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

@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
probably logistically better long term for resupply in space too, over cold gas.
1
and who is going to service that data center every day?
1
Some software on the ISS has been Linux based.
1
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
@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
@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
@cocoapebbles13 I think you just had a stroke....
1
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
The latest and greatest chips available in 2017 were tested successfully onboard the ISS without physical radiation hardening or radiation shielding.
1
@FerdinandFake you obviously don't understand how cooling in space works.
1
@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
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
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
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
typical silicon valley startup: smoking too much mj
1
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
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
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
@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