Very little information can be found about SpaceX suppliers since this is a highly sensitive industry, but I'm still looking into this supplier problem of SpaceX, the fact is, many failures in the industry are caused by a small component manufactured by a tiny supplier. If anyone knows more about this, don't hesitate to send me a message over Twitter. One sentence in the video bugs me a lot after watching it myself, I said " having errors in SpaceX abort system is necessary", I meant having errors during TEST phase of course.
You missed another complication of what the established space industry means to SpaceX/Crewed Dragon. NASA actively rooting for the other team. Note that *SpaceX* feels they'll have something *they* are willing to use *independent* of NASA for Starliner in *one* year. And they haven't *said* this, but ... they can "Man rate it" by simply flying it an outrageous number of times autonomously. Real data trumps simulations if you can actually do the real experiment. Which they can. (They have a *lot* of Starlink satellites to launch.)
Yes and NASA is trying to find a way to salvage this for Boeing, so they don't have to repeat it, and can go directly to crewed mission next. Makes me sick at heart. It is NOT a level playing field.
@@davidcadman4468 i understand your frustration, i woudl preffer Orion and delta IV medium instead of commercial crew program, fully tested, cheaper than soyuz, amd partialy reusable, with still nice crew capacity of 4.
Comparing new companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin to the legacy companies is not a fair comparison. They work under 2 very different parameters. 1st is cost. SpaceX was forced into a fixed-price contract and problems are solved at their own expense. Boeing has the common cost-plus contract so overruns are just charged to us. If SpaceX contracts for 2 bil. they have to negotiate to get more. If Boeing contracts for 2 bil. and that's actually a third of their desire, they can add 4 bil more and still be under contract. It's an incentive to low-ball initial bids with the premeditated intent to add costs the get.whatever they desire. Hard to budget costs that way. The legacy companies use their history as bargaining points. For crew dragon, SpaceX got just over 2 bil. on the initial contract. Boeing for starliner bid just a bit more then went back a few months and demanded 4+ billion or they would abandon NASA's crew program and leave them with only "unproven" SpaceX. Nasa had to capitulate so now they have a 4+bil. cost-plus contract and we still have no idea what final costs will be. Lastly, there's a difference in testing. SpaceX has an open evaluation process so every detail and subcontractor is scrutinized. The initial crew dragon successfully docked and returned on Demo1 but was tested a month after return for its abort draco2 rockets and a contractor's faulty valve caused the explosion. Being transparent, we saw a video of the explosion and Nasa and SpaceX worked to resolve the problem. They now have performed enough static tests that they're scheduled for a Jan. 11th launch abort test Boeing is not being asked to perform. Boeing testing is mostly behind doors and trusted because of legacy. But look at the last few months. They recently did a pad abort test they say they passed but had 2 major failures. 1 they lost a parachute that somehow detached and 2 the service module crashed near the capsule leaving a large cloud of toxic gas that made the capsule unapproachable until the cloud cleared. But it's considered a successful test. Just the other day starliner launched on it's demo1 ISS flight. Most didn't know that their Atlas booster had never flown with a dual rocket Centaur upper stage though that Centaur configuration has successfully flown with other boosters. The test failed and they're returning the capsule bypassing the ISS. We are getting little info on what went wrong. Was it hardware, software, or clock confusion, you guess first. Will they have to perform a successful demo1 to move on? I've worked in this industry years ago with Boeing and other legacy companies. I was very impressed with most engineering staff. Management usually were behind problems. Remember the shuttle Challenger explosion? The engineering staff called for no launch because the cold conditions were beyond safety parameters. So poor management decisions overrode it causing the deaths of 7 who trusted them and the loss of the Challenger. Oh well, all in a day's work. sorry for the rant.
A couple things: You say transparency when talking about the Crew Dragon's rapid unscheduled disassembly, but that was leaked footage that was never officialy revealed. Not saying that SpaceX isn't incredibly transparent, especially as compared to other companies, but that wasn't an example of it. I'm not sure why you bring up the Atlas V and the Dual-engined Centaur, because those worked perfectly on OFT. They also released a statement explaining what happened; an error in the spacecrafts internal clock that resulted in an inaccurate orbital insertion burn. What the cause of that error is most likely still under investigation, so using it as an example of Boeing not being transparent seems a little premature to me. Again, not saying that Boeing is a transparent company, because they're not, but this isn't yet an example of it. If more information comes out that contradicts this comment or there's something I've missed, feel free to correct me and disregard these statements.
You sure wasted your time on a bunch of horseshit. Like most you fail to reckon the development cost of cargo dragon, funded by NASA, into the equation. Crew dragon is merely the evolution of cargo dragon and was funded proportionately based on that. Spacex says: "Currently Dragon carries cargo to space, but it was designed from the beginning to carry humans". I guess you also missed the many GAO reports that found faulty QA/QC not only on spacex but their suppliers who often forged material specs.
@@giglefreakz according to spacex it is: "Currently Dragon carries cargo to space, but it was designed from the beginning to carry humans". www.spacex.com/dragon
Let's be clear, though, that both SpaceX and Boeing had to accept fixed price SAA and FAR contracts for Commercial Crew. The extra $287.2 million Boeing wheedled out of NASA does fly in the face of that, but Boeing is still technically building their capsule on a fixed price contract, which is not something they like doing.
@jimbo jones How is Elon going to make money taking people to Mars? He said himself that if he wanted to make money, he would have just made another internet company
@@PassportGaming i dont go back and forth with idiots so all i have to say is you can do anything in the world (or out of this world) if you have enough money. dreams dont get you anywhere.
I do remember reading a story very similar to what Max Vozoff says in this video about SpaceX had to call a supplier for a specific part..this supplier was the ONLY company that made the part and they were gouging the price. It was a very difficult part to make but SpaceX was determined to figure it out, they would have to 3D print it..months later the supplier called and asked "how is everything going with that part?" and SpaceX simply said "yes, we made it so we don't need your service". In that same story I think Elon Musk said SpaceX makes something like 75% of their own parts with plans to make a lot more.
@@Daniel-cy2ph Failed to get into the correct orbit to rendezvous with the ISS due to a clock not functioning properly and have to call the mission off and land early.
I think the brain drain problem does not really affect spacex directly. Most young engineers want to work there. However indirectly they will be affected if the firms that supply them dont have eniugh skilled personnel.
Another reason why Crew Dragon is constantly delayed could be the fact that Space X doesn't go the slow "simulator and approval" way, but they tend to prefer real life tests over it. That's why, when they changed to Mk3 chutes, they were asked to do "at least" 10 succesfull consecutive tests with it. They also got away with a "NASA approved" component after they discovered the cause of Crew Dragon blowing up, or it would have taken even longer to consider it solved. We saw it when they tried to propulsive land Falcon 9 for the first time, they failed a lot but it wasn't "mission critical" so we didn't see Space X stop launching it because they couldn't land it. This time every little detail is critical, so NASA can ask Space X to push it back until everything is certified and tested enough (and only them can say when is enough unfortunately).
Rama Raditya Absolutely. This is NOT a problem unique to SpaceX AT ALL. The entire US space industry works in this same environment, so it’s the same challenge Boeing, Blue Origin, and Virgin have to deal with. SpaceX in the title and thesis was just a headline manipulation.
4:08(pause) I can't confidently decode this word salad. My take is : SpaceX would cancel a suppliers contract if they couldn't meet budget constraints but these suppliers who are used to getting their way would scoff at the idea and SpaceX would only contact them afterwards if and when they figured out a way of doing it within budget or found a supplier with the capacity to do it with non-orbital systems and work with them to make the component space-worthy.
@@mr.boomguy it's English as a second language. I'm a voice actor and offer(ed) my services to Lei to proof his videos, free of charge. Lei if you are listening my Twitter is @jesseconnell
@@VincentKarabouladMusique I don't know if that is sarcasm or not... Everyone could benefit from proofing. Even Tim Dodd does it with his Patrons. Lei has a typo every now and then in his graphics or in his grammar. Also I think many people still find his pronunciation of "Falcon Ni" vs "NiNE" a bit off and can easily be fixed with some coaching.
Well, Congress & NASA did not fully fund Commercial Crew development during the initial few years. That delayed both Commercial Crew developers by a few years.
the in-flight abort test is a voluntary test on SpaceX's part. The Starliner (that had parachutes fail to open on it's pad-abort test, and failed to reach the ISS during it's orbital test flight) isn't going to do an in-flight abort test before it's first crewed mission. the delay of Crew Dragon is due more to the management of the Commercial Crew Program than it has to do with SpaceX or Boeing. --- development of Starship will move at a quick pace, comparatively.
-This is a very concise, simple and to the point illumination of a serious problem. -One point I want to make also, is the procurement of certain parts is impeded by the vendor because they have been selling this part to another manufacturer and feel that it is now a proprietary item and only sell to the longtime customer. When in fact it is not. But the roadblock exists. EXAMPLE: When NASA was considering the Falcon Heavy to carry it's Orion capsule, it needed a bigger fairing. An adapter ring can be made to do this easily. But the company that made the fairing refuses to sell to Spacex, claiming that even though their other customer does not have a patent, they feel it is proprietary to the original customer. NASA could help with this issue but refuses.
This is an excellent presentation, pointing out the difficulties of dealing with suppliers in the space industry, and the distortion in the availability of highly qualified STEM personnel caused by the ridiculously profitable financial and Internet markets. You mention the difficulties with the safety systems, but I also suspect that the late decision to switch from landing on land to landing on the sea has greatly delayed the program, because Crew Dragon has retained the escape rocket motors, originally also intended for retropropulsive landing, within the re-entry capsule. That's a large load of hypergolic fuel on board, more than needed for in-orbit manoeuvering, and it's carried down through re-entry until landing. The Boeing Starliner, using parachutes for landing from the get-go, has its motors in the service module, discarded before landing or re-entry. The first Crew Dragon was destroyed by a mishap involving its hypergolic fuel system. While US spaceraft have used hypergolic fuels for thrusters and manoeuvering since Gemini, the original Mercury spacecraft and the Russian Soyuz used or use hydrogen peroxide, which has a rather short "shelf life" and limits Soyuz to about six months in space. Hydrogen peroxide is much safer and less toxic than hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, for example, though with lower specific impulse. Sergei Korolev, Chief Designer of Soyuz, had a deep distrust of hypergolic fuels, which also led to the N-1 heavy booster being designed for kerosene and LOX. It would be ironic and sad if Korolev's greatest emulator, Elon Musk, would fail because of hypergolic fuels.
It's a very interesting video and it adds another point about the delay, but I'm sure there's more to Crew Dragon delays than suppliers. Gwen Shotwell explained the delays in some interview recently, and she mentioned several factors, like slow government funding, switch from propulsive vertical landing to classical approach with parachute because it would be impossible to get it certified by NASA otherwise etc. Nevertheless, really enjoy your videos and the research you put into them!
Both SpaceX and Boeing have had problems with abort systems and parachutes. To date, only SpaceX crew dragon has docked to ISS. SpaceX has an advantage because of cargo dragon successful rendezvous with the ISS.
Good treatment. And we shouldn't forget that, if Crew Dragon has been delayed in development, Boeing's Starliner has been even farther behind in schedule - despite charging 60% more, and having a far longer heritage in space vehicle development.
It seems that you ignored one other reason, that being that NASA is a bunch of scardy cats. SpaceX wanted to do powered landings, NASA didn't want to. Elsewhere on UA-cam I saw a video talking about launch abort systems, how SpaceX is trying to get away from them, since they introduce another factor of complexity that is seldom used and has caused problems in the past rather than helping avoid them. So, here is both Starliner and Crew Dragon having problems with parachutes, because NASA doesn't want to do powered landings. But failures have happened with tests of the parachutes. Crew Dragon was originally designed with the "killing two birds with one stone" of the launch abort/landing rockets. Now they are only good for launch abort. That video also spoke about why Starship is going without any launch abort system, other than Starship launching itself off of an exploding Super Heavy, which I understand is in itself problematic...
Congress underfunded the commercial crew program for the first several years. This is one of the greatest reasons it's behind schedule. CCP has been going long before 2014 when the contracts were awarded. Bureaucracy within NASA and Boeing and Lockheed also have had a lot to do with delays.
crew dragon got delayed due to government shutdown and then the capsule suffered an observation after returning from the ISS and they had to move the schedule around. it's still ahead of starliner, which got additional funding, doesn't need to test anything, and gets a pass in all their failures...
Interesting stuff. I remember the dodgy safety passes incident :~) Happy holidays to you and yours, if you celebrate any :~) btw "worries me about SpaceX"
NASA specked the crew dragon and set specs such that only a few, or sometimes only one, supplier could meet them. It’s pretty much a given that NASA wrote the specs to favor the established players.
The delay is 100% due to NASA via 2 quirks of the way they operate. It has nothing to do with suppliers. Quirk #1: they divide projects into pieces and only pay for one piece at a time with payments often being delayed. Quirk #2: NASA requires that all changes receive NASA engineering approval which can take months per change. NASA funding halts and engineering holds make up the overwhelming proportion of the delay on the Crew Dragon project.
Alot of negative comments because boing just failed, well they have the same problem with subcontracting too... They just lack the ambition and push back in making it better.
If I remember correctly, the crew dragon was going to be propulsive landed. NASA forced SpaceX to move to parachutes, which has been the delay. Did I misunderstand the history of this?
Welp, seeing how bad commercial crew program goes right now, i won't be suprised that NASA will just start sending Orion on Delta IV, beacuse it already passed all tests, and basicly is ready. I mean, hey, it woudl be nice to finally get it going, while NASA had to buy another 2 seats on soyuz this week, it's shame that they can't make it.
The usual high quality thinking! The supply industry needs more competition to upgrade their performance. This is why competition between makers of launch vehicles is so important - that is where the pressure for the supply industry to improve starts.
You left out the fact that Congress cut funding a couple years too in the budget. That alone has kept it from being ready by end of 2019, chute and ifa systems aside.
So, pretty much every Space project runs over on time and usually money. Most are delayed by years. Look at James Webb, it was supposed to fly in 2014 originally. Now on deck for (fingers crossed) 2021. However there are 3 main reasons SpaceX hasn't flown crew to the station yet. 1. The program was underfunded by Congress for most years of the program. 2. NASA keeps moving the goal posts. Requirements were changed multiple times, sometimes pretty late in the process. and 3. NASA's commercial space office is under funded and lacking personel. They are horribly behind on their certification process.
since a test Crew Dragon blew up on the stand supposedly to the Draco engins or the plumbing that connects them NASA could be hesitant about docking the Dragon to the ISS fully fueled. I always wondered idls the Draco engines we're fueled during the test missions. Thanks for the update and vid Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 🎉
Between all US crewed programs (Orion, Starliner & Crew Dragon), I am the least worried about SpaceX, as that thing already flew, docked flawlessly and made it back to Earth in one piece. I have no idea where you drew that title of yours from?
If you want to make a part two to this video, you can look into the story of SpaceX attempt to buy a bigger fairing (nose cone) to carry bigger satellites. These fairings are highly advanced and very expensive (thing $6 million each) but the company (RUAG) wouldn't sell to SpaceX because they were part owned by ULA which is a competitor to SpaceX. As for why the Dragon Crew capsule is taking so long to make, its because 1. Space is hard and 2. NASA keeps changing the requirements (removing landing thrusters, removing room for extra seats in Dragon). SpaceX signed a fixed price contract for the Dragon Crew program, so NASA can change whatever they want without paying more.
You sir have highlighted so much! Facts. Especially on the NASA crew mission. Total bumble Fuck for spacex since day 1 because of NASA. They've lost their bug for innovation like they used to do and were founded for. Notice it has taken them how many decades since concorde to reengage flight mechanics research heavily. Alas no, weather satellites are more important and earth science studies.
The only thing that spacex doesnt build themselves is a little guiding box per Gwynne Shotwell and the steel is bought from the Netherlands. The rest is all built in house
You make some very good points here my friend. Normally, saying anything that questions Spacex in the comments results in a barrage of unsavoury replies. The entrenched culture in the U.S space industry is set up in a way that ensures the flow of dollars to country wide space component manufacturers. This has been the case since the inception of NASA. The ideology from the get go was to make the space race a truly national enterprise. To achieve this, NASA was obligated to spread the manufacturing of components to all corners of the U.S.A. The result we have now is the wonderfully archaic, obsolete SLS with probably the most advanced crew cabin Orion on top, and the all the issues you mentioned about Spacex not being able to access critical components form "the boys club" culture of certain manufacturers. This is why Spacex has to design, develop and test everything themselves, which in turn, has delayed the Crew Dragon capsule far longer than necessary. Great upload my friend...peace.
ULA was started by court order when boeing and lockheed were caught stealing from each other- they are defense contractors and cannot be considered commercial. (imo)
Claiming a priori having foreseen possible bad outcomes by guesswork or with little or bad information, does make the claimed events correct if they occur, but doesn't give away anything about having the correct approach or appliance of reason in drawing of conclusions and sure as hell doesn't by any standards entitle to claim intellectual superiority in the field.
Excellent video. Excellent channel and I more or less watch everything that you put out. But please correct the typo dude as it makes you look unprofessional and as an analyst then you need to be spot on otherwise it could erode trust. Thanks.
SpaceX has done a great job of quality control so far on Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, and Crew Dragon. But I am really disappointed in their recent shoddy work on Starship. With no apparent plans for improvement. No launch abort system planed. And no factory planned to build in a controlled environment.
Is not just Crew Dragon, Starliner has been having problems, basically the CCP has been hit bad with delays, 2020 needs to be the year that both companies deliver
They have trouble getting Crewdragon of the ground and you are expecting miracles with Starship whom has many concepts never twsted before? The key thing here is that SpaceX has zero hours of manned spaceflight experienve and only one test mission with a manned capable capsule thats the least complicated thing flying compared to deep space missions. J.
You didn't even mention that Boeing's contraption will cost more than the Soyuz which price reduction was the whole point of the program in the first place.
Very little information can be found about SpaceX suppliers since this is a highly sensitive industry, but I'm still looking into this supplier problem of SpaceX, the fact is, many failures in the industry are caused by a small component manufactured by a tiny supplier. If anyone knows more about this, don't hesitate to send me a message over Twitter.
One sentence in the video bugs me a lot after watching it myself, I said " having errors in SpaceX abort system is necessary", I meant having errors during TEST phase of course.
yo elephant there's a typo in the title
stfu don't tell him what to do
You missed another complication of what the established space industry means to SpaceX/Crewed Dragon.
NASA actively rooting for the other team.
Note that *SpaceX* feels they'll have something *they* are willing to use *independent* of NASA for Starliner in *one* year. And they haven't *said* this, but ... they can "Man rate it" by simply flying it an outrageous number of times autonomously. Real data trumps simulations if you can actually do the real experiment. Which they can. (They have a *lot* of Starlink satellites to launch.)
One thing that worries me...
FYI. Typo and the video title. I think you meant me instead of my.
Is no-one gonna mention the title?
EnGriSh...
Actually the dust bunny bugs me more :)
@@denispol79 Dust bunny???? Crap, now I'll have to watch the video again.
It's the 'Curious Elephant' in the room.
Well Boeing just failed the mission to dock with their capsule with ISS...
Al Fin Boeing is not having a good year , first the 737 then their new 777x failed a major safety test now this
There is certainly a reason to worry about the company who has been more successful, quicker and apparently even cheaper than Boeing
Well, that's beacuse of lack of satelite constellation.
Yes and NASA is trying to find a way to salvage this for Boeing, so they don't have to repeat it, and can go directly to crewed mission next. Makes me sick at heart. It is NOT a level playing field.
@@davidcadman4468 i understand your frustration, i woudl preffer Orion and delta IV medium instead of commercial crew program, fully tested, cheaper than soyuz, amd partialy reusable, with still nice crew capacity of 4.
At least Crew Dragon did reach the Station...
And so did the 19 cargo dragons while boeing want to fly crew after only one demo...
that was the same one that exploded right?
@@divedevil985 Yes. It was a valve that failed.
@@johntheux9238 a valve made of titanium which is known to be incompatible with the system it was used in.
At least Starliner didn’t blow the fuck up like Crew Dragon.
Comparing new companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin to the legacy companies is not a fair comparison. They work under 2 very different parameters. 1st is cost. SpaceX was forced into a fixed-price contract and problems are solved at their own expense. Boeing has the common cost-plus contract so overruns are just charged to us. If SpaceX contracts for 2 bil. they have to negotiate to get more. If Boeing contracts for 2 bil. and that's actually a third of their desire, they can add 4 bil more and still be under contract. It's an incentive to low-ball initial bids with the premeditated intent to add costs the get.whatever they desire. Hard to budget costs that way. The legacy companies use their history as bargaining points. For crew dragon, SpaceX got just over 2 bil. on the initial contract. Boeing for starliner bid just a bit more then went back a few months and demanded 4+ billion or they would abandon NASA's crew program and leave them with only "unproven" SpaceX. Nasa had to capitulate so now they have a 4+bil. cost-plus contract and we still have no idea what final costs will be. Lastly, there's a difference in testing. SpaceX has an open evaluation process so every detail and subcontractor is scrutinized. The initial crew dragon successfully docked and returned on Demo1 but was tested a month after return for its abort draco2 rockets and a contractor's faulty valve caused the explosion. Being transparent, we saw a video of the explosion and Nasa and SpaceX worked to resolve the problem. They now have performed enough static tests that they're scheduled for a Jan. 11th launch abort test Boeing is not being asked to perform. Boeing testing is mostly behind doors and trusted because of legacy. But look at the last few months. They recently did a pad abort test they say they passed but had 2 major failures. 1 they lost a parachute that somehow detached and 2 the service module crashed near the capsule leaving a large cloud of toxic gas that made the capsule unapproachable until the cloud cleared. But it's considered a successful test. Just the other day starliner launched on it's demo1 ISS flight. Most didn't know that their Atlas booster had never flown with a dual rocket Centaur upper stage though that Centaur configuration has successfully flown with other boosters. The test failed and they're returning the capsule bypassing the ISS. We are getting little info on what went wrong. Was it hardware, software, or clock confusion, you guess first. Will they have to perform a successful demo1 to move on? I've worked in this industry years ago with Boeing and other legacy companies. I was very impressed with most engineering staff. Management usually were behind problems. Remember the shuttle Challenger explosion? The engineering staff called for no launch because the cold conditions were beyond safety parameters. So poor management decisions overrode it causing the deaths of 7 who trusted them and the loss of the Challenger. Oh well, all in a day's work. sorry for the rant.
A couple things:
You say transparency when talking about the Crew Dragon's rapid unscheduled disassembly, but that was leaked footage that was never officialy revealed. Not saying that SpaceX isn't incredibly transparent, especially as compared to other companies, but that wasn't an example of it.
I'm not sure why you bring up the Atlas V and the Dual-engined Centaur, because those worked perfectly on OFT.
They also released a statement explaining what happened; an error in the spacecrafts internal clock that resulted in an inaccurate orbital insertion burn.
What the cause of that error is most likely still under investigation, so using it as an example of Boeing not being transparent seems a little premature to me.
Again, not saying that Boeing is a transparent company, because they're not, but this isn't yet an example of it.
If more information comes out that contradicts this comment or there's something I've missed, feel free to correct me and disregard these statements.
You sure wasted your time on a bunch of horseshit. Like most you fail to reckon the development cost of cargo dragon, funded by NASA, into the equation. Crew dragon is merely the evolution of cargo dragon and was funded proportionately based on that. Spacex says: "Currently Dragon carries cargo to space, but it was designed from the beginning to carry humans". I guess you also missed the many GAO reports that found faulty QA/QC not only on spacex but their suppliers who often forged material specs.
@@divedevil985 Crew Dragon is not "merely a modification" of Dragon, that's a gross over-simplification of things.
@@giglefreakz according to spacex it is: "Currently Dragon carries cargo to space, but it was designed from the beginning to carry humans". www.spacex.com/dragon
Let's be clear, though, that both SpaceX and Boeing had to accept fixed price SAA and FAR contracts for Commercial Crew. The extra $287.2 million Boeing wheedled out of NASA does fly in the face of that, but Boeing is still technically building their capsule on a fixed price contract, which is not something they like doing.
I would have been worried about their starship monopoly if Bezos was the CEO of SpaceX. That man’s main objective is money. But in Elon we trust🙌
@AntiangelRaphael In Musk We Thrust.
everyones main OBJ is money.
@jimbo jones How is Elon going to make money taking people to Mars? He said himself that if he wanted to make money, he would have just made another internet company
@@PassportGaming going to mars isnt free my dude. you need money. just use your brain for a little.
@@PassportGaming i dont go back and forth with idiots so all i have to say is you can do anything in the world (or out of this world) if you have enough money. dreams dont get you anywhere.
I do remember reading a story very similar to what Max Vozoff says in this video about SpaceX had to call a supplier for a specific part..this supplier was the ONLY company that made the part and they were gouging the price. It was a very difficult part to make but SpaceX was determined to figure it out, they would have to 3D print it..months later the supplier called and asked "how is everything going with that part?" and SpaceX simply said "yes, we made it so we don't need your service". In that same story I think Elon Musk said SpaceX makes something like 75% of their own parts with plans to make a lot more.
Eric Haynes
Brilliant! The only way to go! Just a pity that NASA is intrinsically linked to this culture through Congress.
Free NASA I say!!!!
My? ME!?!
Background music is so distracting
yes, im listening at x4 speed and it sounds weird
It's a bit loud.
The music is to loud
steffanp88 too*
Too*
Well it’s better than anything the star liner did last night, oh wait, that’s right, it failed
I would rather travel in the Dragon than the Starliner Max
But Crew Dragon doesn't have MCAS...
It’s a 737 max joke
Id choose starliner, beacuse looks like one of my first Ksp spacecrafts
of course you would. Most people choose bright and shiny over safe.
@@divedevil985 yeah... That's why i don't like starship. There is something... In it... That makes me not like it
This video didn’t age well given what happened today with Boeing
What happened?
Daniel Kemner they didn’t manage to dock to the ISS and crashed into the sun instead.
@@Daniel-cy2ph Failed to get into the correct orbit to rendezvous with the ISS due to a clock not functioning properly and have to call the mission off and land early.
"That worries my"? "MY"??
RIGHT
lol good english
a 2 year delay on something in the space industry is a blip on the radar, especially for manned vehicles. Just look at JWST or SLS
One can argue that acceptance of this fact only helps exacerbate the problem
Better than Starliner
I think the brain drain problem does not really affect spacex directly. Most young engineers want to work there. However indirectly they will be affected if the firms that supply them dont have eniugh skilled personnel.
Great job man but I feel sad because your views are not in proportion with the hardwork and quality in your videos...
Another reason why Crew Dragon is constantly delayed could be the fact that Space X doesn't go the slow "simulator and approval" way, but they tend to prefer real life tests over it.
That's why, when they changed to Mk3 chutes, they were asked to do "at least" 10 succesfull consecutive tests with it.
They also got away with a "NASA approved" component after they discovered the cause of Crew Dragon blowing up, or it would have taken even longer to consider it solved.
We saw it when they tried to propulsive land Falcon 9 for the first time, they failed a lot but it wasn't "mission critical" so we didn't see Space X stop launching it because they couldn't land it.
This time every little detail is critical, so NASA can ask Space X to push it back until everything is certified and tested enough (and only them can say when is enough unfortunately).
Duh, they can't make a mistake, like Boeing, is getting a free pass on lots of issues!
One thing that worries me about US Space Industries. There, I correct the title for you.
Rama Raditya Absolutely. This is NOT a problem unique to SpaceX AT ALL. The entire US space industry works in this same environment, so it’s the same challenge Boeing, Blue Origin, and Virgin have to deal with. SpaceX in the title and thesis was just a headline manipulation.
4:08(pause) I can't confidently decode this word salad. My take is :
SpaceX would cancel a suppliers contract if they couldn't meet budget constraints but these suppliers who are used to getting their way would scoff at the idea and SpaceX would only contact them afterwards if and when they figured out a way of doing it within budget or found a supplier with the capacity to do it with non-orbital systems and work with them to make the component space-worthy.
Not quite. They would scoff at the idea, and then contact SpaceX again later to see if they had changed their minds.
That worries "me"
It's even 2 keys appart. Maybe it's intentional...
@@mr.boomguy it's English as a second language. I'm a voice actor and offer(ed) my services to Lei to proof his videos, free of charge. Lei if you are listening my Twitter is @jesseconnell
media1.tenor.com/images/76ebe4c414bae3ed982163a948fa2b6a/tenor.gif?itemid=3979344
@@VincentKarabouladMusique I don't know if that is sarcasm or not... Everyone could benefit from proofing. Even Tim Dodd does it with his Patrons. Lei has a typo every now and then in his graphics or in his grammar. Also I think many people still find his pronunciation of "Falcon Ni" vs "NiNE" a bit off and can easily be fixed with some coaching.
@@VoiceOverEngineer ITS SUPPOSED TO BE, "ME" ! WTF. WHY THE HELL DID HE DO THIS ? OMG!
So basically they hate SpaceX as much as they hate tesla
Wrong
Well, Congress & NASA did not fully fund Commercial Crew development during the initial few years. That delayed both Commercial Crew developers by a few years.
They were hopeing that SpaceX would not spend their own money and give up.
Great video! But music is a little too loud
I now admire SpaceX even more
Great video btw
the in-flight abort test is a voluntary test on SpaceX's part. The Starliner (that had parachutes fail to open on it's pad-abort test, and failed to reach the ISS during it's orbital test flight) isn't going to do an in-flight abort test before it's first crewed mission.
the delay of Crew Dragon is due more to the management of the Commercial Crew Program than it has to do with SpaceX or Boeing.
--- development of Starship will move at a quick pace, comparatively.
-This is a very concise, simple and to the point illumination of a serious problem.
-One point I want to make also, is the procurement of certain parts is impeded by the vendor because they have been selling this part to another manufacturer and feel that it is now a proprietary item and only sell to the longtime customer. When in fact it is not. But the roadblock exists. EXAMPLE: When NASA was considering the Falcon Heavy to carry it's Orion capsule, it needed a bigger fairing. An adapter ring can be made to do this easily. But the company that made the fairing refuses to sell to Spacex, claiming that even though their other customer does not have a patent, they feel it is proprietary to the original customer. NASA could help with this issue but refuses.
This is an excellent presentation, pointing out the difficulties of dealing with suppliers in the space industry, and the distortion in the availability of highly qualified STEM personnel caused by the ridiculously profitable financial and Internet markets. You mention the difficulties with the safety systems, but I also suspect that the late decision to switch from landing on land to landing on the sea has greatly delayed the program, because Crew Dragon has retained the escape rocket motors, originally also intended for retropropulsive landing, within the re-entry capsule. That's a large load of hypergolic fuel on board, more than needed for in-orbit manoeuvering, and it's carried down through re-entry until landing. The Boeing Starliner, using parachutes for landing from the get-go, has its motors in the service module, discarded before landing or re-entry. The first Crew Dragon was destroyed by a mishap involving its hypergolic fuel system.
While US spaceraft have used hypergolic fuels for thrusters and manoeuvering since Gemini, the original Mercury spacecraft and the Russian Soyuz used or use hydrogen peroxide, which has a rather short "shelf life" and limits Soyuz to about six months in space. Hydrogen peroxide is much safer and less toxic than hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, for example, though with lower specific impulse. Sergei Korolev, Chief Designer of Soyuz, had a deep distrust of hypergolic fuels, which also led to the N-1 heavy booster being designed for kerosene and LOX. It would be ironic and sad if Korolev's greatest emulator, Elon Musk, would fail because of hypergolic fuels.
Dear Mr Elephant , might you consider updating your typo of " worries my " ........
One thing that worries me is the title:-)
It's a very interesting video and it adds another point about the delay, but I'm sure there's more to Crew Dragon delays than suppliers. Gwen Shotwell explained the delays in some interview recently, and she mentioned several factors, like slow government funding, switch from propulsive vertical landing to classical approach with parachute because it would be impossible to get it certified by NASA otherwise etc. Nevertheless, really enjoy your videos and the research you put into them!
Both SpaceX and Boeing have had problems with abort systems and parachutes. To date, only SpaceX crew dragon has docked to ISS. SpaceX has an advantage because of cargo dragon successful rendezvous with the ISS.
Good treatment. And we shouldn't forget that, if Crew Dragon has been delayed in development, Boeing's Starliner has been even farther behind in schedule - despite charging 60% more, and having a far longer heritage in space vehicle development.
It seems that you ignored one other reason, that being that NASA is a bunch of scardy cats. SpaceX wanted to do powered landings, NASA didn't want to. Elsewhere on UA-cam I saw a video talking about launch abort systems, how SpaceX is trying to get away from them, since they introduce another factor of complexity that is seldom used and has caused problems in the past rather than helping avoid them. So, here is both Starliner and Crew Dragon having problems with parachutes, because NASA doesn't want to do powered landings. But failures have happened with tests of the parachutes. Crew Dragon was originally designed with the "killing two birds with one stone" of the launch abort/landing rockets. Now they are only good for launch abort. That video also spoke about why Starship is going without any launch abort system, other than Starship launching itself off of an exploding Super Heavy, which I understand is in itself problematic...
I think your assessment is exactly right.... The supliers are often the problem!!!
Congress underfunded the commercial crew program for the first several years. This is one of the greatest reasons it's behind schedule. CCP has been going long before 2014 when the contracts were awarded. Bureaucracy within NASA and Boeing and Lockheed also have had a lot to do with delays.
Brilliant observations! I hope SpaceX can overcome these challenges.
Very interesting video, thank you!
“Complacent and incompetent”... absolutely! NEVER heard it said better!
crew dragon got delayed due to government shutdown and then the capsule suffered an observation after returning from the ISS and they had to move the schedule around. it's still ahead of starliner, which got additional funding, doesn't need to test anything, and gets a pass in all their failures...
The best space x news and space enthusiast channel out there. Love it keep up the good work bro
This a great one for sure ! Look at spaceXcentric also ;)
Interesting stuff. I remember the dodgy safety passes incident :~) Happy holidays to you and yours, if you celebrate any :~) btw "worries me about SpaceX"
NASA specked the crew dragon and set specs such that only a few, or sometimes only one, supplier could meet them.
It’s pretty much a given that NASA wrote the specs to favor the established players.
Very intelligent and interesting video. Thank you!
Nicely done.
The delay is 100% due to NASA via 2 quirks of the way they operate. It has nothing to do with suppliers. Quirk #1: they divide projects into pieces and only pay for one piece at a time with payments often being delayed. Quirk #2: NASA requires that all changes receive NASA engineering approval which can take months per change. NASA funding halts and engineering holds make up the overwhelming proportion of the delay on the Crew Dragon project.
Great respect for your analysis! Chapeau!
I think SpaceX was able to delay partly because they had no incentive to work fast because their competition is notorious for also delaying.
I enjoy your videos, keep em coming. Good work
Alot of negative comments because boing just failed, well they have the same problem with subcontracting too... They just lack the ambition and push back in making it better.
If I remember correctly, the crew dragon was going to be propulsive landed. NASA forced SpaceX to move to parachutes, which has been the delay. Did I misunderstand the history of this?
Welp, seeing how bad commercial crew program goes right now, i won't be suprised that NASA will just start sending Orion on Delta IV, beacuse it already passed all tests, and basicly is ready. I mean, hey, it woudl be nice to finally get it going, while NASA had to buy another 2 seats on soyuz this week, it's shame that they can't make it.
The usual high quality thinking! The supply industry needs more competition to upgrade their performance. This is why competition between makers of launch vehicles is so important - that is where the pressure for the supply industry to improve starts.
the music is lit !
"Worries me".WTF😂😂
Typo in the title.
Very good report.
You left out the fact that Congress cut funding a couple years too in the budget. That alone has kept it from being ready by end of 2019, chute and ifa systems aside.
Your videos are very educational, you should be more famous man 👍
So, pretty much every Space project runs over on time and usually money. Most are delayed by years. Look at James Webb, it was supposed to fly in 2014 originally. Now on deck for (fingers crossed) 2021. However there are 3 main reasons SpaceX hasn't flown crew to the station yet. 1. The program was underfunded by Congress for most years of the program. 2. NASA keeps moving the goal posts. Requirements were changed multiple times, sometimes pretty late in the process. and 3. NASA's commercial space office is under funded and lacking personel. They are horribly behind on their certification process.
To be fair, Boeing is getting a lot more money for their Starlink and it is even more delayed.
*Starliner
Great video. More of this please
since a test Crew Dragon blew up on the stand supposedly to the Draco engins or the plumbing that connects them NASA could be hesitant about docking the Dragon to the ISS fully fueled. I always wondered idls the Draco engines we're fueled during the test missions. Thanks for the update and vid Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 🎉
I think you are right on!
Between all US crewed programs (Orion, Starliner & Crew Dragon), I am the least worried about SpaceX, as that thing already flew, docked flawlessly and made it back to Earth in one piece. I have no idea where you drew that title of yours from?
Is spaceX approval process being delayed purposely to allow Boeing to deliver the first crew to the ISS???
If you want to make a part two to this video, you can look into the story of SpaceX attempt to buy a bigger fairing (nose cone) to carry bigger satellites. These fairings are highly advanced and very expensive (thing $6 million each) but the company (RUAG) wouldn't sell to SpaceX because they were part owned by ULA which is a competitor to SpaceX.
As for why the Dragon Crew capsule is taking so long to make, its because 1. Space is hard and 2. NASA keeps changing the requirements (removing landing thrusters, removing room for extra seats in Dragon). SpaceX signed a fixed price contract for the Dragon Crew program, so NASA can change whatever they want without paying more.
You sir have highlighted so much! Facts.
Especially on the NASA crew mission. Total bumble Fuck for spacex since day 1 because of NASA. They've lost their bug for innovation like they used to do and were founded for. Notice it has taken them how many decades since concorde to reengage flight mechanics research heavily. Alas no, weather satellites are more important and earth science studies.
Excellent article and subject material. The typical government vs private industry problem. For how many DECADES now??
The title has a typo.
"One thing that worries my about SpaceX.
"
I think you meant ' me ' in your title
The only thing that spacex doesnt build themselves is a little guiding box per Gwynne Shotwell and the steel is bought from the Netherlands. The rest is all built in house
I have faith in all the NASA scientists, who now work at SpaceX, after they got fired in the Obama era.
You make some very good points here my friend. Normally, saying anything that questions Spacex in the comments results in a barrage of unsavoury replies. The entrenched culture in the U.S space industry is set up in a way that ensures the flow of dollars to country wide space component manufacturers. This has been the case since the inception of NASA. The ideology from the get go was to make the space race a truly national enterprise. To achieve this, NASA was obligated to spread the manufacturing of components to all corners of the U.S.A. The result we have now is the wonderfully archaic, obsolete SLS with probably the most advanced crew cabin Orion on top, and the all the issues you mentioned about Spacex not being able to access critical components form "the boys club" culture of certain manufacturers. This is why Spacex has to design, develop and test everything themselves, which in turn, has delayed the Crew Dragon capsule far longer than necessary. Great upload my friend...peace.
Typo in title?
Are you saying supplier can control the development and success of the project?
ULA was started by court order when boeing and lockheed were caught stealing from each other- they are defense contractors and cannot be considered commercial. (imo)
Claiming a priori having foreseen possible bad outcomes by guesswork or with little or bad information, does make the claimed events correct if they occur, but doesn't give away anything about having the correct approach or appliance of reason in drawing of conclusions and sure as hell doesn't by any standards entitle to claim intellectual superiority in the field.
Nothing worries "my" about space x 😏
Wow this video goes into so much detail of crew dragon its awsome 😯😀
The background music is a little loud and distracting from the great content you're trying to convey!
Excellent video. Excellent channel and I more or less watch everything that you put out. But please correct the typo dude as it makes you look unprofessional and as an analyst then you need to be spot on otherwise it could erode trust. Thanks.
SpaceX has done a great job of quality control so far on Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, and Crew Dragon. But I am really disappointed in their recent shoddy work on Starship. With no apparent plans for improvement. No launch abort system planed. And no factory planned to build in a controlled environment.
Is not just Crew Dragon, Starliner has been having problems, basically the CCP has been hit bad with delays, 2020 needs to be the year that both companies deliver
if a valve intended for safety causes an explosion- can you still call Dragon
a "really great design" ?
Oh,the timing couldn't be better. 🤦🏻♂️ *Apparently that conversation is more relevant today than we expected!!😅
*12/20/2019
Bad timing on this video. Looks like there is more risk with Boeing Starliner and the traditional aerospace industry than with SpaceX
Me*
My -> me
NASA has been working more closely with SpaceX which I think is the biggest cause of delays.
Title typo: my ≠ me.
Good job younger man
sooo the title ....
who cares about the typo, this is quality content!
Me
It bothers enough people to talk about, so a lot of people care.
ITS SUPPOSED TO BE, "ME" ! WTF. WHY THE HELL DID HE DO THIS ? OMG!
Here before he changes "my" to "me"
aircoolbro21 scndling still “my” instead of “me”...
@@KayoZet lmao
So it's not a problem with SpaceX, but with the suppliers that are used to the government funded gravy train and zero competition.
They have trouble getting Crewdragon of the ground and you are expecting miracles with Starship whom has many concepts never twsted before?
The key thing here is that SpaceX has zero hours of manned spaceflight experienve and only one test mission with a manned capable capsule thats the least complicated thing flying compared to deep space missions. J.
Well no need to be worried anymore Spacex got the job done not like the other space companies out there✌️
You didn't even mention that Boeing's contraption will cost more than the Soyuz which price reduction was the whole point of the program in the first place.
And still uses Russian engines on the first stage..