Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Scott Manley" channel.

  1. Blue Origin rocket: still not ready Blue Origin engines: still not ready Blue Origin lander: still just fancy marketing posters how many years has it been now?
    60
  2. Correction: "this test was the culmination of over a Decade of work". not a few weeks. I'm not giving them a pass on this money/time waster.
    53
  3. real deal? Blue Origin rocket: still not ready Blue Origin engines: still not ready Blue Origin lander: still just fancy marketing posters how many years has it been now? How long is it going to take for them to produce ANYTHING that works that can even reach orbit?
    10
  4. don't forget SLS
    5
  5. My Cessna from the 1960s gets over 40mpg. airplanes are very efficient, even the old ones.
    4
  6.  @GSF404  When BE-4 flies, successfully, and starts delivering paying customers to space, I'll stop criticizing it. I'm judging BO on results, and BO's results are not good thus far. "Blue Origin have been working on 'Blue Moon' behind closed doors for quite a while and have even been working on a zero boil-off LH2 storage. That is a freaking GAME changer, forget Methane, if someone can perfect indefinite cryogenic storage then. It opens up the much more efficient hydrogen engines for more widespread use." that's great, but behind closed doors we have no idea if it actually works or not. It is as good as Soviet propaganda to me behind closed doors. BO has a history of failing to deliver working product on time, much like the Soviets. And thus I am going to react to them accordingly, on their own merits (or lack thereof). I used to be super excited about BO.....but the years kept going by and nothing was accomplished. And then they missed deadlines and their designs failed to work as promised or be ready. They still aren't flying tourists into space other than that one high profile test flight. They still haven't even demonstrated the ability to reach orbit yet. And the people working there describe a bad work environment and poor leadership. I'm working with people today who used to work at SpaceX, Boeing, BO, NASA, and I was even been offered a job at SpaceX recently. I get inside info occasionally, and nothing I hear is promising. Will they get it eventually? maybe, but by then they'll be so far behind and so much more expensive still.
    4
  7. Blue Origin rocket: still not ready Blue Origin engines: still not ready Blue Origin lander: still just fancy marketing posters how many years has it been now? Blue Origin remains a pipe dream
    4
  8. and there is no proof he ejected. ejection pod or not, we don't know the plane didn't disintegrate around him Before he was exposed to teh airstream.
    3
  9. still waiting for Blue Origin to launch literally ANYHTING!
    3
  10.  @waynemapp6333  they have not been test flown yet, and until they do, it doesn't count. I'm not a hater. I judge on RESULTS. BO is not getting Results, and so i criticize them accordingly. They are way behind, they are slow, constantly having issues, far more expensive, etc. Until they do ANYTHING, I and going to complain about them. Look how many other private rocket companies have been created AFTER BO was created, and they already have paying customers, successful rockets from scratch, successful engines from scratch, and delivering payloads and doing things BO still can't do. BO is going to get sh!t on until they actually DO SOMETHING, Anything! Objectively, thus far, BO has been a failure. They failed to deliver on time, failed to reach orbit after all these years, failed to test a single rocket. I work in the space industry with NASA, SpaceX and others, I hold multiple world records and world firsts in teh space race. Nobody even talks about BO. But there are tons of other companies already doing business in outer space.
    3
  11. Blue Origin rocket: still not ready Blue Origin engines: still not ready Blue Origin lander: still just fancy marketing posters how many years has it been now?
    3
  12. Seriously, how many videos are you going to make repeating the lies of the Dream chaser lineage coming from the Mig 105? There is a very clear lineage predating the Mig 105 by decades, a child with google can find the info. look up the predecessors such as the HL-10, Dynasoar, and many others that it evolved from. The US predated Mig 105 by a long shot, and the Russians were clearly copying the US from designs which weren't secret, or at least trying to match the US with their own solution. US was developing these designs starting in the 1960s, and Russia only joined the party in the mid 1970s and 1980s.
    2
  13. 0:40 that space kill counts, thus making it the highest altitude kill
    2
  14. Blue Origin rocket: still not ready Blue Origin engines: still not ready Blue Origin lander: still just fancy marketing posters how many years has it been now?
    2
  15.  @scottmanley  Technically, many computers are effectively liquid cooled. Gotta get the heat to the radiators. But true liquid cooled computers in outer space will be here sooner than you might think.
    2
  16.  @michaelpipkin9942  leaves it open to whether he ejected, or was ejected from the aircraft.
    2
  17. Blue Origin rocket: still not ready Blue Origin engines: still not ready Blue Origin lander: still just fancy marketing posters how many years has it been now? still hasn't put Anything in orbit.
    2
  18.  @_mikolaj_  yeah, and it's also normal to actually deliver working product on schedule too. how many other rocket startups have already flown and are even flying customer payloads? BO has been around how long and has YET to standup a rocket capable of orbit. They are years behind schedule and contributed to the downfall of a partner company. Children make concept art that looks realistic online. where is the actual hardware?
    2
  19. a good visualization for general understanding, but not exactly what is actually happening.
    2
  20. don't throw away nuclear waste, we can recycle it for energy here on earth. VERY wasteful to throw it away!
    2
  21.  @HalNordmann  "as far as the rocket goes, it could launch on something else in a worst-case scenario." totally correct. however, look how long it has taken to produce a working rocket, or even a working engine.... This lander is still in early concept phase and has a LOT of complexity and higher standards to meet due to being human rated. Are we going to have to wait another 20yrs for the lander to be ready? "Plus, I think there is a fair bit of progress on New Glenn, based on some recent activity at Cape" oh, they are making progress, have been for years. But they are also already years behind schedule with no news as to when it might be ready for real. But until they actually do something, actually get results in any way, their credibility keeps tanking.
    2
  22.  @johnnylongfeather3086  they are required by law to bid and keep competition.
    2
  23. Blue Origin rocket: still not ready Blue Origin engines: still not ready Blue Origin lander: still just fancy marketing posters how many years has it been now?
    2
  24.  @tarmaque  they couldn't even deliver engines on time. still haven't flown a rocket (tourism doesn't count), still can't reach orbit.
    2
  25. Regarding the X-15. It achieved a record speed of Mach 6.70, where as the fastest the Space Shuttle Orbiter ever flew in which it was actually relying upon its wings for lift and control was Mach 5 and below.
    2
  26. what you don't know is they still teach things that are flat out wrong, and don't even exist.
    1
  27. is it just me or was SLS quietly retired?
    1
  28. Mass produce the engines, and by making them simpler and cheaper, that further reduces cost. Now that they are so cheap, who cares about getting inside? If it fails and the engine survives, cut it open to find the issue, and address it on the new engines. It's not like you're going to re-fly a damaged engine. Just get another one.
    1
  29. I have taught the VOR correctly. I've used the lighthouse analogy if necessary to make a person get it, but never once claimed the signal was like a laser
    1
  30. Most traditional computers last ~1month in radiation, but there are ways to extend that. The ISS uses COTS HP laptops, but has something like 70 of them onboard all the time so they can swap them out as they get fried (which is about every month). Many CubeSats don't stay in orbit, or operational very long, but that is changing and they are lasting longer, and being used for more mainstream applications.
    1
  31. they beat a time to climb record using an unmanned Remote Control toy with a stupid high thrust to weight ratio, that can't do anything else. An F-15 carries a human and has real utility. I don't find it fair to mix unmanned RC airplane records in with Real Airplane Records. RC airplanes have performance metrics that are stupid impractical for real (manned) airplanes.
    1
  32. NASA started out focusing on aircraft. Developed Area Ruling, winglets, airfoils, drag reduction, flexible controls, propfans, propellers, fly by wire, and sooooooooooooooooooooo much more. the list of innovations for aircraft and helicopters due to NASA/NACA is nearly incomprehensible.
    1
  33. why does NO Chinese rocket or booster have self-destruct? they just let crap land on people. Typical communists, they have no regard for human lives.
    1
  34.  @MrWolfstar8  it would be a good option, if BO could actually build anything that actually worked.
    1
  35. You are SO wrong, and you provided the proof yourself. "those are not parachutes. That is a drogue parachute, also called a drag chute, drag parachute, drogue chute, or braking parachute." Drogue PARACHUTE Drogue CHUTE (chute is short for parachute) Drag PARACHUTE Drag CHUTE (chute is short for parachute) Braking PARACHUTE So they are in fact parachutes in every way, both in name and function.
    1
  36.  @TheEvilmooseofdoom  doesn't matter, they are all parachutes.
    1
  37.  @stargazer7644  None of that changes the fact they are parachutes both in name and function. according to you the Mars rovers didn't use parachutes since they discard th parachute before landing and use rockets to land instead.... For those of you not smart enough to understand, I've included the definition of a parachute below. Read and comprehend, if you can. par·a·chute noun: parachute; plural noun: parachutes a cloth canopy which fills with air and allows a person or heavy object attached to it to descend slowly when dropped from an aircraft, or which is released from the rear of an aircraft on landing to act as a brake.
    1
  38.  @trolleriffic  nothing you've said changes the fact they are still parachutes.
    1
  39. Happy to say that even before I became an engineer, I was a CFI and taught all of these, and more, correctly.
    1
  40. but, we did learn something, and now everyone understands what those huge diverters at Canaveral are for.
    1
  41.  @DKTAz00  Radiation and cosmic rays can potentially damage a computer, but most often they are merely causing a bit to flip, messing up the code, and causing the code to no longer function properly.
    1
  42.  @DKTAz00  And radiation can flip bits too. More often than not, the reason radiation "fried" a computer was due to a bit flip in the software, not a result of actual physical damage.
    1
  43. NASA going nuclear, because no one else is allowed to, and without nuclear, NASA can never compete again.
    1
  44. just to be clear, the Mars Helicopter was NOT the first flight of an aircraft on Mars. The powered flight of the landers that hovered to lower the rover to the surfaces and then flew away to cash, was the first controlled flight of an aircraft on Mars.
    1
  45.  @scottmanley  It is still an aircraft, same as the F-35 and AV-8B are aircraft. Look it up. In the FAA it's called "powered lift", and you can get a license for it. Also, my Cessna doesn't use the atmosphere for propulsion either (assuming I'm not gliding). But it is still an aircraft. Powered flight, is powered flight. Here is the ACTUAL definition of an aircraft: "an airplane, helicopter, or other machine capable of flight." Here is the LEGAL definition of an aircraft: "The term "aircraft" means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air." notice that atmosphere, atmospheric lift, and atmospheric propulsion are not part of the definitions? Here is the definition of flight: "the action or process of flying through the air." Now that you're flying airplanes, you should get more familiar with the definitions, terminology, legalities, and such of aviation.
    1
  46. @cardboard9124 "You just proved you have no idea what you are talking about with "my cessna doesn't use the atmosphere for propulsion"" prove me wrong then, I dare you. And no, breathing oxygen from teh atmosphere doesn't count, as not all propulsion needs atmosphere to work, including a cessna (could be fed oxygen from a bottle). and a glider has no engine at all. and the Mars helicopter doesn't use and air breathing engine either. And then there are electric aircraft. An aircraft's propulsion does not need to come from the atmosphere to be an aircraft. And you can provide no valid definition that claims otherwise.
    1
  47. @cardboard9124 the atmosphere does not make the propeller spin. the propeller does not produce thrust magically all by itself. perpetual motion machines do not exist. Just as the Mars helicopter used an electric motor to make its propeller spin. tell me, what made the Bell X-1 fly forward? was it a propeller, or the same propulsion that the Mars lander used? Are you going to claim the X-1 is not an aircraft? Still waiting for you to prove me wrong....when are you going to stop asking questions and start making an argument to prove yourself right?
    1
  48. @cardboard9124 " I am truly concerned that you fly a cessna and dont know that the propeller needs air to create thrust" ...........and that propeller isn't powered by the atmosphere. you don't seem to grasp the basic argument here.
    1
  49. @cardboard9124 But a propeller is not the ONLY form of aircraft propulsion either, now is it? And many forms do not require an atmosphere at all. and no definition of an aircraft requires "atmospheric propulsion", and you can't find one that does. Which means you're making up BS and invalid criteria that doesn't exist.
    1
  50. @cardboard9124 Wikipedia is not a source, nor a dictionary. I cited an actual dictionary, as well as the legal definition the FAA uses.
    1
  51. @cardboard9124 "its not what the propeller is moved by, its what it is moving to make thrust" And not all aircraft use propellers.......learn to read
    1
  52. @cardboard9124 the sky crane that lowered the Mars rover was not built to operate in space. it was built to operate in the Martian atmosphere, and never flew in space. It decelerated inside the atmosphere, hovered for an extended period, and then flew away to crash where it wouldn't hinder the mission.
    1
  53. @cardboard9124 "I was talking about you saying that the cessna could fly without air as long as it had a canister of o2 in the engine" I said the engine could operate without atmosphere by feeding it bottled oxygen into the intake. Stop changing what I said. Doing stuff like that proves you are a liar and will twist facts to suit your narrative.
    1
  54. @cardboard9124 "you literally said "my cessna doesn't use air for propulsion" your aircraft isn't propelled when the prop isnt moving atmosphere" and i was speaking about the ENGINE. context matters. Without the engine, the propeller doesn't spin. I don't need atmosphere to spin a propeller. Gotta take the argument one segment at a time. I was talking about the engine first. You changed to the propeller. So now I came back with a DIFFERENT argument specific to the propeller. you clearly don't know how this works.
    1
  55. @cardboard9124 " it didn't have anything to do with the atmosphere though, considering it is only 1% of earth's atmosphere, the skycrane couldn't care less if there wasn't an atmosphere" irrelevant. doesn't matter. it still flies in atmosphere, just as the X-15 and X-1 could and did.
    1
  56. @cardboard9124 Propulsion typically refers to the SOURCE or Type of propulsion. Engine, motor, rocket, etc. In that comment of mine, I was Specifically commenting on the engine, as the Engine is the source of propulsion and thrust for the Cessna in powered flight. Propellers are not a source of power.
    1
  57. probably logistically better long term for resupply in space too, over cold gas.
    1
  58. and who is going to service that data center every day?
    1
  59. Some software on the ISS has been Linux based.
    1
  60. 10:00 no, they really don't understand how wings produce lift, and it remains a hotly debated topic to this day. we can brute force it with computers, or test it in a wind tunnel, but we can't use our understanding of lift to design things the way we would if we understood lift.
    1
  61.  @troys9222  Starship has actually FLOWN, multiple times, multiple prototypes. SpaceX has developed multiple engines successfully. Look how many Starship prototypes have already been built. And we see the proof every day. BO hides what they are doing because it is so embarrassing. No successful engine flight tests, let alone successful flights. We still have yet to see a SINGLE orbital capable rocket prototype in all these years. And not a single test launch.
    1
  62.  @cocoapebbles13  Do you really think asking me any of these questions proves BO isn't pathetic? What do my credentials have to do BO delivering a working engine or rocket on time? None of your questions are relevant, nor do they prove anything. Irrelevant cherry picking, deflecting, making excuses....try again. But, since you brought it up, SpaceX just tried to hire me 2 weeks ago. And Tesla tried to hire me 5 days before that. I've been offered jobs around the world in places like London, Taiwan, etc. I hold world records and world firsts in the Space Race working with NASA and others. I was even told by a NASA astronaut trainer that I should apply to the astronaut program, as they felt I was a perfect fit (both my personality, and background career experiences military/pilot/engineer).
    1
  63.  @cocoapebbles13  I think you just had a stroke....
    1
  64. Dream chaser and such is NOT derived from Russian spaceplanes or lifting bodies. The US lifting body designs dream chaser is evolved from preceded ALL Russian designs by at least a decade. So sick and tired of this lie being constantly promoted. Stop spreading lies. ASSET 1963 M2-F1 1963 M2-F2 1966 Dynasoar 1966 HL-10 1966 X-23 1966 (dream chaser ancestor) X-24 1969 (dream chaser ancestor) M2-F3 1970 Mig 105 1976 (Russian) BOR-4S 1980 (Russian) HL-42 HL-20 1990 (dream chaser/prometheus ancestor) X-38 1999 (dream chaser ancestor)
    1
  65. The latest and greatest chips available in 2017 were tested successfully onboard the ISS without physical radiation hardening or radiation shielding.
    1
  66.  @FerdinandFake  you obviously don't understand how cooling in space works.
    1
  67.  @FerdinandFake  "radiant heating from the sun is negligible compared to the waste heat from the solar and CPUs." Not if it's in direct sunlight. And the Earth and Moon both emit radiation heat too. but the size of these solar arrays is no joke, and trying to maneuver that station to keep the radiators in shade won't be easy. But there are other issues with this plan even before bothering to worry about the radiators.
    1
  68. most flight instructors and pilots don't actually understand the science and just regurgitate book answers, never knowing they are wrong. but some of this is EXCESSIVE for pilots to need to know and in no way makes them a better pilot for knowing the technical answer. they just need to understand what happens in warmer air for example, not be able to write a scientific essay on it.
    1
  69. Possibly. Past, and ongoing research, is likely to change this going forward though. top of the line COTS super computer servers have been successfully tested in outer space without the use of physical hardening techniques. New methods of radiation protection being developed.
    1
  70. uh, people still use this to pass the exams. doesn't need batteries. I started flight training in 2010 and we used it exclusively.
    1
  71. typical silicon valley startup: smoking too much mj
    1
  72. We've tested modern super computers, COTS servers, with No radiation hardening, and No specific radiation shielding, aboard the ISS. 1TF+ super computers, first ever in outer space, most powerful computers ever put into space. The computers were using the latest and greatest chips available at the time of launch, using novel radiation protection techniques, and survived.
    1
  73. US developed lifting body aircraft and spacecraft concepts and actual flying vehicles that were flight tested a decade or more before the Russian designs. Dream Chaser is more related to the X-38, which is based on the X-23 and X-24 vehicles. HL-10 (1966-1970) M2-F2 (1966) X-20 Dynasoar (1967-1963) X-23A PRIME (1966, a clear predecessor to the X-38) X-24 (1969-1973, a clear predecessor to the X-38) M2-F3 (1970-1972) And finally, bringing up the rear, MIG-105 (1976) BOR-4 (1980-1984) HL-20 (1990) HL-42 (1994) X-33 (1990s) X-38 (1999-2002) Dream Chaser (2004-Present) Russia also copied or tried to imitate, B-29 -> Tu-4 XB-70 -> T-4 B-1 -> Tu-160 Shuttle -> Buran Custer Channelwing -> Antonov 181 U-2 -> Beriev S-13 & M-55/M-17 in response to US/UK SST development ->Tu-144 Ta 183 + British engine -> Mig 15 (speculation on my part) .... There is a legit reason the issue of Russia copying comes up frequently. China copies are even More blatant though, as they literally copy the entire design, not just take inspiration and ideas. Such development programs are expensive, and starting from scratch is even harder than starting from other peoples' work. Russia never had the deep pockets of the US.
    1
  74. I can confirm this too. Commercial solutions are outpacing government solutions in many areas. Gov is paranoid and tests everything beyond reason. SpaceX is following the superior method of "Fail fast, fail often", for an example.
    1
  75.  @DrWhom  Fail Fast Fail Often is a problem solving technique. You don't hve to use it, but you'll never keep up with your competitors who do use and understand it. Once the problem is solved, then you continue to use it in working out the remaining issues, until you not only have a fast-developed solution, but also a reliable one. Equating failure during development with death during operations is not what Fail Fast Fail Often means.
    1