Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on November 05, 2012, 12:25:00 pm
-
Elon Musk and a mission to Mars.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/
Musk: Six years after we started the company, we launched our first rocket, Falcon 1, into orbit in 2008. And the price—not the cost, mind you, but the total price to customers per launch—was roughly $7 million.
Anderson: How did you get the price so low?
Musk: I tend to approach things from a physics framework. And physics teaches you to reason from first principles rather than by analogy. So I said, OK, let’s look at the first principles. What is a rocket made of? Aerospace-grade aluminum alloys, plus some titanium, copper, and carbon fiber. And then I asked, what is the value of those materials on the commodity market? It turned out that the materials cost of a rocket was around 2 percent of the typical price—which is a crazy ratio for a large mechanical product.
Anderson: How does that compare to, say, cars?
Musk: It depends on the car. For Tesla it’s probably 20 to 25 percent.
Anderson: An order-of-magnitude difference.
Musk: Right. So, I thought, we should be able to make a much cheaper rocket given those materials costs. There must be some pretty silly things going on in the market. And there are!
Anderson: Like what?
Musk: One is the incredible aversion to risk within big aerospace firms. Even if better technology is available, they’re still using legacy components, often ones that were developed in the 1960s.
Anderson: I’ve heard that the attitude is essentially that you can’t fly a component that hasn’t already flown.
Musk: Right, which is obviously a catch-22, right? There should be a Groucho Marx joke about that. So, yeah, there’s a tremendous bias against taking risks. Everyone is trying to optimize their ass-covering.
Anderson: That’s a nice phrase.
Musk: The results are pretty crazy. One of our competitors, Orbital Sciences, has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, and their rocket honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke. It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the ’60s. I don’t mean their design is from the ’60s—I mean they start with engines that were literally made in the ’60s and, like, packed away in Siberia somewhere.
-
Aversion to risk in aerospace industry is understandable. One tiny mistake is enough to doom the mission and kill the crew if there's any. See Columbia and Challenger disasters. Russian engines from the '60s have an advantage of being tested and built like a rock. With new stuff, you always run the risk of the rocket exploding, flying 6 inches off the ground and dropping back down, or burning up on reentry. All because one part had a minor defect (the aforementioned 6 inch flight? caused by one too short cable). Given how dangerous aerospace disasters are, I see why they're not fond of taking risks.
-
I shouldn't need to say this, but read the whole article. That's a tiny excerpt from page 2.
-
Elon Musk certainly seems to have a robust Kerbal attitude towards the whole Mars thing.
Not that I think that he's going to throw away little green people, or even actual humans, but his "Okay, so how would we do a space program today" approach is certainly the most promising thing ever.
-
who here wouldn't volunteer to be a jeb to test a shoddy rocket? sure you have a 90% chance in dieing, but you also have a 10% chance of visiting space, which is a hell of a lot better than what i have now. sign me up. id even fly something akin to my spinneh station launcher, which likes to go boom a lot.
-
Aversion to risk in aerospace industry is understandable. One tiny mistake is enough to doom the mission and kill the crew if there's any. See Columbia and Challenger disasters. Russian engines from the '60s have an advantage of being tested and built like a rock. With new stuff, you always run the risk of the rocket exploding, flying 6 inches off the ground and dropping back down, or burning up on reentry. All because one part had a minor defect (the aforementioned 6 inch flight? caused by one too short cable). Given how dangerous aerospace disasters are, I see why they're not fond of taking risks.
Right, let's use rockets from the 60s forever!! What can go wrong with that attitude?
edit, this passage is quite scary relating to another can of worms, patents:
Musk: I can’t tell you much. We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China—if we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book. But I can give you one example.
.... highlighting the exact problem of getting rid of patents.
-
the skylon people seem to be taking a similar approach. they show off their actual 400MW heat exchangers, and keep their de-icing solution a closely guarded secret. america keeps pissing away its space superiority, so i figure whoever makes it to mars will not be an american. i for one welcome out brittish overloards (il still shoot at you though).
-
Right, let's use rockets from the 60s forever!! What can go wrong with that attitude?
Very little, which is why people do it.
The components have advanced but the technique hasn't moved that much. (If anything it might be retrograde.) There hasn't been a revolutionary change in the design and assembly of rockets. Designs from the '60s are cheap, sturdy, proven. Trading those in for possible incremental improvement in performance via shaving a few hundred pounds off isn't a worthwhile investment in most cases.
-
Musk: I can’t tell you much. We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China—if we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book. But I can give you one example.
.... highlighting the exact problem of getting rid of patents.
This makes sense. China is problematic, because it doesn't really care about patents. Aside from Space-X, there are few companies that do similar things to them. The Russian Excalibur-Almaz, for example, uses a completely different approach, so I don't think there's much of a threat of plagiarism.
Right, let's use rockets from the 60s forever!! What can go wrong with that attitude?
Very little, which is why people do it.
The components have advanced but the technique hasn't moved that much. (If anything it might be retrograde.) There hasn't been a revolutionary change in the design and assembly of rockets. Designs from the '60s are cheap, sturdy, proven. Trading those in for possible incremental improvement in performance via shaving a few hundred pounds off isn't a worthwhile investment in most cases.
Precisely. Also, it's rather difficult to get new stuff certified, due to rigorous standards they have to pass. Doing things old-style simplifies a lot, and is very safe. If a car breaks down, you can usually just coast to a stop, get out and call the road assistance. Not so with the rocket, which has a good chance of disintegrating if something gores wrong. 60s stuff is proven and safe, and it does it's job well enough in most cases. The aforementioned Excalibur-Almaz (essentially a Russian version of Space-X) is using old VA capsules and plenty of technology from the cancelled TKS program, and they seem to be doing just fine. The VA has already flown unmanned, so it should be easy to certify for manned flight than a completely new design.
-
Right, let's use rockets from the 60s forever!! What can go wrong with that attitude?
Very little, which is why people do it.
The components have advanced but the technique hasn't moved that much. (If anything it might be retrograde.) There hasn't been a revolutionary change in the design and assembly of rockets. Designs from the '60s are cheap, sturdy, proven. Trading those in for possible incremental improvement in performance via shaving a few hundred pounds off isn't a worthwhile investment in most cases.
While this is an understandable position, it's also a terrible attitude to have in a field that requires constant advancement to maintain even the same level of proficiency. The rampant over-aversion to risk has stagnated the entire industry aside from a few investors and thinkers like those featured in the article. While it's folly to completely ignore risk, it's just as bad to allow the chance of a risk to halt progress.
-
It's not even really a risk-aversion issue, however. It's an issue of cost-benefit. Making improvements is literally not worth the money most of the time because, again, you're just shaving small amounts of weight off a design in exchange for higher costs. The greater chance of failure is merely icing on an ass-shaped cake as far as most commercial applications of the technology are concerned; they wouldn't bother with it before that was a factor.
-
If it were an issue of cost-benefit, then the subject of the article wouldn't have been able to drive down the price of sending a human into space to $7 million. Making the improvements increased the cost-benefit ratio of the equipment used.
The issue here is that innovation and advancement is discouraged in favor of safer, more proven technologies. That's the definition of risk-aversion.
-
if "old and proven" was truly better, we wouldn't be decommissioning the enterprise here shortly, and it wouldn't be affectionately referred to as "the floating chernobyl."
-
if "old and proven" was truly better, we wouldn't be decommissioning the enterprise here shortly, and it wouldn't be affectionately referred to as "the floating chernobyl."
:confused:
Are you talking about the shuttle, or the aircraft carrier? Wait, don't tell me, the answer is the same: it's a completely irrelevant example.
-
It's not irrelevant in the slightest:
Older technology will remain effective, at least in some measure. But if you want to advance in the sciences and the field, you must commit to innovation. The article notes how older manufacturing processes are expensive and wasteful, and you may even correlate that to a CVN from the 1960's. And you may consider how many of the old rocket powerplants are now comparatively inefficient and outdated, and you may further correlate how eight recators in an old 1960's CVN are far less efficient than the two reactors in a modern CVN... :p
So it's not a completely irrelevant example at all. In fact, it's quite a novel one.
-
also, the secondary point of that post was that physically old things can't be expected to hold up just because they are "proven." "they don't build them like they used to" doesn't apply. the CVN-65 is a floating kludge held together by paper clips and chewing gum. if common fluid systems can't hold up for that long, i have to imagine it's worse for large tubes whose job it is to basically contain a controlled explosion and point it out the back end.
and there's a REALLY simple fix for the "it's not proven" problem. test it.
-
also, the secondary point of that post was that physically old things can't be expected to hold up just because they are "proven." "they don't build them like they used to" doesn't apply. the CVN-65 is a floating kludge held together by paper clips and chewing gum. if common fluid systems can't hold up for that long, i have to imagine it's worse for large tubes whose job it is to basically contain a controlled explosion and point it out the back end.
Assumption: we are discussing rockets that have been in storage rather than new manufactures of what are sixties designs.
Hint: we are not.
-
Well, that's only half true. One of the points of the article is a competitor's design that was centered around sixties' era rocket engines that had in fact been in storage for that long.
-
And the other point was that by not doing things the old way and doing experiments to find a better way, SpaceX has been able to discover areas where massive savings could be had.
-
Well, that's only half true. One of the points of the article is a competitor's design that was centered around sixties' era rocket engines that had in fact been in storage for that long.
That still leaves aside the issue that he's comparing a system in near-continuous operation to one that's never actually been used.
Also that he's got the nickname reasoning completely wrong. (The nickname of the CVN-65 dates considerably older and has to do with the fact she was outfitted with the same number of reactors as a more conventional carrier design would have boilers. Later CVNs only had 2, to the Enterprise's 8.)
So sadly it's still a completely irrelevant comparison on Klaustrophobia's part.
-
It's totally relevent.
As Karajorma stated, one of the biggest points of the article is that innovation and experimentation yields production methods which are significantly more cost-effective than old designs that have been used (either conceptually or physically) for decades.
CV-65 is a totally outdated design that is much more cost-effectively replicated in her role by newer, more innovative designs.
The only way that comparison is irrelevent is if your entire position is also irrelevent to the conversation to be had.
-
You failed to mention one thing: CV-65 is a war machine, and it's a ship. War evolves quickly, but space missions aren't much different from what was done in '60s. Sailors and marines are expected to take risk, civilian scientists are not. Also, risks involved are somewhat lesser than with rockets. Contrary to popular belief, a nuclear carrier will not disintegrate if something goes wrong with the reactor, and if there's a disaster, you can always use the lifeboats, which are a somewhat updated version of a thousands of years old concept of a raft. An aircraft carrier doesn't have to be build to standards as tight as a rocket, and doesn't have to sustain nearly as much stress. If a new, shiny carrier breaks down, it's hauled off to a drydock. If a new, shiny rocket breaks down, you get a huge explosion. This has an effect one the cost-benefit ratio, especially that payloads carried into space are in most cases so expensive you just can't afford failure.
-
And you failed to make sense. Please try again.
-
TL;DR: Rocket accidents are more destructive than carrier accidents. In the latter case, the ship usually can be re-used. Not so with rockets. Also, physics aren't different from what they were in '60s, neither are space missions. You can't say that about military technology nor the nature of warfare.
-
:facepalm:
You misunderstand the issue under discussion, I think. It's not about whether old tech is safer than new tech (by all accounts, the new stuff SpaceX is doing is at least equivalent to the old stuff in that regard), or that nuclear Carriers are different from rockets in several important aspects (well, duh), it's about whether the established space industry is far too reliant on old technology to be able to actually innovate and create new opportunities.
-
Are people here actually implying that we should not innovate, and settle for outdated, more dangerous, less efficient and less economic 50 year old designs because they are "proven"?
So much has changed in the engineering and manufacturing technology during those decades that new designs have potential for significant improvements in all areas over the old rockets. The example from the article (riveting and machining vs. stir welding), propellant crossfeed, multiple engine failure tolerance without jeopardising the mission etc.. Not to mention the holy grail of rocketry - full reusability, which is now within reach.
Just look at 60s cars vs. current cars. Would you still use car from the 60s today?
SpaceX is going to leave rockets designed 50 years ago in the dust. And coupled with inflatable space habitats, the potential for space infrastructure cost reduction is massive. What we have today (old rockets and solid tin can modules) is significantly inferior to what is possible with today or near future technology.
-
I'm not sure you understand the relative costs of failure for a rocket engine and a car engine.
-
Yes, the failure modes or a failing rocket engine are somewhat more terminal, however this does not mean that we should stop finding ways of making them more efficient. After all, we're so much better at modelling highly dynamic systems these days that creating new designs is a much safer approach than it was back then.
-
I don't think anyone here is arguing that innovation is bad, it's just that SpaceX is the only company in a position where it's really at all economic (more or less). ULA has the satellite launch market in the US pretty well cornered for the time being. They have these engines just sitting around, it would be a lot of work to develop new engines that would be significantly faster or safer, and since they already have pretty lovely contracts why would they care about bringing down the price?
-
I'm not sure you understand the relative costs of failure for a rocket engine and a car engine.
I understand it, and thats one more reason to not use outdated rocket designs (especially in terms of safety), but pursue designs that can survive multiple engine failures without compromising mission goals, like Falcon 9 can. So your point implies that innovation is even more important in rocketry, not less. When it comes to things where failure can bring massive costs, we cannot compromise with outdated designs, but we must use the best technologies we can to ensure reliability.
-
It's not even really a risk-aversion issue, however. It's an issue of cost-benefit. Making improvements is literally not worth the money most of the time because, again, you're just shaving small amounts of weight off a design in exchange for higher costs. The greater chance of failure is merely icing on an ass-shaped cake as far as most commercial applications of the technology are concerned; they wouldn't bother with it before that was a factor
Yeah, nevermind the article which clearly makes the mathematical case that a lot of things are just costing too much because of that same attitude you are so fond of. That is so full of wrong that I won't even bother to porsue this conversation.
-
I'm not sure you understand the relative costs of failure for a rocket engine and a car engine.
I understand it, and thats one more reason to not use outdated rocket designs (especially in terms of safety), but pursue designs that can survive multiple engine failures without compromising mission goals, like Falcon 9 can. So your point implies that innovation is even more important in rocketry, not less. When it comes to things where failure can bring massive costs, we cannot compromise with outdated designs, but we must use the best technologies we can to ensure reliability.
And yet you were drawing an analogy between 60s cars and cars of today.
-
Cars are an extremely bad example because market forces are pressuring the car makers to go for a not-so-reliable system where they can milk the repairs from the buyers of those cars, allowing for smaller upfront prices. I'd say that if anything, market forces here are working the exact opposite fashion. Because it is so deadly, costly and dangerous, these rockets have to perform and be reliable.
The amount of ludditism in this thread is something that staggers me, and I'm already writing more than I already said I would. I'll try my best not to be dragged down to what is surely a terrible discussion. Go on.
-
I don't think anyone here is arguing that innovation is bad, it's just that SpaceX is the only company in a position where it's really at all economic (more or less). ULA has the satellite launch market in the US pretty well cornered for the time being. They have these engines just sitting around, it would be a lot of work to develop new engines that would be significantly faster or safer, and since they already have pretty lovely contracts why would they care about bringing down the price?
That's pretty much it. Nobody says innovation is bad, but it might simply not be needed in that particular area. Space-X is making reusable rockets which are supposed to be manned in the near future, so they might consider developing a new engine, but most people use disposable rockets that we knew how to make since '60s. People who want satellites launched don't seem to mind the cost, and old, proven technology does just fine at this kind of missions.
Development costs for new rockets are very high, partially due very strict standards and multiple tests they have to pass in order to get certified. The demand for commercial rocket launches isn't that great, so it would be hard to come out even if the new technology wasn't much cheaper than the old. Most space launch companies focus of this kind of missions. Space-X, on the other hand, wants to do something new, so they have to invent new technologies anyway. The last rocket design that could reach Moon with a manned capsule was Saturn V, which wasn't worked on at all since the last Apollo mission. While most rockets used today have their origins in '60s-'70s, they were more or less constantly developed since that time (see Titan series, or the venerable Soyuz, originated as a 1954 design). When talking Moon missions, a few kilos shaved off the engine translate into much bigger cost reductions than in missions to LEO.
You misunderstand the issue under discussion, I think.
My point was that carrier example has nothing to do with rockets. Car example is also bad, for the reasons Luis Dias mentioned. If you want to compare rockets with something, compare them to airplanes.
-
That's pretty much it. Nobody says innovation is bad, but it might simply not be needed in that particular area.
The cited reduction in cost by a whole ****ing lot says otherwise. The ambitions at play here (i.e. a manned mission to Mars) say otherwise. I get the impression you haven't actually read the article linked to completely.
Space-X is making reusable rockets which are supposed to be manned in the near future, so they might consider developing a new engine, but most people use disposable rockets that we knew how to make since '60s. People who want satellites launched don't seem to mind the cost, and old, proven technology does just fine at this kind of missions.
People didn't mind the cost because there was no other game in town. Now that that is no longer a factor, things may get interesting.
My point was that carrier example has nothing to do with rockets. Car example is also bad, for the reasons Luis Dias mentioned. If you want to compare rockets with something, compare them to airplanes.
Or, you know, compare them with other rockets. Because that's the only comparison that makes any sense; provided you want to compare the complete package and not just aspects of the design process. Because drawing analogies (and that is all that happened, someone drew an analogy, and in the grand tradition of nerddom, other people started to complain that the analogy is not 100% accurate. Congratulations on missing the point.) is a different thing to a comparison.
-
That's pretty much it. Nobody says innovation is bad, but it might simply not be needed in that particular area.
The cited reduction in cost by a whole ****ing lot says otherwise. The ambitions at play here (i.e. a manned mission to Mars) say otherwise. I get the impression you haven't actually read the article linked to completely.
I also said that it makes sense for Space-X innovate, because they're pretty much the only ones seriously considering a mission to Mars (well, there's Excalibur-Almaz, but their plan is completely different). The cost reduction for "normal" missions is significant, but the question is, how much did the development cost? Chances are, if it wasn't for this development being needed anyway for missions to Moon and Mars, the cost would outweigh the benefits.
Space-X is making reusable rockets which are supposed to be manned in the near future, so they might consider developing a new engine, but most people use disposable rockets that we knew how to make since '60s. People who want satellites launched don't seem to mind the cost, and old, proven technology does just fine at this kind of missions.
People didn't mind the cost because there was no other game in town. Now that that is no longer a factor, things may get interesting.
If Space-X manages to reduce launch costs by a significant margin, it'll most likely motivate other companies to find a way of doing it themselves. This might be through improving existing designs though, not by designing a completely new launch system. Anyway, it'll indeed be interesting.
-
Yeah, you haven't actually read anything about the issue, haven't you.
The cost reduction for "normal" missions is significant, but the question is, how much did the development cost?
Not enough to make the whole venture unprofitable, it seems.
If Space-X manages to reduce launch costs by a significant margin
They ALREADY DID THAT. Which you would know, if you had actually read anything about this.
-
If Space-X manages to reduce launch costs by a significant margin
They ALREADY DID THAT. Which you would know, if you had actually read anything about this.
I haven't been looking at space launch prices lately (OK, I couldn't find a good list), and the article doesn't quote any figures in dollars. Tell me exactly how much Space-X can launch a 1-ton ship for using the Falcon, and for how much can (for example) ILS do the same using a Proton-M+Briz-M launch vehicle. Space-X claims to have managed to reduce launch prices, but can I actually launch anything at these reduced prices?
The cost reduction for "normal" missions is significant, but the question is, how much did the development cost?
Not enough to make the whole venture unprofitable, it seems.
Maybe if "normal" missions were the main objective, this would actually be unprofitable, or at least have a very small profit margin. Since the ultimate objective is the mission to Mars, it's rather irrelevant, as long as it doesn't ruin the company. My point is, it might not be worth developing such technology just to launch satellites, but once it's developed for something greater, it can also find a use in more "mundane" areas. That's how a lot of technology we use today was made.
-
I haven't been looking at space launch prices lately (OK, I couldn't find a good list), and the article doesn't quote any figures in dollars. Tell me exactly how much Space-X can launch a 1-ton ship for using the Falcon, and for how much can (for example) ILS do the same using a Proton-M+Briz-M launch vehicle. Space-X claims to have managed to reduce launch prices, but can I actually launch anything at these reduced prices?
**** off. Read the damn article. Musk says they've brought prices down significantly. Does he cite concrete numbers? No. Because it's not an article aimed at people looking to shoot stuff into space.
By the way, their website says that a Falcon 9 launch (capable of lifting up to 12 tons of cargo) is priced at 54 million. Took me less than a minute to find that. If you want to have a more precise figure, I suggest you contact their sales department.
EDIT: Oh, look here. A simple wikipedia search turned up this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems
Maybe you should work on your google-fu, it seems awfully weak.
Maybe if "normal" missions were the main objective, this would actually be unprofitable, or at least have a very small profit margin.
Last I checked, SpaceX is not a ****ing charity. They have a bottom line they have to look at. If they were incapable of launching sats at the prices quoted AND turn a profit, this whole venture wouldn't make sense. Somehow, I don't see them loss-leading this whole thing.
Since the ultimate objective is the mission to Mars, it's rather irrelevant, as long as it doesn't ruin the company. My point is, it might not be worth developing such technology just to launch satellites, but once it's developed for something greater, it can also find a use in more "mundane" areas. That's how a lot of technology we use today was made.
Jesus Christ, do you even think about what you are typing here? Of course they're developing their tech for standard space launches now, but they're also using them as scale experiments for interplanetary launches.
I mean, they're not like those morons who wanted to start a Space Elevator project by starting to build a Space Elevator, hoping the necessary tech would be developed along the way. Musk et al have a plan, involving several incremental steps, towards getting to their endgoal.
-
Since the ultimate objective is the mission to Mars, it's rather irrelevant, as long as it doesn't ruin the company. My point is, it might not be worth developing such technology just to launch satellites, but once it's developed for something greater, it can also find a use in more "mundane" areas. That's how a lot of technology we use today was made.
Jesus Christ, do you even think about what you are typing here? Of course they're developing their tech for standard space launches now, but they're also using them as scale experiments for interplanetary launches.
I mean, they're not like those morons who wanted to start a Space Elevator project by starting to build a Space Elevator, hoping the necessary tech would be developed along the way. Musk et al have a plan, involving several incremental steps, towards getting to their endgoal.
Which is exactly what I said. The development of Falcon 9 a stepping stone on the road to Mars. It's value is not only monetary, but also as a way to develop technology that will be needed for a future Mars rocket.
By the way, their website says that a Falcon 9 launch (capable of lifting up to 12 tons of cargo) is priced at 54 million. Took me less than a minute to find that. If you want to have a more precise figure, I suggest you contact their sales department.
I know that. I had a problem with finding figures for Proton. Looking at the wiki article, it does indeed put it much below the Proton (80 million), and Falcon 9 1.1 has about 75% of it's launch capability. That's an improvement, all right. Then there's Russian Angara A3, which has a similar launch capability, but costs about 70 million. Same goes for Zenit, but it's lacking launch capability. The wiki article is missing numbers for a few important rockets. It'd be nice to have some data on larger Angara versions, different versions of Zenit and Soyuz.
Regardless, going by the wiki article, he managed to shave off 14 milion when keeping the launch capability comparable to Angara. That's about 63% of Proton-M's price, while having about 75% of it's launch capability. I'd say, those numbers sound good, and he promises further cost reduction. That's certainly an attractive option.
**** off. Read the damn article. Musk says they've brought prices down significantly. Does he cite concrete numbers? No. Because it's not an article aimed at people looking to shoot stuff into space.
It's not about what he said. You strongly backed his claim he already brought down launch costs, so I asked for clear evidence. Regardless of who the article is aimed at, it's always better to have concrete numbers. What exactly a "significant" reduction means? (OK, I'm guilty of that one myself. Still, it's good to have the numbers.)
Last I checked, SpaceX is not a ****ing charity. They have a bottom line they have to look at. If they were incapable of launching sats at the prices quoted AND turn a profit, this whole venture wouldn't make sense. Somehow, I don't see them loss-leading this whole thing.
Individual launches will obviously turn a profit (a hefty one, I suspect), but I wonder if (and if they do, when exactly) they're going to pay for development costs. It's not like there's a satellite launched every day. However, a lot of it's value lies in the fact it's a scale experiment for interplanetary launches. It's harder to pinpoint this value and convert it to dollars, but it's most likely the most important one in the long run.
-
what are you guys even arguing about anymore? :nervous: