Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Logically Answered" channel.

@gamm8939 You make the incorrect assumption of thinking we'll be sending everything there. Mars has their own resources. Once enough is established they become more and more self-sufficient. And with mining in space, we don't need to send everything from earth either. Population growth is how materials are handled. Who cares if things like platinum and gold become common and less rare? just means we can do more things with it more affordably. This wont happen overnight, so the markets wont be flooded. Also, diamonds are "rare" resource industry that is artificially controlled to keep the prices from tanking (not that i agree with it). You are short-sighted in your thinking, and fail to consider a myriad of variables that will be in play simultaneously. I wouldn't expect many human "settlements" beyond Mars, Luna and maybe Ceres within 100yrs either. But it's not stupid to go to these places regardless. There is much to learn from exploring other planets and moons. And if we want to survive as species well into the future, we have to get off earth. No matter what, someday our sun will consume the planet, no matter how pristine we kept it by then. Mars and beyond is a stepping stone to getting out of this solar system to avoid the extinction of known intelligent life (or moving further out from the sun at the very least). A one-way trip to Alpha Centauri is Completely doable once we have the ships and technology to pull it off. But to get to that point we need to go out and push the boundaries. If you say you can't do it, then you can't. But we can do it, and we will. Your free to sit it out and be a negative Nancy your whole life, and we'll just leave you behind when we go places.
7
People never stopped caring, NASA stopped dreaming. NASA stopped trying.
6
@gamm8939 We're going to Mars because it's the next step. No human has ever set foot on another planet. We've already set foot on the Moon. Also, Mars helps us reach beyond the Asteroid belt. We need to setup shop on Luna, Mars, Ceres, and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, as well as space stations. Mars is the next step. There are problems with living in space or the low gravity of Luna. Mars offers things stations don't. And learning to survive on Mars will help us master terraforming technologies and other unexpected things.
5
@colincampbell767 Focusing on budget and schedules also stifles innovation. Yes, we can't ignore budgets and schedules. But you can't force innovation either. Instead the focus should be on results. At my job, we worked on the SpaceX model long before SpaceX existed. We are ruthless on "making it work". We also ignore senseless red tape when it gets in the way, just like Elon does with SpaceX and Tesla. We also don't overengineer things like NASA. The Apollo era was run this way too. Trial and error design and engineering, even though people don't want to admit it. People build up engineering intuition that way, and eventually just know what works and what doesn't. Managers Hate this, but it works, it's faster, it's cheaper, and it produces better long term results for a multitude of reasons. I can design something faster through trial and error with numerous quick prototypes than the math-centric engineers could do. What would take them 1-2yrs, we can solve in 2weeks to 2 months through trial and error and built up intuition. Yes, some things do need a kickstart of investing from the government. Space used to be prohibitively expensive, and was only invested in for military reasons. People forget Apollo, GPS, Internet were about military advantage. But when space is accessible or affordable, the gov funding isn't as necessary to jumpstart innovation. As times change, so to do agencies and thinking need to evolve.
3
@unclelarry6729 Not a NASA hater. I'm simply upset with NASA's Bureaucracy in recent decades. Their lack of progress, their lack of spirit of exploration. Their bloated costs, their snail-like pace. But, I also am smart enough to look ahead into the future to realize what NASA is destined to become, just another regulatory agency like the FAA. Except, in NASA's case, they will fade into obscurity as space is international territory, so NASA will lose their authority and influence once manufacturing and mining is developed off-planet. I am simply able to recognize what happened with NASA post-Apollo, and can see very simply into the near future and assess what the changes a few years/decades from now will mean to the future of NASA. I'm a realist. Just being practical. And I'm also impatient about space exploration. NASA is just too slow these days to be counted on for innovation and pushing the boundaries of human exploration.
3
Having worked with NASA, they suffer from a crippling fear of failure. They over-engineer everything. And the shear amount of red tape they have is ridiculous. NASA employees also suffer from a, "this is how we've always done it" attitude that stifles innovation. They are afraid of taking risks, of innovating, of trying new things.
2
@colincampbell767 I don't see that as effective or necessary though. I've seen what happens when everyone works in silos of expertise. The cross-communication and awareness of what is going on is lost. When I design a product, I want everyone on the team involved and aware of the considerations of the other people. I want the buyers and accountants to understand the realities of what we're trying to do and why another prototype is needed by the engineers. I want the mechanical engineers to know why the electrical engineers need to be given more space to fit their components. I want the software engineers to understand how the operators will interface and use their product. I want the project managers to understand the amount of work they are putting their people through, and to listen to their people when they tell them which tools and training they need in order to complete the work efficiently and successfully. The entire team needs buy-in on the project, and everyone needs to have a basic understanding of the other considerations their work will affect. And I want smaller teams, breaking up various aspects into smaller jobs if necessary to keep the teams of a manageable size. I want Far fewer managers (no designing by committee) and micro managers. Give the individual workers more responsibility over their work, trust them more. They will perform better when you show trust and confidence in them, and you'll need less oversight then as well. People want their work to matter, and for their efforts to be recognized and appreciated. Having their managers isolated from them off dreaming up ridiculous ideas that the actual workers can't reasonably deliver is not a recipe for success. There should never be enough managers to justify them having their own "branch". NASA and many corporations' problem is that they already have too much bloat and too many "managers" and not enough workers (people that actually get the work done).
2
@colincampbell767 Doesn't work that way. Every new spacecraft innovates in some way, otherwise we're not building something new, rather we are mass producing something that already exists. I've done this in the military in combat, in aviation, in engineering, and even in space technology. We had a saying in the military, "adapt or die". I'll never stop innovating until the day I die. And I'll never work for a company that wont let me innovate or move the ball forward. I innovated in a record setting project for NASA, we built it in only 4 months and it exceeded all expectations and accomplished something NASA had tried and failed to do for many decades. The way my company designs things, we make things more durable and rugged, we always build in layers of redundancy, and we come in lower cost than just about anyone at the same time. Our products are durable as a Side Effect of trying to save costs. There is a far better way to design things and to advance technology faster, at lower cost, and greater safety margins. But it takes a kind of leadership most people can't understand.
2
Mars is international territory. NASA will have no say in the matter.
2
@gamm8939 We go because we are explorers and it's reason enough. You're free to stay here on Earth. We will easily reach beyond the asteroid belt within 100yrs. Yes, I think the real future is in large spinning stations, not down gravity wells, but we are still going to go. It won't take long to get things built larger in space once we have starship, and once we learn to mine and manufacture in space, it will explode at a pace humans have never seen before. There are already private companies developing space mining and manufacturing technologies and testing them. Disagree all you like, you wont change my mind. If you're not interested in space exploration, why bother worrying about it?
2
@jacqueslaurent Yes, eventually. But will Mars be US/NASA jurisdiction, or someone else's jurisdiction, or a mix of nations/gov? And even then, anything in orbit or beyond will remain international territory. Do a little math and thought experiment to understand what it takes to "control" open space. If you do, you'll find it's essentially physically impossible to control the vastness of space anything close to what we do with planetary surface territories.
2
@solidstateresistor2485 We learn How to get there, and come back. Taking the first step is better than never beginning. If we wait until victory is Certain, we'll never be ready.
2
@HanSolo__ There is certain death here on earth. Mars has gravity. The atmosphere can be thickened, and the radiation shielded. Nobody is saying You have to go to Mars. but some of us are willing to go and setup bases. Remaining a single-planet species sets us up for extinction down the road (all your eggs in one basket). Plenty of people around the world already live in freezing cold and rocky environments. Just because you're afraid and disinterested, doesn't mean we shouldn't go.
2
@zeeshanomar8137 Maybe. NASA only holds sway in the US. They don't control international stuff. They may continue to be involved in telescopes and such, but I foresee they will largely become a regulatory body within the US gov like the FAA. If Mars is colonized, it will change things.
2
@istdaslol They blew up all their rockets getting to the moon (Mercury, Gemini, etc). Problem is not failures, it's the cost per failure. When Starship cost a few million to blow up vs 2Bil for SLS.....can't afford many SLS failures. Can afford tons of Falcon 9 and starship failures.
1
Hydrogen works FAR better for colder and more remote locations, like where I live.
1
literally decades away from widespread EV adoption. we needed to start mass producing electrical power plants (nuclear?) years ago just to get it done in 30yrs. but since we're reducing power production, it will now take decades longer.
1
@colincampbell767 We do separate R&D that doesn't go directly into products, along with production level innovations. But NASA isn't maintaining the edge, SpaceX is. So all that cost is wasted. Just because a program is in place that allows for failure, doesn't mean it will work. Like it or not, How it is executed matters. Yes, some things fail. The innovation in teh military is figuring out how to make do, how to make things work even when you have nothing to fix it with. We kept out tanks running by stuffing gum wrappers into the fuse holders. I fixed a brake line leak in Afghanistan with electrical tape while on a combat patrol. I figured out how to continue driving a truck despite the axle no longer being bolted to the suspension. Found out a way to get a truck to shift into high gear when no one else could get it to work (and we'd tried and failed to figure out what was wrong with it). We jerry rigged so many things to keep them working that sometimes I'm amazed things worked at all. Some of my most brilliant MacGyver moments in my life were in combat. I jerry rig stuff at work on the fly all the time too. Guess what, NASA engineers jerry rigged everything in the Apollo/Mercury/Gemini era too. Sometimes deadlines and deliverables are so tight you don't have much choice. Doesn't stop us from innovating with each new product line. If we aren't innovating, if our products aren't innovative and pushing boundaries, then we aren't in the lead, someone else is.
1
CFI making $30k-60k/yr? where? No pilots I know are making that much as a CFI only. I got paid $15/hr in 2015, only for flight time, and flew 6-7 days a week expecting to log 750-1200 hrs a year. Add another maybe 200hrs of paid ground instructing and I'm barely making $15k-$20k/yr before taxes. Doing tons of unpaid paperwork, prep, doing mics things to keep the aircraft going like fueling and updating databases, etc. And I was the top CFI at the school below the Chief Instructor.
1
@Blaze6108 Lots of private companies are spending money on research in space already. And as costs come down and space becomes even more accessible, that research will only increase. There is money to be made in space, and companies will jump on the opportunity.
1
@alanmay7929 Hubble is decades old (James Webb still hasn't launched after all these years). Who cares about robots on Mars once SpaceX lands humans there. The ISS is already slated for retirement. New private space stations will be far larger and more useful and are already in the works. Once Starship is ready, NASA won't be able to keep up with private industry. And if NASA doesn't like it, SpaceX and others can do sea launches and such in international waters and ignore NASA entirely. SpaceX went from nothing to Starship in less time than NASA pulled off SLS and James Webb.
1
@hillbillyintheasia6122 I'd love to see an asteroid mined by 2024, even if only a test.
1
@hillbillyintheasia6122 well, you know how plans go though. 2024 is 3yrs away. Not seeing any development of asteroid capture spacecraft, and it will take time to launch and grab an asteroid and bring it back. Orbital mechanics can sometimes force a rather slow journey, especially when reducing solar orbit. Or maybe they'll go for one passing closer to earth. I hope they do it, but I won't be disappointed if they don't pull something off by 2024.
1