Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

RGClark · 2024-08-08 08:16:21

SpaceX has made multiple basic errors in developing the Starship. The unerring conclusion you draw is SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

A major realization that is being missed is that rather than needing multiple refueling flights and several additional years of development to get reusability right, by going initially for an expendable Starship and adding a small 3rd stage, we can do single flight missions to the Moon and Mars now.

The key point is expendable SuperHeavy/StarShip has 200+ ton payload capability NOW. Robert Zubrin showed 2 reusable SuperHeavy/StarShips flights at 100+ ton payload to LEO can do Mars missions:

Mars Direct 2.0 - Dr. Robert Zubrin - IAC 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5k7-Y4nZlQ

Then 200+ tons gets SINGLE LAUNCH to Mars. Clearly, also gets SINGLE LAUNCH to the Moon. In other words, the upcoming IFT-5 stripped down to expendable could do a SINGLE LAUNCH demo mission to the Moon at ~$100 million launch cost with F9 upper stage as a 3rd stage/lander and Dragon as crew capsule within a month. This compared to the $7 billion to $8 billion total cost all-up for a /SLS/Orion/Advanced SRB’s/Boeing EUS/Starship HLS/Gateway/ Artemis plan involving 10+ refueling Starship launches. See discussion here:

Why SpaceX Needs a True Chief Engineer.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/robert-c … 42115-SKqW

Robert Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-08-08 13:45:20)

tahanson43206 · 2024-08-08 08:36:56

This post is reserved for an index to posts that NewMars members may contribute over time.

I am expecting (and hoping for) posts that refute the dubious argument advanced in the opening post of this new topic.

Index item: kbd512 with a nicely rounded summary of the long term thinking of SpaceX: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 32#p225632

(th)

RGClark · 2024-08-08 08:51:02

tahanson43206 wrote:

This post is reserved for an index to posts that NewMars members may contribute over time.
I am expecting (and hoping for) posts that refute the dubious argument advanced in the opening post of this new topic.
(th)

I encourage debate. But first read the argument contained there:

Why SpaceX Needs a True Chief Engineer.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/robert-c … 42115-SKqW

Robert Clark

kbd512 · 2024-08-08 09:48:09

RGClark,

Your assertion that we can do flights to the moon or Mars "right now" treats the end goal (presumably crewed space flight to other planets) as if the propulsion system alone makes the entire endeavor feasible, whereas it previously wasn't. A crewed mission to another planetary body involves an array of supporting elements and technologies that are not propulsion-related, but at the present time, those supporting technologies are nowhere near ready for use.

At least 5 years of additional development work are required for reliable / thoroughly tested closed-loop life support, rugged yet lighter space suits that don't rapidly become tatters from the abrasive dust found on the moon and Mars, electrical power generation and distribution, construction equipment, ISRU technologies, and the like. If we had a propulsion system such as the one you described and it was truly ready to go today, that would not make it a mission enabler all by itself. Mission critical supporting technologies remain under-developed or with very little serious development work completed. The life support and electrical power technologies are the most critical amongst those.

All of that "additional required development timeline and budget" provides plenty of time for completing the development of the propulsion and in-flight fuel transfer technologies, which makes the entire endeavor long-term sustainable into perpetuity. It's a permanent program, rather than "flags and footprints". Permanence makes the Starship program a "feature of ordinary life".

SpaceX and Elon Musk engage in very long term thinking, whereas you and so many others only seem interested in short-term thinking. SpaceX's goal is $10M Mars missions, rather than $100M missions. After all backups (additional Starship flights to take backup equipment to assure the survival of the crew) and other supporting elements are included in the final price tag, the cost of the first exploration missions will still range into the billions. If we did what you proposed, then each mission would range into the billions.

If each individual launch costs $100M, then 5 to 7 launches to put together a credible mission package makes the price tag unaffordable for sustained exploration and colonization. There's a world of difference between $70M and $700M. $70M is the price of a single commercial airliner. $700M is the price of a cruise ship. Governments can't afford to "throw away" very many cruise ships before public support is lost. That is what ultimately killed our Apollo program. Our government couldn't rationalize spending a billion dollars per mission on its space exploration program when they had so many other self-inflicted problems to deal with at home. If each flight to the moon was 10X less expensive, then NASA's human space exploration budget for a single year would've paid for the next 10 missions to the moon, so the modest amount of money spent on the program would've been deemed worthwhile.

Whether you and I like it or not, the ultimate feasibility of a Mars exploration and colonization program is about trading off development time to reduce marginal / per-mission cost. When private entities can affordably send their people to Mars, we will have a self-sustaining program. That is SpaceX's stated goal for their Starship program- to make space flight so much less expensive than it is today that individuals who own their homes can also afford to move to Mars.

GW Johnson · 2024-08-08 11:47:13

I pretty much agree with Kbd512's analysis of what's required for a sustainable off-Earth space effort. There are multiple mission-killing technology lacks, of which propulsion is still perceived to be one (although it really is not, not so much anymore). And it's not an on-off switch effect with any of them. It's a matter of spending enough development money to make stuff work well enough so that the overall program is affordable. These things perform better the more you spend developing them. THAT has been the history of it.

As for a "real chief engineer" at SpaceX, while Musk is quite knowledgeable of what is being done, he has also long-proven to be a serious under-estimator of how much prep work must be done, and of how long it will take. He has no formal training as an engineer (I looked up his academic records), and he has no professional engineer's ticket in any state of the union that I know of.

He might get away with calling himself SpaceX's "chief engineer" in other states (laws vary), but if he moves SpaceX's headquarters to Texas as he says he will do, then him continuing to use that title in Texas is a VERY DEFINITE violation of the Texas Engineering Practice Act! People get prosecuted for that, here.

He does have a demonstrated history of scoffing at regulators and then getting into trouble with them by violating the terms of his licenses. That is EXACTLY why it has taken this long to get Starship/Superheavy actually flying experimentally at all!

Everybody does both bad and good. The "trick" for being regarded as "good generally" is to do much more good than bad. With Musk you do get a lot of bad with the inarguable good that he does. Why? He's so rich (with the power that confers) that most people in his organizations will not tell him "no" when he is wrong. And like all of us, he is often wrong.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-08-08 11:50:48)

Oldfart1939 · 2024-08-08 13:20:45

Although Elon Musk calls himself "Chief Engineer," the power behind the throne, so to speak, is Gwynne Shotwell who IS an engineer. Don't overlook Kathy Lueders, either. Elon is more the captain of the ship who has a sailing master and navigator directly at hand. He is kinda like an old time shipping magnate who could call himself the Commodore" of the fleet, but who left sailing the ships to others. He makes the big decisions based on his level of expertise, and encourages others to excel.
This is strictly my personal "take" on SpaceX. Sure, critics can all point out his failings, but that only makes the accomplishments more admirable. A late uncle of mine worked for McDonnell Aircraft as a senior engineer back in the 1950's through their acquisition of Douglas Aircraft, and commented that JS McDonnell would come prowling through the departments in the evenings checking up on progress of projects all the time. (His project was the reentry heat shield for the Gemini orbital vehicle). But again, old McDonnell WAS an engineer!

kbd512 · 2024-08-08 14:45:14

All I know with any degree of certainty is that the present incarnation of Starship will not be landing on the moon or Mars, nor anywhere else that does not greatly resemble the load bearing capacity and high temperature tolerance of a steel-reinforced concrete pad or the steel deck of an offshore platform or barge / ship.

Until someone develops a practical lander design, we won't be landing on anything. I'm quite sure that SpaceX's Starship will do just fine making it into space and safely back to Earth's surface. Whether or not a rocket upper stage is an optimal deep space vehicle design for going to Mars is a different question entirely. It's clearly not optimal for that use case, even though it would work. The surface of the moon and Mars are almost entirely rough field environments with questionable load bearing capacity, even for small probes, and large swaths of the surface are mixed debris fields filled with small and large rocks capable of toppling a tall lander quite easily. In addition to propulsive landing, we need geometrically-compatible landers with low-CGs and wide landing gear tracks to provide high stability, even if a very off-nominal landing is made. The Apollo LEM filled that requirement, whereas none of the modern lander concepts appear compatible with the environments they're expected to operate in.

Oldfart1939 · 2024-08-08 20:39:11

kbd512 wrote:

The surface of the moon and Mars are almost entirely rough field environments with questionable load bearing capacity, even for small probes, and large swaths of the surface are mixed debris fields filled with small and large rocks capable of toppling a tall lander quite easily. In addition to propulsive landing, we need geometrically-compatible landers with low-CGs and wide landing gear tracks to provide high stability, even if a very off-nominal landing is made. The Apollo LEM filled that requirement, whereas none of the modern lander concepts appear compatible with the environments they're expected to operate in.

This problem has been discussed almost endlessly by various members of this forum, but with the greatest clarity by GW Johnson. That's painfully obvious to anyone who has had a sophomore course in Statics and a course in Soil Mechanics. One of the next experiments that SpaceX should be doing is trying to land a starship in a dirt field!!

kbd512 · 2024-08-09 08:18:31

Oldfart1939,

I think all the real engineers already know what the result will be, which is why they've never done it. This is also why the notion that we're going to move a mission forward by operating the existing rockets in expendable mode is erroneous. No lander equals no mission. We have no realistic rough field lander, therefore we have no planetary exploration missions. There are many other mission critical elements that are nowhere near being ready, so even if we had a fully tested realistic lander design, we still have no mission. That brings us right back to what some of us are hoping to accomplish with more expensive mission architecture.

What are we hoping to accomplish by flying each Starships in expendable mode, apart from making missions unaffordable?

It's not going to move the mission forward.

SpaceX has at least 5 years to try to make the mission about 10X cheaper, in terms of launch hardware, by iterating Starship's design and proving out or failing to prove out on-orbit propellant transfer. If on-orbit propellant transfer works, then they've freed up a massive amount of development capital for all other mission architecture elements, which includes that all-important lander, closed-loop life support, advanced space suits, electrical power, ISRU, etc. This is a "flagship class mission" (the most expensive kind), even with fully reusable rockets, on-orbit propellant transfer, and ISRU. We should stop pretending that this will ever be practical, or merely "government affordable", without all those technologies working in our favor.

Space exploration has become a niche special interest group. Once upon a time, it was about national prestige and proving a point. That time has long since passed into history. Budgets are increasingly constrained on the go-forward, due to economic issues of our own making. Anything that drastically reduces mission cost is a "DIRECT" mission enabler. Mars DIRECT was a reasonably good idea in the era of expendable rockets. SLS is an exact replica of a Shuttle-deried SHLV proposal from the early 1990s- an idea NASA kicked the tires on more than 30 years ago. It wasn't cost-effective back then and it's even less reasonable now. Total cost and funding reality is where Mars DIRECT went to die. Since then, NASA has developed excellent long duration life support and electrical power systems. They've also proven a spam can is able to stay in space for 25+ years and not leak unacceptably or fail completely in other ways. It's stumbled over advanced suit design. It's utterly failed to reduce vehicle development and launch costs, which is why we've never gone back to the moon or onward to Mars.

In another 5 years we'll have affordable fully reusable and on-orbit refueling capable rockets suitable to task. We'll have the life support and power systems nailed down. We might have a modestly improve space suit design ready for serious testing. We will still not have a practical lander, nor fission reactor surface power systems immune to the deleterious effects of "planetary rotation", nor any ISRU tech ready to use when the lives of our astronauts are at stake, unless the propellant combo to get back into orbit is CO and O2. We might be able to perform a full dress rehearsal mission in CIS-lunar space. That's as far as 5 years of nose-to-the-grindstone progress can realistically take us. None of that will be "enabled" by making Starship expendable, which will only take us right back to where we presently are.

We're not ready. Period.

RobertDyck · 2024-08-09 09:55:32

The SoaceX website does not have an "about" page. Wikipedia entry lists Elon Musk as CEO, Chair, and CTO (Chief Technology Officer). For Tesla he changed his title to "Technoking" just to prove titles are meaningless. I've seen interviews in which the media person called Elon the chief engineer, but he always laughed that off. He doesn't call himself engineer. I believe he's aware of the issue GW raised.

tahanson43206 · 2024-08-09 10:46:32

A website called comparably.com provides what appears to be a list of executives at SpaceX...

SpaceX Key Executives
Name & Title
Bio
Elon Musk CEO / President
Elon Musk
CEO / President
Elon Musk serves as the CEO / President of SpaceX.
Jonathan Hofeller Vice President Of Commercial Sales
Jonathan Hofeller
Vice President Of Commercial Sales
Jonathan Hofeller serves as the Vice President Of Commercial Sales of SpaceX. Jonathan started at SpaceX in November of...
Umer Khan VP of Information Technology and Security
Umer Khan
VP of Information Technology and Security
Umer Khan serves as the VP of Information Technology and Security of SpaceX. Umer started at SpaceX in November of 2013....
Filip Defoort Director of Software Engineering, Automation
Filip Defoort
Director of Software Engineering, Automation
Filip Defoort serves as the Director of Software Engineering, Automation of SpaceX. Filip started at SpaceX in May of...
Ted Cizma Global Executive Chef
Ted Cizma
Global Executive Chef
Ted Cizma serves as the Global Executive Chef of SpaceX. Ted started at SpaceX in November of 2011. Ted is currently...
Zachary Dunn Sr. Vice President of Production and Launch
Zachary Dunn
Sr. Vice President of Production and Launch
Zachary Dunn serves as the Sr. Vice President of Production and Launch of SpaceX. Zachary started at SpaceX in October...
Bret Johnsen CFO
Bret Johnsen
CFO
Bret Johnsen serves as the CFO of SpaceX. Bret started at SpaceX in May of 2011. Bret is currently based in the Greater...
Thomas Mueller Propulsion Chief Technology Officer
Thomas Mueller
Propulsion Chief Technology Officer
Thomas Mueller serves as the Propulsion Chief Technology Officer of SpaceX. Thomas started at SpaceX in May of 2014....
Lee Rosen Vice President, Mission and Launch Operations
Lee Rosen
Vice President, Mission and Launch Operations
Lee Rosen serves as the Vice President, Mission and Launch Operations of SpaceX. Lee started at SpaceX in January of...
Pierre L Senior Vice President of Operations
Pierre L
Senior Vice President of Operations
Pierre L serves as the Senior Vice President of Operations of SpaceX.
Joao Semedo CTO
Joao Semedo
CTO
Joao Semedo serves as the CTO of SpaceX.
Rajeev Badyal Vice President - Satellites
Rajeev Badyal
Vice President - Satellites
Rajeev Badyal serves as the Vice President - Satellites of SpaceX. Rajeev started at SpaceX in April of 2014. Rajeev...
Patricia Cooper Vice President for Satellite Government Affairs
Patricia Cooper
Vice President for Satellite Government Affairs
Patricia Cooper serves as the Vice President for Satellite Government Affairs of SpaceX. Patricia started at SpaceX in...
Robert Gibbs Vice President Logistics
Robert Gibbs
Vice President Logistics
Robert Gibbs serves as the Vice President Logistics of SpaceX.
Alex Hudson Managing Director, Avionics Hardware Development
Alex Hudson
Managing Director, Avionics Hardware Development
Alex Hudson serves as the Managing Director, Avionics Hardware Development of SpaceX.
Hans Koenigsmann VP Mission Assurance
Hans Koenigsmann
VP Mission Assurance
Hans Koenigsmann serves as the VP Mission Assurance of SpaceX.
Andrew Lambert Vice President, Quality Assurance & Build Reliability
Andrew Lambert
Vice President, Quality Assurance & Build Reliability
Andrew Lambert serves as the Vice President, Quality Assurance & Build Reliability of SpaceX.
Jeremy Mucha Secretary of Defense Executive Fellow
Jeremy Mucha
Secretary of Defense Executive Fellow
Jeremy Mucha serves as the Secretary of Defense Executive Fellow of SpaceX.
Drew Orsinger Chief Security Officer
Drew Orsinger
Chief Security Officer
Drew Orsinger serves as the Chief Security Officer of SpaceX. Drew started at SpaceX in March of 2017. Drew currently...
Bob Reagan Vice President Machining Ops
Bob Reagan
Vice President Machining Ops
Bob Reagan serves as the Vice President Machining Ops of SpaceX.
Marv Vanderweg VP EELV
Marv Vanderweg
VP EELV
Marv Vanderweg serves as the VP EELV of SpaceX.
Ty Davis Executive VP
Ty Davis
Executive VP
Ty Davis serves as the Executive VP of SpaceX.
Jon Edwards Vice President of Falcon Launch Vehicles
Jon Edwards
Vice President of Falcon Launch Vehicles
Jon Edwards serves as the Vice President of Falcon Launch Vehicles of SpaceX.
Will Heltsley Vice President of Propulsion
Will Heltsley
Vice President of Propulsion
Will Heltsley serves as the Vice President of Propulsion of SpaceX.
Sheldon Hunsinger Chief Financial Officer
Sheldon Hunsinger
Chief Financial Officer
Sheldon Hunsinger serves as the Chief Financial Officer of SpaceX.
Emanuele Jones Sr. Director
Emanuele Jones
Sr. Director
Emanuele Jones serves as the Sr. Director of SpaceX.
It appears there may be more names that I did not capture...

"Chief Engineer" is not a term of art (apparently) at least for the list I was able to capture.

(th)

RGClark · 2024-08-10 00:08:38

For the manned Artemis missions, SLS and Orion cost $2 billion each per launch. SpaceX got a $4 billion contract for 2 Starship HLS’s, so $2 billion each. Boeing EUS, Advanced SRB’s, Gateway, at least total another billion and likely closer $2 billion. Then manned Artemis ~$8 billion per launch. This is clearly not a sustainable approach to lunar habitation.

For the Apollo missions I asked ChatGpt what were the per launch costs in current dollars. It’s response was:

The Apollo program, which included a total of 17 missions (from Apollo 1 through Apollo 17), cost approximately $25.4 billion in 1973 dollars. To estimate the cost per flight in today’s dollars, we’ll follow these steps:

1. Adjust the total cost for inflation:
• The cumulative inflation rate from 1973 to 2024 is approximately 5.8 times. This means that $1 in 1973 is worth about $5.80 in 2024 dollars.

Total cost in 2024 dollars = $25.4 billion x 5.8 = $147.32 billion

2. Calculate the cost per flight:
• There were 17 Apollo missions, including the uncrewed and crewed missions.

Cost per flight = $147.32 billion/17 = $8.67 billion per flight

Summary:

The Apollo program cost approximately $147.32 billion in today’s dollars, which breaks down to about $8.67 billion per flight on average.

And we already know Apollo was not sustainable.

In contrast, ~$100 million for expendable SuperHeavy/Starship at 200+ ton capability gets single launch missions to the Moon at costs nearly two orders of magnitude cheaper than Apollo or Artemis. This is in the same range of what NASA spends for just flights to the ISS.

For Mars, NASA once presented a plan to the Bush administration for a Mars program for a total cost of $500 billion. This was promptly rejected by the administration. These large cost estimates led Robert Zubrin to propose in the early 90’s his Mars Direct approach, where propellant for the return flight would be generated at Mars.

This would require only 2 launches of Saturn V class launchers at 100+ ton capability. With the development of the Starship at 100+ ton ability reusable, Zubrin proposed using it in his Mars Direct 2.0 proposal. He contrasted this from the SpaceX approach of using multiple refuelings here:

Mars Direct 2.0 - Dr. Robert Zubrin - IAC 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5k7-Y4nZlQ

Zubrin notes by just using a small 3rd stage/lander you would need no refueling flights.

But you have to wait until the time the Starship becomes reliable for reusable manned flights. In contrast the expendable version with its higher payable capability can launch now and needs only a single launch, not two.

Demo flights to either the Moon or Mars can literally launch in a month on IFT-5 if stripped of its reusability systems to get the 200+ ton payload capability.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-08-10 00:22:03)

GW Johnson · 2024-08-10 15:04:58

All I would add to what Bob just said is that when you divide total program cost by the number of missions that program actually flew, you are amortizing all the development costs into that per-mission figure. Different projects have different development costs and development difficulties, so that simple procedure might not be "quite fair", in some very arguable ways.

As for Apollo, there was hardware built to support missions all the way through Apollo 22, not just through the Apollo 17 mission that actually flew. Apollo got terminated by presidential fiat early, which inherently drives up per-mission cost, when figured that way. Some of that hardware got used later on the Skylab project, and on the Apollo-Soyuz Test project, so how do you account for that? That value is NOT zero! The rest is on display at various sites around the country. So, how do you account for that? That value is NOT zero!

I think the "trigger figure" numbers for what is "sustainable" and what is not, are very severely compromised by those unincluded considerations. Inflation is a huge effect, yes, but so also is the lack of accounting for all the eventual end uses. And don't ask me how to correct for those eventual end uses, because I honestly do not know. I'm an old engineer, NOT an accountant! I hire my accounting done!

Just remember this: "figures lie and liars figure" is a real truism.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-08-10 15:09:12)

RGClark · 2024-08-16 14:09:19

Blue Origin is finally planning to make a launch of New Glenn later this year. Blue Origin has not revealed the price for the New Glenn. The only estimate price I’ve seen is an estimate by ArianeSpace as a point of comparison to the Ariane 6:

SPACE
Amazon signs massive rocket deal with 3 firms, including Bezos' Blue Origin, to launch internet satellites.
PUBLISHED TUE, APR 5 2022 7:00 AM EDTUPDATED TUE, APR 5 2022 12:17 PM EDT
Blue Origin will use its New Glenn rockets to fly the 12 Kuiper missions it will host. Per CEO Bob Smith, New Glenn is going to deliver 61 Kuiper satellites per mission. While Blue Origin does not currently have an official target date for New Glenn's first launch, CNBC has previously reported the rocket is expected to debut in 2024 or later. The company has not publicly revealed a price for New Glenn launches, but an Arianespace estimate two years ago put the Blue Origin rocket at $68 million per launch. While both companies were founded by Bezos, Blue Origin is separate from Amazon.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/05/ama … lites.html

IF it really turns out to be that price, still a big IF, then it would be a better price than the Falcon 9 new of $67 million while being twice the payload of the F9 at 45 tons to LEO.

I do think it is possible for a mid-size launcher to be comparable to the Falcon 9 in price following the commercial space approach of private financing. That would put the New Glenn though in the range of $120 million, having twice the payload capacity of the F9.

IF it really does turn out to be ca. $68 million, then that would be a major development In having a rocket half the price per kilo than the Falcon 9. We’ll likely know for sure later this year when New Glenn makes its first launch.

IF it does, then this might give price incentive for SpaceX to cut the price of the Falcon 9 in half. Note Elon once said the production cost to SpaceX of the Falcon 9 is only $15 million. So they could still make a profit though not as profitable as before.

IF it does, then It might also give a price incentive for SpaceX to offer an expendable Superheavy/Starship. The cost of the SH/ST is ca. $100 million. At a payload for expendable of 200 to 250 tons, this would be a price per kilo less than the Falcon 9 even as reusable, and even less than the supposed price of a $68 million New Glenn at 45 ton payload capacity.

As I have argued, offering an expendable SH/ST would be a transformative advance in spaceflight since it makes possible single launch missions both to the Moon and Mars at a price comparable just to the ISS that can be demo’ed literally by the next IFT-5 flight in a month by stripping off the reusability systems to get the high 200+ ton to LEO expendable payload.

Bob Clark

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2024-08-08 08:16:21

Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#2 2024-08-08 08:36:56

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#3 2024-08-08 08:51:02

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#4 2024-08-08 09:48:09

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#5 2024-08-08 11:47:13

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#6 2024-08-08 13:20:45

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#7 2024-08-08 14:45:14

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#8 2024-08-08 20:39:11

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#9 2024-08-09 08:18:31

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#10 2024-08-09 09:55:32

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#11 2024-08-09 10:46:32

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#12 2024-08-10 00:08:38

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#13 2024-08-10 15:04:58

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

#14 2024-08-16 14:09:19

Re: Why SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer.

Board footer