Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "The Space Race" channel.

SpaceX: provided NASA funding to develop Crew Dragon, has flown a bunch of manned flights Boeing: given the lion's share of funding, still can't build a functioning space capsule. Sierra: not provided any funding, going to beat Boeing to successful crewed missions anyways
173
@straightpipediesel X-37: unmanned But the X-37 does present a conundrum about Boeing. Seems Boeing took a turn for the worse sometime After the X-37 was developed. First flight being in 2010.
7
@foximacentauri7891 remains to be seen.
6
6:20 your lack of knowledge of space station design is apparent. The ISS looks very spacious and roomy as well with noting protruding into the living spaces. But as someone who has been inside the ISS mockups and sent multiple payloads to the ISS, I assure you that the Chinese station will end up looking very similar before long. the promotional images vs real life varies a lot and for good reason. All I see is a chinese copy of MIR. Chinese modules are "more modern", sure, but since China is about 20yrs behind the US in such technologies, they're not really that far ahead if at all. US and others have added much newer modules to teh ISS in recent years too.
6
@emhome924 because they do copy everything.
3
they tested an inflatable module on the ISS already.
3
@jimdake3571 1) I don't live in Seattle 2) where I live has nothing to do with Boeing's issues. 3) Boeing moving out of Seattle won't address their leadership and management issues causing their problems.
2
no, it's based upon a string of earlier US designs, which precede the Soviet designs
2
there is Nothing revolutionary here. What did the Chinese "reinvent" exactly? all of this has already been done on the ISS and such as well.
2
Clearly you haven't heard of BO and others trying to pull out of the space station effort.
2
@ixxxxxxx Yup, doors falling off airliners, wheels falling off airlines, dead whistleblowers, craptastick failures of starliner even after all the time and money they had to get it right......yes, boeing is sooooo competent. Meanwhile, what crew flight number is SpaceX on now? 9 is it, not counting the civilian flights. All successful. Hell, sierra is going to beat Boeing to a successful test flight with no gov funding at all.
1
@Nill757 Dream Chaser is far smaller. All reentry vehicles have a eat shield that needs servicing. but having a payload bay was stupid for teh space shuttle.
1
@Nill757 the Dream chaser is a lifting body, those are control fins, not wings. It takes less to shoot the SAME exact payload plus a capsule into orbit than the 70tons of space shuttle. "Wings on reentry reusable vehicle are a mistake." Now you are advocating the shuttle was a mistake?
1
@Nill757 Dream chasers fins are angled up at more than 5 degrees. they provide next to no lift. they are about pitch/roll/yaw control. the majority of lift is from the fuselage, and less than 50% of any lift generated by the fins acts upwards. but in fact the fins are producing downwards lift when controlling pitch.
1
@Withnail1969 that flew exactly once, unmanned.
1
@geofrancis2001 wrong, Soviet Union collapsed, hence Buran stopped.
1
@geofrancis2001 the Buran was a total failure. it missed the Entire point of having a reusable spaceplane. US Shuttle could interrupt the solid boosters.
1
@geofrancis2001 the boosters can be stopped, as you admit. can be jettisoned. and no Astronaut was ever killed by a solid fuel booster.
1
@geofrancis2001 Russia lost people in space too. most astronauts died in training. rockets were safer than training.
1
@geofrancis2001 the Buran has worse problems than the Shuttle. It didn't acheive its mission, if it ever had one, and defeated the purpose of having a shuttle. They copied it without understanding the intension of the design. "thats irrelevant to the design of winged spacecraft." then stop making up worthless arguments for me to have to respond to and stay on topic.
1
@geofrancis2001 wow, you're totally missing the point. this conversation is clearly over your head, beyond your IQ level. you're all over the place and constantly changing the subject. You're just arguing with yourself at this point. None of your arguments has anything to do with what I was talking about.
1
russia doesn't have anyone smart enough to develop a newer rocket. And they didn't have anymore foreign designs to copy.
1
will still be able to dock with future stations, other spacecraft, etc. still useful for crew return after missions to mars and such.
1
@bluesteel8376 yes, good for crewed missions. "They are designing a future version to have crew proving yourself wrong. wow "but neither of the 2 currently being worked on will be able to fly crew" No sh1t sherlock. did the very first Crew Dragon fly with crew? Did the first Buran fly with crew? And neither have we gone to Mars yet..... gee, might help to have reading comprehension skills and logical reasoning skills, don't you think?
1