It would go right here of my heart. I have are real and the spot. Its okay. I had a great career at nasa. I got to do a bunch of really awesome things. Most importantly i flew with some really great crews. Near the end of my red up to my Second Mission that came back and was flying to train for a shuttle landing simulation that we had doing. We landed that date. The day that this happened, this is back in 2010. It spacex launched this rocket, the falcon nine. At the top you see that dragon spacecraft. Went up into space. That went around the earth to times, came back, landed in the pacific ocean. Spacex became the first private company to send something into space and bring it back. At that time that was something that only about six or seven nations have accomplished. That was a really big deal. We landed they came up. They saw the big nasa logo and said, hey, congratulations on that also flight. That was so cool. So excited my first reaction was, well, that was really spacex, not nasa. And i thought, wait a minute. Its a publicprivate partnership. Nasa was very much involved and it never would have happened without nasa. Once i made that realization i took all the credit. Thank you very much. Glad you like that. I designed it myself. But i saw something, some excitement that i have not seen in a while. That was really interesting. I started looking around at what was happening, this new initiative that nasa was taking to involve the private sector more and give more freedom to the private sector to integrate. I saw all this innovation happening. I saw companies doing really great work. I knew that this was a promise for a really Bright Future in space. This is where progress was going to happen, and i wanted to be a part of it. Something was very difficult. I voluntarily stopped being an astronaut. That was a really great cake, but i voluntarily stepped away from that and said, want to sign up with spacex. Ive been here for three and a half years working on turning the space craft that we used to take cargo of to the space station into a humancarrying vehicle. This is what it looked like. You compare that to the previous slide, significant differences in the spacecraft. This is the one that will take people. We had now four times successfully brought cargo of and brought car go home. This guy has a bunch of advancements that make it suitable for carrying people. It will carry up to seven people. The interior looks awesome in that picture. Were going to put a lot of cargo and stuff and there. It will look quite that specious capable of carrying up to seven people. An ecosystem and life support system that you need. We have all launch escape system the key thing we are doing to improve safety is an ability we did not have on shuttle. If youre having a bad day on the falcon nine, the falcon nine launch vehicle is having a bad day you can light up those engines and have a launch abort system like an ejection seat that will take the capsule the safety just like we had previously. So we are working on that. This second picture, one of those engines. If this happens on the pad you will have about five to six gs of initial acceleration. Then there will be a nice thats what those fans are for. We have the capability to use those engines also. We hold on to them and use them for a landing. We always love parachutes at least for back up, but we want to eventually land a thing on propulsion so you can fill it up with gas and fly it again. All talk about this in a moment. We are trying at spacex to get more and more like you guys. We are trying to bring space more and more into commercial aviation. And one of the examples of that is elon musk will say this, you know, you never see a 737 land with parachutes. Pack in or get new ones. He wants to be reusable. He once as much of the space rocket comes back, you taxi to the gate, filling up with gas and go again. Thats the model we are trying to attain. So thats one example. We also have some doubt as land and Harder Services and on land obviously instead of right now our cargo ship comes back to the ocean. Thats not a good way to bring people back. We are trying to do is take nasa astronauts to and from the International Space station. We have a heat shield that it is capable of three times the heat flux of a nominal entry. So what that means is at least from a thermal prevention standpoint we can do missions to the moon. We are looking beyond. Unlike a said, we want to be more like you guys. We are trying hard to be as good as you. One of the ways i can describe how far we have to go is on this chart. The first thing i want to point out is that this is not the scale, all logarithmic scale. What i did was went and got all the statistics on how risky are different endeavors, different events. You see the one out there on the far left that has the lowest chance of fatality. Its actually one in over five and a half million. So better than one in five and a half million. That is you, commercial air flights. By the way, all these numbers are dead on accurate because ive got them all from which to appeal. [laughter] if you have any questions, its a simple answer. Anyway, you guys know youre in the one in a million plus level chance of fatality on a domestic flight. As you go down from there the next when you see is driving from los angeles to san francisco, one in 174,000. Military aircraft is one in about a hundred thousand. General aviation, one in 27,000. And maybe next year can come back and talk to you guys about why general aviation is nowhere near as good as you guys. But then in combat military aircraft in combat, one in 7,500. Im still talking about aviation i have not gotten to anything in space. The next thing is the requirement of where nasa wants us to be. This is what they want us to attain with the next generation the spacecraft. And thats one in 270. That is our aspirational goal. One in 270. You guys are at one in five and a half million. Where have we been up until now . Space shuttle, one in 68. 135 Space Shuttle missions. So one in 68. If you climb mount everest, thats slightly riskier, one in 67. About the same dangers as flying in the Space Shuttle. Even worse, one in 58. Finally for comparisons sake, modern ejection seat, the north there is misleading because that is when the guys pull the handle that is the success rate after the poet. Many of them pull it way too late. In no, if you were straight and level inside the heart of the envelope that number would be a lot better. Look how bad we are in space. We have a long way to go. Why is that . Why are we so much worse . Well, some of this is basic physics. The Kinetic Energy is roughly 100 times, two orders of magnitude what it would be of a boeing 757. I was actually flying over here and not that i procrastinated, but i was putting my presentation together on the plane ride. I was sitting in the back of a united 757 from lax to dulles. Ask the flight attendant, can you give me a favor . And trying to put this presentation together for this keynote address and giving. Can you ask the captain our gross take off weight and crew speed at knots. She elected me like what . What kind of request. All i wanted to ask was to you want something to drink. She actually did, and i get these numbers from the captain. A massive 242,000 pounds, ten times less than that at just over 20,000 pounds. The speed, look at the speed. When i converted 480 not to milesperhour at 552. Ogle velocity at low earth orbit is 17,500 milesperhour. Theres a huge difference in the energy. We go 30 times as fast as that 757 the we have 100 times the energy. If you got it, runover by a dragon it would feel like you just got run over by 10757 s. At the end result is going to be the same. [laughter] anyway, there is lot more energy involved. And then as far as los, we have to design our vehicle to survive up to 30 gs. That only happens during emergency cases, but that is what we design for. We have a thermal environment that is unforgiving plus or minus hundreds of degrees. We have vibration and acoustics. Our engines shake more and make more noise than airliners. And we have a much more difficult radiation environment. Our avionics have to struggle with that. There are some things that are just the laws of physics. There are other things that dont have to deal with the laws of physics that explain why we have not close this gap faster. If you think about it, we have been flying in space now with humans for over 50 years. Its about the same time we have been flying jet passenger planes so in that same time look at the improvements you guys have made in safety from you dont we cant say well, airplanes are safe to because we have been doing them longer. Twice as long. But if you look at jet aviation and where it was at the same time, a look at the leaps and strides the you have made. We have gone to one in 68. But the flat rate has been a lot less. So we flew during the shuttle years an average of four and a half per year. That is probably how many take offs occur from dulles and about ten minutes for so. So obviously the flight rate is vastly different. The rate of new Vehicle Development is vastly different. We are about to do our first test flights. When we do that that would be the first human test flight of any space vehicle in the United States for over 30 years. The last time we did test flights with humans on board, the very first Space Shuttle flight in 1981. We have not been it takes us 30 years to get to the next generation of vehicle. I dont know how many boeing and airbus and Mcdonnell Douglas airplanes came and went in that same 30 your time frame. But the other thing those things are difficult. The demand in the economics of such. One of the things that we can do something about, we find it is difficult to incorporate new technologies, which sounds weird. You think of space and nasa has been on the cutting edge, the latest and greatest in technology, but in reality and nasa cares a lot about safety. All of us the work in this business care about safety. In a weird way we care too much. Its a weird thing to say, but we have our risk aversion has led to kind of a situation where its hard to innovate. Its hard to incorporate new technology. So as a Contractor Building a new vehicle the path of least resistance is to do the same thing and the same technology, the same processes that we have always used. If i do that i will sail through certification. There will be no questions asked we will have to come up with reams and reams of data. If i try something new, if i try manufacturing with 3d printing which we are using to build a rocket engines, if i want to use modern electronics instead of space qualified the way theyve always been done, if i want to do Software Engineering in an agile way instead of using Software Standards that were written for mainframe computing i have a mountain to climb. I have a really tough uphill battle to try to get certified because theyre is a tremendous burden placed on doing things in a different way. The thing about that is the fear is if you dont really closely examine new technologies you can get burned and something unexpected can happen. But the perverse effect is that by being so concerned about doing something new because you will do something risky you look in safety at one in 68. You will never get better. So we have this risk aversion leading us to some extent to paralysis. The other thing is once you build it is hard to improve it. One thing that is really important is continuous improvement. You need to listen to the vehicle, look carefully. You guys look really carefully. Every time youre flying around your sending a range of data down to central locations where you go through and analyze the data, your engines, performance, environment. They collect a lot of data, but its important that when you see a problem youre able to fix it. The problem we have is that we have this high cost structure in the industry. That makes it very expensive to change things. We have solved that problem with spacex to a large degree because bear vertically integrated. Make about 80 percent and our own facility. So if you want to change something we dont have to go to our subcontractors vendor many tears down and write and get the lawyers involved and reread the contract in the subsystems packs. We do it all. So we dont have all the barriers, the cost barriers to make the change, but we do have a certification barrier. The way we do cert right now in space, it really discourages any change to the baseline configuration. Once you have the design base line, if you change anything it is expensive because of the paperwork burden involved. Of give you my favorite example. After we flew in atlantis we stop at the time that you might be the last flight. Turned out that we ended up buying one more time which was a great thing for the space station program. But we thought we might we called ourselves the first final flight. And so while were up the day before we did them burn to come home we went up to the flight deck and took one of our mission patches. We took that sticker and put it on the flight deck. The reason it was pretty easy to access in 0g but difficult to get to. We thought maybe nobody would find it. We put up there. We sign our names. And we put some words at the top on paraphrasing. The first final flight of atlantis. She was a great ship. Well, guess what . While they were doing the maintenance to turn around and fly somebody found it. And they said, you know what, guys, were going to have to scrape it off. If we let it stay there we have to do all this paperwork. We have to the reid to the drawing, the engineering drawing. As to be redone. We estimate it will cost a couple million dollars. And not making this up. There were like, okay. Scrape off. Thats how hard it is to change anything, even something as simple as putting a sticker on. So when they rolled atlantis and the Visitor Center at the Kennedy Space center somebody else who knew the story, it was still there. The technician that was charged with scrapping and often do it. [laughter] you know what, atlantis flew one more mission. [laughter] anyway, that is how hard it is to change something. And this is really bad. If you look at the to catastrophes we have, challenger and columbia, what happened was not that we killed people because we were changing things and not being careful. What happened was we kill people because there was a problem that we knew about that we didnt fix in both cases. We were continuously improving family would have potentially solve those problems and save those lives. I assert that the problem we have is not that we changed too many things but that were not changing enough. There are other things that we did move heaven and earth to fix. Other problems like cracks in the speed lines. We stood down te fleet and spent a lot of money and fix the that was probably the right thing to do, but with the vehicle as complicated as spacecraft you cant really know whats going to kill your next. It is very, very difficult. Whenever fixed the film coming off the tank, not gas and we killed two crews. Well, i think im doing pretty well on time. What i would like to do i might need a little help to start this movie. I dont want to end on that note i have a really cool movie. Ed spacex we are all about that continuing improvement, constantly searching for ways we make our product and process is better. We are not going to take the path of least resistance. And not going to do things the way of always been done. Were going to make this better. The only way were going to get to a place where we are really doing Amazing Things in space. Heres a preview. Three, two, one. And left off. And humanrated dragon is not going to be an issue. Yes. So i can tell you, look. I know you had it was kind of of little bit negative about where we are right now in terms of space. But i can tell you, this is a painful time. For about three years now since atlantis flew her last flight the United States of america no longer has the capability to send men and women in the space. We have to rely on our good friends, the russians, to take our astronauts up and down to the space station. Now, this is not a good place for this country to be. We led the way in space for so long. It is not what any of us are working in the space industry are comfortable with. What were doing is we are retooling. And when i tell people, it is never sexy when you retool the factory. You never bring tours in and take the trams by. It is when the bright, shiny toys rollout of the factory and start flying around the people going to get excited. Nasa has not stepped down one big from committing to a human space flights. In fact, popular contrary to popular myth, the budgets at nasa have stayed flat or gone higher over the past six years. We are not backing down. We simply had to stop flying the shuttle because it was costing us around 3 billion per year, and there was no way congress was torn to give us another 3 billion to do something new. As i made clear, it is important that we do something new. We have to do better than one in 68 and have a program that is sustainable as well. Exactly what were doing and what nasa has been focused on. It seemed soon the whole world will see that. Right now were in this painful time or we dont have the capability to send humans into space, but stick with us because in just a couple more years we will be spent sending humans and the space again, doing human test flights. We will be launching the americans on american rockets launching from american soil. We will come roaring back, and it will be awesome. Stay tuned. [applause] [applause] thanks. A question. Absolutely. Be happy to. [inaudible question] a lot of similarities, but a lot of differences. We can identify with a lot of what you just said. Dr. Garrett reisman has agreed to take one are two questions if we have any out there. I have one. That was a great presentation. Are there any technological advances in the work that you guys have done that we can use and vice versa . What have we done if he found would be useful for what you do . Absolutely. Some of the things that might be of most benefit the we had , we are finding that the freedom you have to do things they never could before because you were constrained by the machining process, you can print. So i think were making rocket engines chefs. Once we get comfortable with the performance and the strength of material, i think that holds great promise. In addition, there is lot that we can learn from you. In fact, that is where we started. How can we make now we are fine people. How can we make avionics better . Hey, what are the avionics, the flight computer and how many are in this triple seven . Mr. Looking at those architectures and learn