.
    4
  13. How about outright lying?
    4
  14. Once the Czech Academy of Sciences realise what he’s been up, he’ll be working in McDonald’s.
    3
  15. The reuse break-even calculation by thunderf00t is massively wrong because he’s using an outdated figure for refurbishment costs. The correct figure is now down to $250,000.
    3
  16. This entire channel is now clearly dedicated to inciting hatred toward Elon Musk, possibly defamatory, and should be terminated immediately by YouTube in my opinion. Why anyone, particularly a reputable research institute would employ such a vile and bigoted person is totally beyond me.
    3
  17.  @ashutoshgoyal8274  - that’s a good point, but we now know that the engines are rarely replaced, so it’s mainly consumables like the crush-legs. The turnaround is down to less than a month so the labour costs can’t be much. Let’s say $2m total? I’d expect the original price of $62m has dropped by now due to the savings of mass production. The mission costs are probably down to around $20m by now.
    3
  18. Do the calculations yourself and you’ll see how blatantly thunderf00t is lying.
    3
  19. Do the calculations yourself and you’ll see how blatantly thunderf00t is lying.
    3
  20. In this video, thunderf00t confuses the discounted price ($50m) offered to customers to incentivise them to use a previously flown rocket which is then expended... ...And the price charged for a launch which is THEN reused. The prices charged for these aren’t published.
    3
  21. That’s a great link, thanks.
    3
  22.  @shazmosushi  - the $50m is the discounted customer price for using a ‘used’ Falcon-9 instead of the full $62m for a brand new one. BOTH of these prices are for the full 22,800 kg to LEO and without further reuse. I haven’t seen any pricing for the 15,600 Kg launches that allow reuse whether for a brand-new or previously-used rocket.
    3
  23.  @shazmosushi  - Excellent! I was thinking of doing one myself, but I’m too lazy. Maybe thunderf00t is really a secret plan to recruit new YouTubers!
    3
  24. In ten years Musk will have reduced the cost to orbit so low that a PTA will be able to afford to launch their own cubesat or a group of amateur astronomers their own telescope... ...I’m guessing thunderf00t will take full advantage of this while conveniently forgetting about his embarrassing ranting.
    3
  25. Brave? Or just stupid? ...or a clever grifter wanting the clicks.
    3
  26. The booster makes up 60% of the total price, the fairing another 10%, thunderf00t can’t do basic math, who knew?
    3
  27. You’re mixing the issues of price and reuse in the wrong way. A customer can choose a brand new Falcon-9 launch for $62m or a previously used Falcon-9 launch for $50m. Both of these prices are for the SAME payload of 22,800 kg. (You got your pricing slightly wrong as well). If the customer has opted for the maximum payload then reuse of stage-1 is not possible. This appears to happen more often with GTO orbits, probably because not many customers need a 22 ton satellite in LEO. I don’t know the cost for smaller payloads that allow reuse, I haven’t found any published figures.
    3
  28. Maybe, but he also delivers
    2
  29.  @thegreatpaulsmith  - self driving cars are widely predicted by 2025, not just Musk.
    2
  30.  @thegreatpaulsmith  - here’s a hint, you’re clueless.
    2
  31. Also the first stage and fairing are reused. First stage costs $36m Fairing costs $6m If they each do 7 missions that’s a total of $6m per mission Add the cost of the rest of the rocket at $20m ($62m - $36m - $6m). That a mission cost of $26m. If they’re charging $50m that’s a nice profit margin.
    2
  32. Stage-1s cost $36 million. Refurbishing a Stage-1 costs $250,000.
    2
  33. So do your own calculations, thunderf00t is clearly clueless.
    2
  34.  @lemsrache8377  - how do you construe my suggesting you do the calculations for yourself as me being a scholar?... ...oh wait, you don’t know how.
    2
  35. Until Rogan tears his arguments apart, the calculations aren’t hard and the lies are blatant... Falcon-9 IS human rated and has already taken two crews to the ISS.
    2
  36.  @ashutoshgoyal8274  - the refurbished cost of a Falcon-9 includes the cost of inspection and maintenance.
    2
  37.  @ashutoshgoyal8274  1) The $62m figure has remained the same for 5 years now, anyone who thinks the cost of production hasn’t fallen with mass production is delusional. 2) My calculation for the $20m cost of the rest of the rocket/services/refurb is clearly shown, it’s the total ($62m) minus the stage-1 ($36m) and fairing ($6m). 3) Given that the fuel cost per launch is only $200,000, it’s pretty obvious that the total cost per launch can fall below $20m simply through the stage-2 fabrication cost falling from mass production.
    2
  38. Do the calculations yourself and you’ll how thunderf00t is blatantly lying.
    2
  39.  @dantosinferne  - I have
    2
  40. You clearly aren’t a ‘critical thinker’.
    2
  41. Just do the math, the savings from reuse outweigh all other concerns. The fuel for a Falcon-9 costs $200,000 which is 0.3% the cost of the rocket.
    2
  42.  @shazmosushi  - if the price for a previously used launch of 22,800 kg to LEO is $50m, how can they possibly charge the same for only 15,600 kg? Just to reiterate, the $50 million is the discount to the customer for a previously used booster to be a throwaway and getting 22,800 kg to LEO It’s NOT for a to-be-reused booster which only gets 15,600kg to LEO. If I’m wrong, please provide a reputable source for your claim that getting 15,600 kg to LEO costs $50 million ($3,205 per kg.). (Bearing in mind that SpaceX‘s own website quotes $62 for a brand new rocket to take 22,800kg to LEO = $2,719 per kg.).
    2
  43.  @shazmosushi  - ok, no worries, it’s all fairly academic because SpaceX are so much cheaper than any of the competition that there’s no pressure on them to lower prices any further. They’ve already been accused of ‘dumping’ by their competitors. SpaceX probably simply charge around $2,000 per kilogram and top-up any launches with Starlink satellites if there’s any spare capacity.
    2
  44. It’s kinda hilarious how haters like you cling to him not inventing anything new when it doesn’t matter, it’s the execution that matters.
    2
  45. Starlink exists, with more users every day.
    2
  46.  @WaxPaper  - since you’re obviously an expert, please explain how they used parachutes to land on the moon when the moon has no atmosphere.
    2
  47.  @WaxPaper  - You claim NASA will never allow a crew to land using vectored thrust (I have no idea why you have this belief). I’ve pointed out that they did it over fifty years ago when men landed on the moon. Why do you think there’s something special about it?
    2
  48.  @Jono98806  - I’m not claiming 100x but a Falcon-9 with reuse now gets 1kg to LEO for around $700.
    2
  49. Except cost is not price.
    2
  50. Moot, not mute.
    2
  51. Sure, and PayPal is a figment of our collective imaginations.
    2
  52. Elon musk has openly stated that the refurbishment cost is $250,000 per launch. However thunderf00t is either too lazy to have researched it, or too biased to admit it.
    2
  53. Do the calculations yourself and you’ll see how blatantly thunderf00t is lying.
    2
  54. Citation needed
    2
  55. It’s not just marketing.
    2
  56. Just do the calculations yourself, thunderf00t is blatantly lying.
    2
  57. Do the calculations yourself and you’ll see how blatantly thunderf00t is lying.
    2
  58. Except the Dragon capsule exists and works fine.
    2
  59. Thunderf00t’s employers should fire him, he’s an embarrassment.
    2
  60. All the thunderf00t fans do are attack opposing statements of fact as being fanboys. They’re incapable of arguing the facts because they don’t have any.
    2
  61.  @Machistmo  - the math involved is very simple, why don’t you try it for yourself?
    2
  62.  @MTd2  thunderf00t’s blatant distortion of the facts when he’s supposed to be a scientist reflects badly on the Czech Academy of Sciences decision to continue to employ him. If they employ such people, how can any of their research results be relied upon?
    2
  63.  @MTd2  1) Falcon-9 is crew rated 2) He ignores inflation 3) Refurbishment costs $250,000 not $24,000,000 4) Price is not cost
    2
  64.  @Machistmo  - we know that already, Phil Mason very obviously does these videos for the money.
    2
  65. When the cost to launch a cubesat is down to $1,000 every high school in the country will want their own, that’s quite a demand.
    1
  66. Musk has stated that the basic fuel cost of a Falcon 9 launch is $200,000 as a way to illustrate potential savings through reuse. What journalists then do with that information is out of his control.
    1
  67.  @plainText384  - claiming the $62m cost of a Falcon-9 excludes the fuel which represents 0.3% of the cost is pretty pathetic, is that the best you can do?
    1
  68.  @plainText384  - Musk says refurbishment of a stage-1 costs $250,000 and that a single launch now costs a total of $15m when using refurbished parts.
    1
  69. Falcon 9 launches are now down to around $20m. That’s a lot more than 10% cheaper. Elon’s principle of calculating things from first principles combined with the fact that the fuel cost is only $20,000 clearly shows there’s room for large savings.
    1
  70. To be clear, the 10x claim was made by NASA, not Elon.
    1
  71. Until he gets fired
    1
  72. Do the calculations yourself and you’ll see how blatantly thunderf00t is lying.
    1
  73.  @ashutoshgoyal8274  - read my replies again, your comprehension isn’t very good.
    1
  74.  @vvslavavv  - the launch on 20th Jan was its 8th reuse.
    1
  75.  @ashutoshgoyal8274  - 1) To be clear, I said the individual mission cost was probably down to $20m, NOT the cost of a new rocket. Try to read what I put, not what you wish I’d put. 2) Name another company that’s launching weekly. 3) $20m is LESS than $25m so they’re already cheaper than your claimed minimum possible. 4) Given that the fuel cost is only $200,000 to launch a Falcon-9, it’s clearly possible for a fully reusable rocket to be a great deal cheaper (per kg into LEO) than currently.
    1
  76.  @ashutoshgoyal8274  - 1) Musk says a Falcon-9 with reuse costs a total of $15m per launch. 2) China had around the same number of launches in 2020 as SpaceX (30). SpaceX are aiming at 50 in 2021.
    1
  77.  @ashutoshgoyal8274  1) I said SpaceX and China had ‘around the same number of launches’. SpaceX had 31, China had 35, big deal. Do you think China will manage 50 this year? Also China have zero reuse so the number of launches tell them virtually nothing. 2) I’ve already given you my calculations and they give results virtually identical to Musk’s. 3) Given that the engines are the most expensive item and each rocket requires 6 of them, they’ve made over 360 engines, the benefits of mass production are clear.
    1
  78.  @dantosinferne  - they’re here if you want them, it’s not my fault that you’re too lazy to look.
    1
  79. I suspect the only reason other launch services say they are moving towards reusability is embarrassment. They really hate it because it commoditises their business and hits their profit margins.
    1
  80.  @ianjohannes7524  me too 🤣
    1
  81. You’ve described a hybrid, they’re a dead end for very obvious reasons.
    1
  82.  @virginiamiller3521  - no, you like most people have misinterpreted the published prices for SpaceX. $62m is specifically for a new rocket to LEO with a payload too big to allow first stage recovery. $50m is specifically for a launch using a previously flown stage-1 booster to LEO with a payload too big to allow first stage recovery. The payloads that allow attempted recovery of stage-1 are significantly smaller (almost half) and enable SpaceX to save a lot of money on future launches through the reuse, so these launches will cost significantly less. I would GUESS a new rocket allowing reuse would cost around $45m and a used rocket allowing reuse to be $30m.
    1
  83. Except you’re wrong, he is.
    1
  84.  @shazmosushi  - I’m sure you’re right but please provide a source for the flat $50m with only a reusable launch being available.
    1
  85.  @shazmosushi  - I’m not seeing a price.
    1
  86.  @bluesrockfan36  - why are you asking me? I haven’t stated any prices for the Space Shuttle.
    1
  87.  @bluesrockfan36  $1,500,000,000 / 27,000 = $55,555 per kg. ($1.5b / 27 Tons = $56k per kg). There are 1,000 millions in a billion and 1,000 kg in a metric ton. If we’re really generous and write off the r&d and take the additional cost of a launch in a year then we get $252,000,000 per launch of 27,500 kg. This is equal to $9,164 per kg. A new F9 to LEO throwaway price is $62,000,000 for 22,800kg which is $2,719 per kg. That’s around 1/3 of the price per kg of the shuttle. A used F9 to LEO throwaway price is $50,000,000 for 22,800kg which is $2,193 per kg. That’s around 1/4 of the price per kg of the shuttle. Just for comparison, the claimed MARGINAL COST of a used F9 to LEO of 15,600 kg (thereby allowing further reuse) is $15,000,000 which is $962 per kg. This is around 1/10 the cost of the shuttle but note this is the internal cost to SpaceX ie. the cost of a StarLink launch. With 60 Starlink satellites per launch that’s a cost of $250,000 per sat of which 12,000 are needed so a total launch cost of around $3 billion which fits nicely with the estimated total cost of Starlink at $10 billion allowing each satellite to cost around $500,000 to build. Note that a total of 200 launches are needed which at 50 per year will only take 4 years!
    1
  88.  @peterdoa1  - so what?
    1
  89.  @aquaria5634  - if you bothered to do the calculations yourself then you’d see how wrong thunderf00t is.
    1
  90.  @WaxPaper  - When they landed men on the moon more than 50 years ago, they used rockets. Your claim is false. Also SpaceX ARE human rated, they’ve taken crews to the ISS twice now.
    1
  91.  @clodman84  - read it again, he’s saying SpaceX is without parachutes.
    1
  92.  @WaxPaper  The lunar module did use vectored thrust, as did all 3 stages of the Saturn V.
    1
  93.  @WaxPaper  - your claim was incorrect, parachutes were not used, vectored thrust was used. You said they didn’t at all, you did not state landing on Earth. The principles are the same regardless.
    1
  94.  @WaxPaper  - I’ve already told you the lunar module uses vectored thrust.
    1
  95. A major saving from using SpaceX is that more reliable launches drive down the cost of insuring the satellite which was typically around 15% and is now down to 5%, on a $200m satellite that’s a saving of $20m which is pretty significant.
    1
  96. Now do the math for yourself.
    1
  97.  @VolksTrieb  If a new Falcon-9 costs $62m. The first stage and fairing are reused. First stage costs $36m Fairing costs $6m That’s a total of $42m If they each do 7 missions that’s $6m per mission Add the cost of the rest of the rocket at $20m ($62m - $36m - $6m). That a mission cost of $26m.
    1
  98. Comparing Falcon-9 to a vehicle permanently grounded for killing people shows the depths Thunderf00t will sink to in order to get clicks. He’s utterly vile and brings discredit to the Czech Academy of Sciences.
    1
  99.  @OzearEimaj  - it was grounded for 3 years and thereafter only went to the ISS and required a permanent rescue mission on standby because everyone knew it was a disaster waiting to happen with no means of escape.
    1
  100. Ok, who else has reached SpaceX’s level or reuse and reliability?
    1
  101.  @9019  - citation needed, you can’t count a vehicle that was so dangerous it was permanently grounded.
    1
  102. Quote figures or admit you’re lying
    1
  103. @NRG 2000 - except the $62 million is the PRICE not the COST. Look for yourself on either Wikipedia or the SpaceX website.
    1
  104. @NRG 2000 - refurbishing a stage-1 costs $250,000, a new one costs $36,000,000.
    1
  105. @NRG 2000 The price of a new Falcon-9 is public information at $62m. Stage-1 is around 60% of the total. Refurbishing takes a month, is around 50:50 parts and labour and involves 4 to 8 people.
    1
  106. The $62m is the throwaway price, for a new rocket The $50m is the throwaway price for a previously used rocket. They price for a rocket that will be reused is not published.
    1
  107. Musk didn’t make the 10x claim, NASA did.
    1
  108. No, no he didn’t.
    1
  109. Neither is thunderf00t
    1
  110. An accusation of fraud is defamation per se. I suggest you edit or delete your comment.
    1
  111. Musk did a degree in physics, that’s how he knows stuff.
    1
  112. Especially considering Bob ended up in the Czech Republic to get a job.
    1
  113. 1) Trump was a Democrat, he only ran as a Republican to gain office. 2) There’s no evidence that Musk is left.
    1
  114.  @kyleisreallycool  1) Falcon-9 is crew rated, he says it isn’t 2) He ignores inflation 3) He confuses cost with price 4) His cost for refurbishment is hopelessly out of date
    1
  115.  @matejmacek5784  - 1) thunderf00t confuses cost and price. SpaceX are the cheapest so they have no pressure to reduce their price. 2) The newer falcons have significantly more thrust and carry more fuel so they are more capable of reuse. 3) I’m not disputing that reuse reduces payload, but without knowing the launch price there’s no way to know the economics. 4) SpaceX own website only states the throwaway price 5) If the customer demands a launch that precludes reuse, there’s not a lot SpaceX can do about that, this affects the reuse figure averages and has nothing to do with the reusability of the components
    1
  116. The 2nd stages deorbit and burn up
    1