> And right now, the soonest likely to launch is being led out of a sprawling former Fry’s Electronics retail store in a shopping center complex in Texas.
Oh man, I miss Fry's.
Anyways, ISTM that Starship itself can be launched, left in orbit, and retrofitted into a space station module. Just purge the tanks, cut up the methane tank's dome, the common dome, and the downcomer, disconnect the engines (and return them to Earth, maybe) or maybe build smaller tanks to feed the engines for boosting the station, and finish the interior using materials shipped as the payload. IIRC one Starship would have as much volume as the entire ISS, but I can't check right now.
One (future) Starship's payload bay alone has more volume than the ISS—that's not counting the fuel tank volume that shares a common bulkhead. The payload bay takes up just ~1/3rd of the spacecraft length.
- "The Starship spacecraft is 50.3 m (165 ft) tall and 9 m (30 ft) in diameter. It uses 6 Raptor engines, three of which are optimized for use in vacuum.[6][22] The engines produce 14,700 kN (3,300,000 lbf) of thrust.[17] The vehicle's payload bay is planned to measure 17 m (56 ft) tall and 8 m (26 ft) in diameter with an internal volume of 1,000 m3 (35,000 cu ft); slightly larger than the ISS's pressurized volume.[23]"
I remember a common talking point for space shuttle haters (aka people who use the word "boondoggle" way too damn much) was that it's a truck and we don't need a space truck. If it was a truck what is starship?
The Space Shuttle wasn't a boondoggle because it was a truck; it was a boondoggle because it was an incredibly expensive truck. It failed utterly at the ostensible and valid reasons it was constructed, to make access to space cheap and routine.
It was designed to put classified satellites in orbit and possibly go recover them. In the long run it somewhat paid off for the repair Hubble missions.
It was also a pretty cool truck. It generated 21kW of power, using Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells, and captured the output water for use on missions. During most of it's life it had to send the excess water overboard, but when it came to ISS, they started bagging it up and transferring it to the station.
The power itself, the payload bay, the payload manipulation arm made this a pretty nice platform to build ISS with. Which was a natural consequence of the shuttle not being good for much else than building space stations and recovering spy satellites before the Russians did.
In terms of a natural step in our evolution towards a space faring society it was an incredible vehicle and it inspired the imagination of everyone who watched it fly.
> It was designed to put classified satellites in orbit and possibly go recover them.
It ended up useless for both roles. The military quickly moved back to expendables. Satellite recovery never made any sense as a mission for the Shuttle; satellites are generally not worth recovering at those launch costs.
> In the long run it somewhat paid off for the repair Hubble missions.
Clearly not. For the cost of the shuttle program, a large number of copies of HST could have been built and launched on expendable boosters. This is especially the case when one amortizes engineering cost of the program over multiple instances of the physical hardware.
All the other things you mention there are examples of drawing a bullseye around where the arrow landed, post hoc rationalizations. A launch vehicle that is actually cheap, like Falcon 9 or even more so (if it works) Starship would be far more inspiring; look at the palpable excitement from SpaceX's achievements. The shuttle was a Potemkin Village in its inspiration: it superficially looked cool, but objectively it was a hollow shell, leading nowhere.
The truly sad thing about the shuttle was that the US could have had cost optimized expendable launchers many decades ago, even launchers that could have evolved into something like Falcon 9 with a recoverable first stage (the Saturn 1B might have been a good jumping off point; the H-1 engine is in the same thrust class as the Merlin, it just weighs twice as much). Bastiat's "What is Seen and What is Not Seen" should be kept in mind when thinking about the program: compare it to what the alternative could have been, not to nothing at all.
The idea was conceived in the 1970s. Satellite downlinks weren't that capable and several keyhole satellites still used film.
> For the cost of the shuttle program, a large number of copies of HST could have been built
That's presuming we got _nothing_ else out of the shuttle.
> post hoc rationalizations.
Yes. It's amazing that a vehicle built for one purpose was capable of being put to so many others.
> US could have had cost optimized expendable launchers many decades ago
The US is not some monolithic agency. You're ignoring all the parts of reality that are inconvenient to your argument and the fact that the shuttle was a running program for 30 years.
> compare it to what the alternative could have been, not to nothing at all.
And you're comparing it to a level of perfection that was just not achievable by a public agency with funding controlled by congress. To take this perspective and call it a "boondoggle" is clearly misguided.
Anyways.. wake me up when a private company has managed to put a space station into orbit.
> The idea was conceived in the 1970s. Satellite downlinks weren't that capable and several keyhole satellites still used film.
Specifically, the mid 70s KH-9s had a re-entry vehicle magazine that carried something like 6 or 7 REVs, and when it ran out the KH-9 became useless. The idea was that the shuttle could service the KH-9s on orbit and replace the magazine.
The real reason this became useless was that around the same time CCDs were invented, and KH-11s (from 1976 - still in the design phase of the shuttle) didn't need re-entry vehicles at all. Oddly the USAF still operated KH-9s with their REV cannisters up til 1980.
The reason it was expensive was the military specs (be able to land back home after one orbit etc). The goal of the space shuttle was also to help drive USSR to bankruptcy and it delivered. The soviet counterpart was a huge resource drain and did exactly nothing.
The reason for military specs was the case for the Shuttle was so marginal it required fantastical projections of launch rates and launch market to make the numbers work (and all that was far too optimistic, as subsequence experience showed). This required all government launch customers to use it. NASA desperately needed the military on board; the military didn't want it and had to be strong armed into supporting it. That military requirements were then added has to be the responsibility of NASA (or of NASA's political masters) for forcing the military to be a customer.
It's a very good point! From one perspective, you can view Starship as a challenge that SpaceX can implement the STS (Shuttle) concept much better than the original STS itself. (And doing so, become cheap enough to create a high-volume orbital launch market). It's correct to be skeptical, even with SpaceX' track record. (Was it pg or whoever on HN who kept railing on that point about YC startups, that the implementation is everything—high-level ideas and concepts come cheap).
If Starship's proven a lot of things, there's still major show-stopping uncertainties remaining, like if they can execute well on the reentry heat-shield tiles. That was overwhelmingly difficult for STS. I'm not knowledgeable enough to guess if SpaceX is on a promising track with those or not—I'm looking forward to finding out what happens!
(Here's an open-ended question: if the modern SpaceX were asked to build a reusable spacecraft with (broadly) the same design choices as STS, would the outcome be closer to the dismal failure of the original, or to the success of Falcon 9? That is to say: how much of SpaceX' success do they owe to smart high-level design choices, vs. effective low-level execution?)
> if the modern SpaceX were asked to build a reusable spacecraft with (broadly) the same design choices as STS, [...]
That depends on which design choices should stay the same. The boosters and the main tank were bad design choices that made reuse unattainable. With Falcon 9's and Starships reusability lessons in mind perhaps one could make the boosters just part of the main tank, all methalox burning, and have the main tank land itself.
With the booster and main tank design choices disposed of, the remaining major design choice would be that the shuttle had to be a space plane that could land like a plane. That seems like a tremendous waste of weight which would keep the new program from being broadly successful at being cheap, though it might not be fatal I suppose. But at this point Falcon 9 has a better reliability record including landings since they figured out landings than the shuttle did altogether since the STS became "mature".
At a deeper level, the shuttle failed because technical success was secondary to political success. It wasn't started because Nixon wanted cheap launch; it was started because Nixon wanted votes in California in 1972. Legislators didn't support it for technical reasons, but because it brought funding to their constituents. If ever technical decisions had to be made they had to be filtered politically, and only if they continued to meet political constraints could they be adopted. In particular, optimizing it to reduce manpower requirements was contrary to political goals.
In contrast, SpaceX is focused on technical/economic success as the first and overriding goal. As a result, they've run rings around what NASA could do. NASA is by its nature hamstrung in comparison; witness the abortion of SLS, which is showing the same pathology in even more virulent form. NASA didn't fail on the shuttle because of particular choices made, but because NASA essentially could not make good choices.
> At a deeper level, the shuttle failed because technical success was secondary to political success. [...]
Yes, there is also all of that.
That's another thing: neither SpaceX nor any other private company would make the same design mistakes as the space shuttle program for the simple reason that private companies want to succeed. But government agencies will gladly make the same sorts of mistakes in slightly different ways (as in the SLS case) precisely because success is not actually required and none of the people making decisions have anything to lose anyways.
And even once it was "mature" the number of near loss of craft events that happened was far too high. There were many times they landed missing too many tiles, more tiles than they thought.
> One report describes the crew as "infuriated" that Mission Control Center seemed unconcerned. When Gibson saw the damage he thought to himself, "We are going to die"; he and others did not believe that the shuttle would survive reentry. Gibson advised the crew to relax because "No use dying all tensed-up", he said, but if instruments indicated that the shuttle was disintegrating, Gibson planned to "tell mission control what I thought of their analysis" in the remaining seconds before his death.
> Mullane recalled that while filming the reentry through the upper deck's overhead windows, "I had visions of molten aluminum being smeared backwards, like rain on a windshield". Although the shuttle landed safely, "The damage was much worse than any of us had expected", he wrote. Upon landing, the magnitude of the damage to the shuttle astonished NASA; over 700 damaged tiles were noted, and one tile was missing altogether.
By same design choices do you mean that it is mandated that an essentially reusable cargo truck be mounted to the side(s) of booster(s)/tank? Because that was the shuttle's damning sin. Besides the collapse of the USSR there's a reason the Buran wasn't further pursued, and commercial space hasn't pursued a similar form factor.
It's using the same engine as the Space Shuttle (literally - it's using refurbished engines from the Space Shuttle [1]), exact same solid rock boosters with all their flaws, and so on. One difference from the Shuttle is that the SLS doesn't even have a pretext of reuse. It's a single-use only rocket.
One other big difference is that it's also obsolete before it's even complete. It can lift about 50% more than a Falcon Heavy for what will be orders of magnitude greater cost, to say nothing of comparisons to Starship. So there's no viable use case for it to ever actually be used, except for corruption. So it will be used, but it's just been a monumental waste of money that could have instead been directed towards meaningful progress in space. The entire Apollo program which spanned 11 years and started from zero, only cost $180 billion in total, inflation adjusted - less than $18 billion a year. NASA's current budget is $26 billion per year.
ironically those people love the agencies who forced nasa to make the shuttle extremely expensive, because the secondary purpose was to bankrupt the Russians, who were beating them in all aspects of the space race.
shuttle delivered even on that goal. akira2501 comment explain how it was awesome in the number one goal.
While the wet-tank concept has been explored since Skylab, that's a lot of work to do before your station becomes habitable - and where do you stay while doing the work?
Launching inflatable stations inside the cargo area of Starship seems to be a much better approach, as all the fitting-out can be done on Earth, so the station is immediately inhabitable.
The payload bay could have enough finished quarters and life support to support the astronauts who would do the expansion of the station into the fuel tanks. But even if that seems a bit silly you could lash two Starships together and only use their payload bays and still have way more interior space than the ISS does now and do it all for much cheaper because Starships are so cheap.
With a pair of Starships it would be tempting to put them on either end of a tether and spin them for artificial gravity. The benefits for construction and comfort may outweigh the benefits of proximity. And it may be practical to convert from one configuration to the other.
It's not like you can't have several Starships parked next to each other either. There are at least 3 lined up at Starbase in various stages of production.
I know it's getting OT, but I totally understand the sentiment of "This person doesn't want me to read their article, which makes me want to read it less"
In arguing against others' excessive optimism, IMO you've slid into excessive pessimism, which is just as much of a fallacy. If you're going to be this reductive about it, why don't you plant a flag on a hill somewhere and tell me what ISN'T a "colossal waste of time and money kept alive primarily by stupid romanticism"?
Of course everything you said is technically true. All research and exploration is a colossal waste of time and money right up until it suddenly isn't. You can say this about basically every scientific development ever. And yet, some of those bets paid off, and here we are.
Playing the cynic is always easy and always safe. But a cynic never invented anything, and cynics don't move the world forward. I'm glad people are pushing the frontiers, even if for now it looks like "a colossal waste of time and money kept alive primarily by stupid romanticism".
> what ISN'T a "colossal waste of time and money kept alive primarily by stupid romanticism"?
Something that will achieve its stated goals? Something whose stated goals are something other than that thing itself (and the thing itself will be only very peripherally experienced by almost everybody involved)? Something where, when you ask people what they're trying to achieve, you get something other than a series of straight up false claims that they've obviously avoided looking into deeply, plus a bunch of incoherent drivel about the "spirit of exploration"?
Something like a space telescope produces something more than just experience
in building space telescopes. Comsats have a use beyond building comsats. So would manufacturing, if the applications weren't trumped up silliness that vastly exaggerates the value of the space environment... but you don't need people for that and you don't build the factory before you have an ACTUAL profitable product in mind.
Crewed space flight, as presently done, only teaches you how to do crewed space flight... and do it in a way that's not going to scale. And it's not even yielding a lot of really new insight into that any more. It is NOT going to advance the goal of having large space colonies[^1]. It's NOT going to advance the goal of being able to do any significant amount of science or industry in space.
It's just tourism, and for 99.99999 percent of the people supporting it, it'll be vicarious tourism. Tourism doesn't have zero value, but it has low enough value that it's reasonable to expect the people actually going to pay for the entire program personally... which they cannot do.
If you actually wanted to colonize the whole galaxy or whatever, you'd dump your resources into bioengineering something human-like that was better suited to space, and/or into robotics. You would not bother to actually send the results into space until you had something worth testing. Which would be at least decades away even if you diverted all the resources being dumped into ratholes like space stations. And would have just a few wee social and ethical problems.
[^1]: Nor would having large space colonies advance the goal of preventing human extinction. Among other huge problems, even if you could colonize the whole galaxy, the things that would arrive wouldn't be recognizably human or probably even much like humans.
You've actually pointed out the fatal flaw in your own argument:
> you'd dump your resources into bioengineering something human-like that was better suited to space, and/or into robotics
And how do you even know what to bio-engineer before you know what the effects on humans in space are? How can you test what robots work in space without humans, at least at first? Your argument is basically a circular chicken-and-egg dead end where you don't want to do anything until you can do it properly, but you have no idea what "properly" even is because you haven't tried to do it, repeat.
> don't build the factory before you have an ACTUAL profitable product in mind
Yeah, but you build a mockup. You do some trial versions. You test things out, run some experiments, see what's possible. That's the phase we're in. Have some patience.
Geeze, I don't know what you're so animated about. The ISS isn't even that expensive.
Yes, spot on. I don't think I'm that much of an idealist, but you've got to have at least some idealism or no-one would ever do anything.
And as for the "fools wasting their money", let me invoke the great George Bernard Shaw:
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> Most of the rest is also incestuous stuff aimed at supporting the useless-in-the-first-place goal of putting humans in space.
useless I guess if you're fine with humanity dying off entirely. One way or another, if humanity is going to survive it has to get into space and out of our solar system because we only have so long before our sun dies and takes all life on Earth with it. That's already assuming that we don't kill ourselves first, or that something else doesn't. Since we have no idea how long we really have, it seems very smart to take what steps we can and develop the technology we know we'll need.
Maybe you just don't care since you can assume you'll already be long dead before it happens, but it's still a fact that we're up against an uncertain deadline.
The toilet on the ISS cost $20,000,000+. One of them. "I guess you're fine with the whole species dying" is extremely unfair (and ridiculous) rhetoric.
Rather, the assumption that we won't kill ourselves first is completely unjustified, and to many people merits more concern and immediate action than the ultimate death of the sun.
> Rather, the assumption that we won't kill ourselves first is completely unjustified, and to many people merits more concern and immediate action than the ultimate death of the sun.
All the more reason to get off the planet and spread out really. While I'd also put my money on us doing ourselves in, there are a lot of threats to our existence from space. Giant rocks, solar flares, supernova/gamma ray bursts, alien invasion, etc. We'd likely never see them coming.
As for the cost of the toilet, if you can design and build one for less that works just as well for men and women while in microgravity, pre-processes urine so that astronauts can drink it later, stays clean and prevents smells from stinking up the place, all while not being more unhealthy or uncomfortable to use NASA would likely pay you handsomely.
How exactly do you realistically think we are going to survive in outer space? And even if we could, why would we want to? I don't think the rest of society should subsidize the escape fantasies of a small minority who find space travel exciting and worth seriously pursuing.
> How exactly do you realistically think we are going to survive in outer space?
Currently, I don't think we can, but I think our odds of survival increase the sooner and more seriously we invest in research and experimentation towards that goal. We already have some pretty good concepts for things like generation ships and propulsion, but clearly we've got a long way to go. The more ships we send out the better our chances will be.
> And even if we could, why would we want to?
Because generally it's always been our nature to. Your question would have been just as relevant when it meant crossing the oceans, entering the rainforests, or mapping Earth's cave systems, but we did those things and more because we're explorers. We've usually benefited from exploration as well. We find new resources, new scientific discoveries, and new opportunities pretty much every time we put in the effort. None of us would be where we are or have what we do today if somebody else hadn't put in that work before us.
We're also generally driven to survive. Or instincts for self-preservation don't just apply at an individual level. Like many other animals we work cooperatively to preserve and advance our species and our communities even to the point where individuals become self-sacrificial at times.
> I don't think the rest of society should subsidize the escape fantasies of a small minority who find space travel exciting and worth seriously pursuing.
I disagree that it's a small minority who want humanity to continue to survive. Most people might not be interested in space travel itself, but they wouldn't suggest we should just allow ourselves to die out without even attempting to survive. I think that most people who understand that space travel is a requirement for the survival of our future generations find space travel to be worth seriously pursuing with true dissenters being those unaware that the destruction of our planet and all life on it is going to happen eventually and that it is entirely unavoidable. Everyone else understands at least on some level that space travel is worth seriously pursuing and either enthusiastically support it or would simply rather slow that pursuit down because they feel the short term gains are worth playing the odds and simply hoping that we won't kill ourselves off and none of the other life ending disasters (like giant space rocks and solar flares which could happen at any time without warning) will happen while humanity kicks the can down the road.
I think that it's a very optimistic view that in addition to us being lucky enough to avoid the kinds of disaster that would end all life on Earth before we bother to get around to investing time and resources into finding a way out of our solar system, we'll also be lucky enough to avoid any and all disasters that would make doing that kind of research later extremely difficult, unlikely, or impossible. Economic collapse, exhaustion of natural resources, plague, war, even the dumbing down of humanity either through attacks on science and education or through other means (for example leaded fuels causing average IQs to drop by several points) could mean that we're in a better position right now to tackle the challenges of space travel than future generations will be.
If we're unwilling to just lay down and die space travel is just a question of when and not if. Because the amount of time we have left is extremely uncertain and our future is generally looking more dire than it has in a very long time, it seems irresponsible to put off the work that must be done today just so that we can play, be lazy, or devote all of our increasingly limited resources to immediate pleasures and short term gains. I'm not suggesting that we drop everything else we do and devote ourselves to the problem of space travel 100% but it seems very odd to single out the relatively small investments we're making today as problematic. Even if it turns out we'll all die off in a few years time anyway, we'll have already been "wasting" a lot more money on things far less worthy.
> The toilet on the ISS cost $20,000,000+. One of them.
The first of anything is expensive. The next one will be cheaper. The one after that will be cheaper still. If we're not willing to go extinct on Earth (and I'm not), sooner or later we'll need toilets that work outside Earth. Why not get started?
By the time the sun dies enough time will have passed where there won't even be humans, we will probably have speciated into something else entirely. We are talking like two billion years here, more time than going from the first eukaryote to the first human.
True there's no telling what we'll be like by the time that happens, but whatever we become I'm sure we'll want to get well away from here. I think we'd be lucky to survive in any form here on Earth for that long.
I'm in favor of space travel because of the way we keep messing up this planet as much as anything else; we're clearly running out of runway.
OTOH the death of the Sun is a stupid rationale, because changes in solar output are predicted to be hundreds of millions of years away, which is not a useful deadline of any kind. You might as easily argue for saving money on oversized fireworks and solving teleportation first.
Yes, the death of our sun is a very long way out, but it's also entirely certain and unavoidable. It's a hard deadline. We could very easily kill ourselves off in a million ways before that happens and there is plenty of other threats in space that could do it for us without warning at any moment, but those are all only possibilities. The end of Earth and everything on it at some point in the future due to the death of our sun is a certainty and there's nothing we know of that can prevent or allow us to survive it.
> You might as easily argue for saving money on oversized fireworks and solving teleportation first.
Oversized fireworks seem unlikely to save us, but if teleportation becomes more promising than traveling through space in ships I'm all for it. Right now, it looks like ships are our best bet and so that's where we should be spending more of our limited and increasingly vanishing time and resources. It's a good idea that we continue to look into alternatives, we just want a greater percentage of our resources/efforts spent on whatever seems the most likely to work.
> Nobody has yet demonstrated any manufacturing process that's enough better in microgravity to justify the launch costs... let alone the enormous infrastructure you'd need to do any of it a remotely interesting scale. And if it did, you could likely do it lights-out more easily than you could keep people alive to do it hands-on.
This has already been demonstrated via Varda Space and yes, they do it robotically with no humans in orbit.
As for the rest of this comment, thank goodness this type of incredibly depressing and pessimistic attitude is not widespread among engineers, we'd never achieve anything.
I don't think it's really depressing or pessimistic. A serious argument can be made that manned spaceflight is unnecessary when everything we need to do in space can be done remotely with robotics. The delta-V-times-mass spent launching relatively heavy redundant meatbags (people) into space could be saved or repurposed for launching even better machines.
It is a depressing and pessimistic way to look at the world!
> Varda demonstrated crystallizing ritonavir (presumably without getting form II).
> This is already done at scale on Earth.
Is it? The crux of the issue seems to be that this can't be reliably crystalized under gravity and the issue of "disappearing polymorphs" can be avoided.
> and these are the same people who couldn't get their shit together to get a permit to land their spacecraft on time.
The issue appears to stem from the FAA's side of things. One could argue Varda shouldn't have gone forward with only a verbal agreement from the FAA in hand, but that's hardly "not having their shit together".
Saying "human shouldn't fly to space" is like saying "we shouldn't build particle accelerators or sequence DNAs". It's purely uneducated point of view, which doesn't cost much. No reason for depression at all.
It's part of the standard HIV therapy, which means it's being given to literally millions of people on a regular basis.
A generic version is approved in the US, and probably elsewhere, which means that more than one company is making it.
It's a WHO-listed essential medicine.
Short of ibuprofen or something, that's about as "at scale" as it gets for drugs.
> The crux of the issue seems to be that this can't be reliably crystalized under gravity and the issue of "disappearing polymorphs" can be avoided.
Apparently it can be crystallized reliably enough to support heavy use.
There was a bad problem in 1998 where a more stable, but less potent, form was showing up. Apparently if there's even a tiny bit of that in a batch, it propagates and ruins the whole batch, so forward microcontamination was ruining all the batches. I think that was the first time anybody knew that that form even existed.
My guess is that that is happening in approximately zero batches right now. But even if it's ruining half the batches, throwing them away is still cheaper than trying to do it in space.
> One could argue Varda shouldn't have gone forward with only a verbal agreement from the FAA in hand, but that's hardly "not having their shit together".
Yeah, it really is. They took dumb chances and endangered their mission. You can't cut corners on that kind of thing.
... and that's assuming you fully accept their version of events.
It could only be construed as dumb insofar as we assume the FAA's side of things is totally sane in its own right. Which, knowing government, it's probably not.
The more insane you think the FAA is, the dumber it is not to get a signed-off formal permit in writing with an embossed gold seal and a certified copy deposited with the Pope. Or whatever.
> The fact is that space stations, like all crewed spacecraft, are a collosal waste of time and money kept alive primarily by stupid romanticism (and don't even start with the laughable "lifeboat" crap). That's going to stay true for a long, long, long time, and maybe forever.
> But at least now it's more fools wasting their own money and less fools wasting other people's money...
I'd rather the fools waste their money (and yours, to) on laughable crap like keeping humanity alive than not so laughable crap like waging wars.
For-profit is a terrible way to organize humanity, except for all the other ways. It turns out there's no workable alternative to allocation of resources by means of markets.
In terms of human population, the carrying capacity of our solar system is probably in the quadrillions. Only a tiny fraction of that is possible if we remain on Earth. Likewise, the vast majority of natural resources in our solar system are not on Earth either.
Ok, I waited to be downvoted :) now let me repeat: this is uneducated post, almost if not all statements here are incorrect, it's a personal opinion, but not facts. Literally everything could and should be disregarded here - "with the exception of 'thank you'" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104952/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1).
No, it means establishing a dominant market position, preferably with some kind of lockin based on a network effect, and then changing your product to transfer value previously given to your customers to your shareholders, because you believe the customers can't or won't now leave you.
