Comments by "Zrips" (@Zripas) on "Thunderf00t"
channel.
-
11
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
Tesla Cybertruck - isn't released yet, so yes, you can't buy one, duh...
Tesla Semi - some companies have received quite few of those already, so you can buy it, you just have to wait in line.
Tesla Roadster - isn't released yet, so yes, you can't buy one, duh...
Tesla Robotaxis - isn't released yet, so yes, so you won't be able to find one, duh...
Hyperloop - Why not?
Starlink - Then why it has 1.5million customers and that number isint slowing down and is mainly restricted by produced starlink dish count?
Starship - Why? Because its still in development?... Reusable rocket which can get crap tone of payload into orbit is extremely useful... Its like the holy grail for entire space industry...
SpaceX sending billionaires on moon holidays - Why not? Like present logical reason why this can't happen...
Twitter - can't really comment on this one as I have not followed on what's going on with it and don't really care about it. Its still his private purchase and he can do with it whatever he want's. Tho, from when do you need to pay to use Twitter? Are you talking about that blue check mark or whatever it is now? Does that stop you from using it?
Do you have any actual valid argument here or are you just here to complain for the sake of complaining?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@leoa4c
Actual valid arguments are actually valid ones... You presented some weird personal opinions at best. Like take your first one about Cybertruck. Its not actually released yet, so you can't buy it... Yet... It should be out at the end of the year, so then you will be able to buy it... So like... So you have any actually valid points here because your first one fails miserably...
I don't believe him just because he said so, he made bunch of stupid claims which are actually valid ones. But at this point his worse "crime" is not getting time frames correctly... Yet he still delivers sooner or later.
And for hyperloop, it is technically possible to be built, it's not really a good idea to do it due to its complexity and surrounding technical challenges with such little benefits. So that statement that it would never to be built is weird. Heck, you could use hyperloop on mars, you know, that place without any atmosphere, so you can save quite a bit on technical challenges by not having a need to create vacuum in a tube. Or do it on moon if there will ever gonna be few moon bases.
So again, do you have any actual valid points or are you just jumping on bandwagon of Elon hatters for the sake of it?
Side thing, just noticed that I have zero notifications about replies from this video/channel, accidentally stumbled upon this reply... Did TF shadow banned me or something? Where is my tin foil hat...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@panickingstrumpet6881
Then he is luckiest person on the planet... As he made quite few projects successful. No idea what you are complaining about Twitter here, he is remaking it in his own way, you might like it or not, that's quite irrelevant.
Killing monkeys? I mean, that isn't good, but we are talking about technology which should tap directly into humans brains... So while doing extensive testing it might result in some casualties. It always have been with animal trials and it always will be. If it was 100% safe then there wont be any need to perform animal trials and they could move straight to humans... And it's again, its somehow only bad when Musk company does it, but when you have thousands of other companies doing same or allot worse things, then it's just brushed away as a casual thing.
Kessler Syndrome might or might not happen, but starlink satellites will be deorbited at the end of their life cycle. Is this possible issue? Yes. Would it be better to not have thousands of extra satellites in earths orbit? Yes. But this doesn't change the fact that we need those satellites to provide internet coverage for entire planet. 50% of humans still have no access to it, so we can't move forwards without bringing all humanity as a whole.
Every single technology has its own bad sides, you just need to check which is the worse, to have it or to not have it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@427max
Because Musk is a threat to far leftists, they we already hammering on him for past 4 years even when Musk wasn't big part of politics, if Trump lost then it would be a high chance for lefties to create a reason to remove Musk from public, one way or the other.
Heck, you don't even need to look far back, just check headlines of recent terrorist attack, what does headlines say? Something like "Cybertruck exploded, one dead" while it wasn't cybertruck which exploded, it was explosive materials which got intentionally ignited by a terrorist inside cybertruck, who died? The terrorist. Funny thing is that damage was minimized due to use of cybertruck, as it was still in one piece after explosion and even had power, but leftists media doesn't care about actual reality, they want to put Tesla and anything Musk related in bad light, this was the case for years by now and it would have gotten worse if Kamala remained in power.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dowent
Musk hating videos are easy money, it's easy click generating approach. Even with someone being obsess with another person, you would not get so many videos with basically same exact information repeated over and over again, this looks like generic attempt to cash grab while this topic still hot. Heck, half of US voted for Kamala, so TF here basically gets approval from that population by default.
You can go over comments and notice what people actually says, majority and I mean majority of them simply gets to the point of saying "Musk is bad" aka they are just generic Musk haters, aka anyone who shares same childish view will get their approval by default.
Its sad that it came to this, but TF started to do it years ago, nothing new here honestly, maybe the share insane amount of videos he is putting out. I guess he doesn't have any other money sources and his channel no longer growing hampered his income by quite a bit, so trying to offset it with bunch of "new" videos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@randomrandom450
You don't even have actual counter argument here, you just screaming that something is true because random youtuber said so...
There are bunch of things to complain about Musk, what he said or did, but he does deliver, you like it or not. I'm not a fan boy of Musk, he does allot of stupid shit, but I like what his companies do, reusable rockets, EV's, world wide internet, neuralink, that robot thing, universal self driving system and so on...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DoubleMrE
"Elon isn’t a rocket scientist either"
Do you need PhD diploma do be rocket scientist? Like seriously, how does one become rocket scientist? Is it only PhD? No need to know anything about anything, you just need to have PhD in rocket science? And yes, having PhD doesn't actually indicate how much you know about this topic.
" can’t cite a scientific paper off the top of my head"
Because it doesn't exist.
"but I have seen several PhD biologists and physiologists say that human beings can’t live permanently in a 1/3 G environment"
Why not? Who ever tested human biology in 1/3 of earths gravity? No one, because we never had option to do it, ever. So people who made those claims are either plain out lying or to stupid to realize that they are lying.
We don't know how human bodies would react to 1/3 of gravity, we ONLY have examples of 1G and 0G for longer periods of time, we have NO examples of people living in 1/3G for longer periods, this is simply the fact.
"The normal development and health of our bodies depend on Earth’s 1 G gravity field"
Is it tho? Cite me peer reviewed scientific paper saying that human bodies can't survive in 1/3 of gravity for longer periods of time. Not asking of anecdotal evidence, as I can cite you PhD biologist who says that evolution is not real... Like, yes, seriously, we have wackos with PhD's, shocker...
"And a human child born on Mars would never develop normal bones and muscles."
Normal for what? Earths environment? Why would he need it if he would be living on mars?
In general I can go back to the same point: Citation is needed from peer reviewed scientific paper which says that humans can't live on Mars.
I'm not talking about general posible issues, talking about actual unsolvable issues...
Its like saying that humans can't live in space because there is no air... Well clearly we figure out solution for that one... Isn't it?...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just because he bought BEV startup which was basically non existing on the market, doesn't mean that it somehow negates what Tesla achieved. Rocket are not soviet design, Musk stated multiple times that he wanted to buy some engines from Russians, but they asked to much for those, so he (Musk) decided to make his own, and now we have Raptor 3.
For your last statement, honestly, world needs someone who wants to allow actual free speech, Musk or someone else, but world needs to get its freedom to say what it want's to say, and heck, leftists are not the party which will allow that any time soon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@louis_the_hedgehog
Because you want to add extra equipment, extra batteries, yes batteries, you can't have solar panels on rocket which isn't in stable orbit... And you think that this would increase payload capacity... IT WILL NOT. You can check how crammed rocket bottoms are already, where do you suppose to show those breeze creating engines? How much extra weight do you think you could lift off if all of that extra stuff had 0kg weight? It would be in few kg's, only few KG's, because again, electric engines are shit when it comes to actual power of thrust while taking up proportionally huge amount of space.
If a craft is in orbit then it can use electric engine, just like what Starlink satellites already using, basically what all satellites uses, already. But this ONLY works because you don't really care how long it takes for it to produce thrust, you just need thing which could generate it. Starlinks generally takes from several weeks to several months to get into correct position after they get deployed by rocket. Why is that? Because light breeze takes time to add up useful thrust.
At this point I don't even know what point you even trying to make here. Electric engines are being used, they have been used for decades by now, when its suitable for the task. Those are never been used for lift off or anything what requires fast gain of speed. So what is your point here what isn't already being done?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wearabo
You have right to live in Texas too, but you already said that you will not live there just because Musk is in same state, so by this logic you should stop living on earth, maybe buy a ticket to Mars with first wave from Musk or something? It would be extra ironic, but you would achieve your goal. Tho, that said, Musk lives in this Solar system too, so you might want to travel further away.
Like, how far away you should go from person you don't like to be comfortable? Is there specific distance or is it just bound to the states? Could you live 5 meters apart as long as he lives in different state than you?
And just FYI Musk isn't my hero, he does bunch of dumb shit, but being generic Musk hater doesn't help you out here. And I have no real interest to go to Mars at this moment, will wait until there is actual properly livable colony before even attempting to consider that option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PinkbombUK
I'm not talking about special tiny areas, was talking about actual whole cities... After all those block your precious view of stars... So should we enforce for ALL cities to basically cut off electricity at night? Should we change our life just because 0.013% (actual number of people who looks at stars with telescopes) of humans? Should we stop technological progress just because 0.013% of humans have extra troubles looking at sky?... I don't like street lights, should I just smash those? Like, at which point does this become ridiculous for you? What is the percentage of humans which gets inconvenient by a thing when we should start hampering something? If SpaceX launches space telescope for public use, would you ten be happy?
No idea why you even want to imply that I would have said that Musk does it out of altruism... Its a business... Just like every other... You can't launch thousands of satellites without it being some sort of business.
Will put it in different analogy here. At one point horses got outlawed from public roads. Was it a good or bad thing? Well, it was good for road safety, did some horse riding fans got offended by them no longer being able to go to their local grocery store to buy milk with their mule? Yes. Should we just said "F**k those pesky cars, we offended 0.013% of people, let keep using horses!!!"
You sound selfish, honestly. Instead of providing cheap internet to remote places on earth to start educate people on the world you just want to look at sky instead... Like, c'mon...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skuggeboy
"So you call it complaining and hating that somebody mentions a possible problem that could affect our planet?"
Correct. As you don't have any actual numbers you objectively have no grounds to say that something is bad, as for something to be bad you would need to prove that it is bad, but as you can't do that, you can't complain about it. Its basic logic 101. Get actual numbers, if those show that its actually causing an actual damage worth noting then you will have valid reason to complain, if its on level of rounding error then you don't have reason to complain. Simple.
"Even if we don't have the numbers yet, it doesn't mean that it isn't a problem"
And it doesn't mean that it is... THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT!
"can trigger destructive reactions between ozone and chlorine, leading to the depletion of the ozone layer"
Can or does? If it only can then you even have way weaker argument than before... its not only that you don't know how much damage it causes, it only maybe potentially could cause some...
"If you have looked into the matter you would understand that it's pretty complicated matter and there's no easy answer."
Then don't claim that there is an actual matter to address here. If its complicated, then solve it, until then you don't have valid argument here.
"You think it's okay that billionaires and big companies can just fill the low earth orbit with junk without looking into these matters?"
No, but you screaming and screeching that something is bad because billionaire did it will not help you out here either. Prove that it actually damages ozone and we can work together to stop it.
And just try to notice that now you went straight away in attack mode on billionaires and big companies, like it has any actual meaning. Billionaires, big companies, local tiny grocery shop runned by Joe, doesn't matter, have no actual impact on actual argument here. So why are you even mentioning it like it has any meaning? It either damages ozone or it doesn't, who did it doesn't have impact on argument.
"What do you mean about that I should stop using electricity?"
Because production of electricity creates CO2 and CO2 damages environment, so you should stop damaging environment, aka you should stop using electricity if you want to stop damaging environment. Just using your own argument against you, not my problem that it sounds ridiculous.
"More and more energy is being produced without CO2 emissions"
Magic isn't real. To produce electricity you will need equipment to do it, it can be wind, solar, water, geothermal or anything else, but you still need equipment to produce it and its production creates CO2 and general waste. Electricity storage/transportation creates its own waste on top of that, your electrical equipment (PC or whatever you are using) creates its own CO2 footprint. So no, there is no such thing as energy production/usage without CO2 emissions, there are only the ones which are less polluting.
So use your own argument and stop using electricity!
1
-
@skuggeboy
"I make risk assessments for living so screaming and screeching comes naturally to me"
Looks like you are bad at your job. You should avoid screaming and screeching until you get actual numbers to work it, otherwise you just look like paranoid person.
"Sorry for offending your world view"
No offense, not even little bit, just annoyance of seeing people who seemingly are smart but are unable to think rationally in some situations.
"a possible negative side effect"
Yea, possible, just possible, without you even knowing if this is even worth mentioning at the end of the day. Its possible that sun goes supernova tomorrow, doesn't mean that we should start digging ditches... What is possible and what is actually true are not the same thing.
"It was extremely dumb of me"
All of us have their low times, I forgive you.
"The best solution obviously is just to be quiet and not say a word"
Or, you could gather actual information to support your paranoid statements? Wouldn't that be a better option instead of creating conspiracy theories?
" I should stop everything I’m currently doing and start researching this complicated matter without any qualifications on the matter"
So you don't have qualifications, you don't have any actual data on it, yet you want to rise this "issue" like its a real issue just because it maybe possible could be somewhat a damaging thing on some level? Do you see how worthless this makes your original statement?
"Just like all the journalists are doing."
Doing what?... Its like you are going balls deep into some sort of conspiracy... Maybe journalists actually looked into it and asked actual experts and they came up with nothingburger? Maybe there is actual damaging thing and journalists are simply gathering actual evidence BEFORE speaking about it? Maybe maybe maybe. But what they are not doing is not creating conspiracy theories.
"We humans will keep repeating history by first trying things out without thoroughly searching them"
What do you suggest here? Let's postpone things for extra few decades until its fully analized? How would you even fully analyze a thing which needs to be done in bigger quantities on longer periods of time to actually represent actual impact?
With your logic industrial revolution would still be a thing of the future as we would be sitting around the fireplace and pondering how much of environmental impact bigger fireplace could cause here...
"I shouldn't attack big companies and billionaires"
My question is: Why are you attacking big companies and billionaires? Is this all about them and not actual environment?
"It's not my place to criticize them because I'm just a lowly peasant"
I mean, you already admitted to not have any expertise here and that you don't have any actual evidence, so yes, it's not your place to criticize anything here. Even if I agreed with our conspiracy theory, you would still have no right to criticize here... I'm not defending big organizations or billionaires, just pointing out your irrational argument based on your personal ignorance, that's the issue here and the only issue.
"I might be too optimistic about reducing CO2 emissions but that's one of the issues that can actually be solved"
Then show good example and stop using electricity, you can stop heating/cooling your house too, or using your car, or... I mean, everything you do in your life creates CO2, after all breathing is the thing you have too do and each breath creates CO2, sooo... Like... You know... Not actually suggesting that, but this is where your own logic leads too... Makes no real sense, doesn't it?
1
-
@skuggeboy
"Every single risk will be listed"
Like meteor strike? Alien invasion? Scientists figuring out that we are in matrix?... Clearly you are exaggerating here, you are not looking into ALL possibilities here, you are only looking into the ones which have some supporting evidence of actually happening at certain or higher chance value, right? Or does all of your risk assessments includes meteor strikes? Supernova explosions? Unicorns appearing from thin air and puncturing fuel tank with their magical horns?
"We will then evaluate each risk with people with different backgrounds and expertise"
Cool beans, so go and talk with those people if this is an actual issue or not, otherwise, as ridiculous as it sounds, its on same level as saying that there is a risk of aliens getting upset of satellites interfering of their spying no earth and due to that they will wipe all life on earth because they are that thin skinned... Do you see how ridiculous and how fast it can get with your level of logic? We could sit here for 5 years and list all possible issues with rockets and satellites, as there can be basically infinite amount of those, doesn't mean that we should waste our time on all of them, right?
"If you think that I'm bad at my work because of it, then I'm happy that my employer isn't as harsh as you and I'm still employed"
Depends on what is your actual job, if its just coming up with possible issues, then cool, I could do it too. But there is difference between coming up with possible issues and coming up with issues which are actual issues worth to talk about, and as you already admitted you don't have expertise about satellite deorbiting damage caused to ozone and you don't have actual supporting evidence besides that one research which says that something could maybe possibly potentially cause some undefined amount of damage.Like cool, me eating beans and farting could maybe potentially cause some undefined amount of damage to ozone too, doesn't mean we should all throw our hands up and ban beans now... What we need is actual data BEFORE you make any claims of a damage caused by that thing.
"Same goes with the ozone layer. If we damage it for some reason the end result will be much worse than spending more time evaluating the possible risks."
That's the more interesting thing, we already been at the point where ozone layer was severely damaged, it was way way way worse, we fixed cause of it, now it healed. Having some wage potential issue with satellites causing undefined amount of damage is just... Worthless at the moment.
"Hardly ever rich people will go to jail if they break the law"
Because that's not how the law works and, well, rich people do have connections helping them to awade punishments, tho issue right now is that you don't even have a case to make here. I would be more than happy to stand by your side and request different satellites or their banning in general if you managed to prove that there is actual damage by them, but you don't have it, you just trying to do some weird scaremongering, yes, this is basically what you are doing. Scaremongering.
I'm not scared to be annoyed, I will be more than happy to be annoyed if I can correct someone. We seemingly agree on most of the things here, what we only disagree is your scaremongering, you might be used to just present bunch of possible issues as part of your job, but this is not your job, you should only present things which are actually an actual issues and not something YOU think to be an issue.
Happy New Year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fusion energy is being developed and it always feels to be just around the corner, tho there are quite few advancements being made recently due to bunch of new startups popping up everywhere.
Flying cars? We do have those, those are called "helicopters". We don't have actual flying cars because of actual noise pollution and actual danger in having bunch of people going all over the place, even now people can't drive on the roads, imagine them getting access to flying cars...
We do have personal jet packs. There are even jetpack races going on. Some rescue teams starting to use them in some situations.
Moon base is relatively easy to make, issue is with costs. Every single flight to the moon costed around one billion bucks, just to send 3 guys in a tin can. We went there, checked around, its just boring rock, turned around and went back home. From that point we were sending probes/robots, which is exponentially more cheaper.
1
-
I mean, TF is a grifter, but like... Hyponatremia, do you know what is it? Its water poisoning, its when you drink to much water. So, while water is essential to our survivability, if you drink to much of it you risk of actually dying. Keeping this in mind, its not an issue with CO2, its an issue with amount of it. Plants do consume CO2, but there is basic limit on how much they can. This becomes even bigger issue when you get things like expanding deserts, deforestations and so on.
Issue is with amount.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loandbehold5178
Reason for investors would be to make money... Currently there is no financial benefit to go to Mars, Musk himself said this multiple times and this is why he is funding all of this from his own money, primarily from what Starlink will be making.
What you said was an implication that Musk wants to ruin this earth to go to Mars, which makes no sense, as this isn't the goal of mars colonization, never was and never will be, after all as bad it could get here on earth it will be better than it will be on mars from day 1. So making a sheltered colony on earth would make way more sense than to make one on Mars. Colony in a sense of building some enclosed self sustaining mega shelter in case earth's atmosphere can no longer sustain life.
If you have this idea just because Musk does it, then just say it, but to make up such silly arguments is just, well, silly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Or, wild idea here, I know, but just give it a shot here, or you could expand that and not use lift? Maybe this one uses lift because its a semi prototype level thing and adding elevator in area where land cost is astronomical was best option? As someone with youtube channel (Liked your videos on flat earth by the way) and named it "CoolHardLogic" you didn't really used a lot of it here.
Its like TF going to hyperloop mockup years back and complaining that it wasn't built from space grade materials... Jut use some logic here.
By the way, underground tunnels are not a good idea, those can work to redirect traffic, but it's borderline on being useless, basically bunch of effort and money to maybe lower down trafic little bit, it works, but isn't worth the effort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hddun
" What the Heck is that word"
English isn't my primary language, wasn't even secondary. And as someone claiming to be engineer fails to understand what misspelled word "engineed" should have been in this context... C'mon... I thought engineers should be smart people... I must have been wrong here.
"how do you know the revenue stream from Starlink"
Was reported to be cash flow positive last year by Gwynne Shotwell. Is there any actual reasons to not believe this? Yes its privately owned, but like, what would they benefit from saying that privately owned company is now cash flow positive while they could have kept its in negative side for quite some time with really simple excuse as its still in a deployment and so on? Starlink is in early stages, so getting it into positive numbers is generally unexpected.
"I don't know."
I can see that...
"Mr. Musk doesn't say or estimate the cost."
Because its a thing which never was done and estimating something like that would be silly. Like for example, in early days moon missions costed around 1 billion per trip, if rocket blows up you get extra billion of expenses on your hand... It's not that small of a number for event which was basically accident. With mars it's a lot worse as you have a lot longer trips involving dozens of rockets for initial colony. He is building rocket for that purpose, how much it will cost at the end, no one knows and generally not really important as long as it gets done.
" many lives and $$$HUGE were lost but no one to my view lost a manager job at NASA..."
Weird engineer you are... Not much money was lost as what you lost was just raw materials, excluding human lives. While raw materials are just a fraction of the cost. Everything else is from labor which is basically wages to the people who made money from all of this and put that money back into circulation. When it comes to government institutions it's basically money going in circles, with private companies its slightly different, but still money isn't being lost at 100% rate, it's more like 2%.
And accidents happen, no idea why NASA should have fired anyone... Rocket science is... Well... Rocket science... One small mistake in design can result in total failure, one of the reasons why NASA took ages to make anything as it could not afford accidents and had to to thousands of simulations and controlled tests before attempting actual launches, with private companies, well, you have prime example as SpaceX, they can blow up few rockets to gather data as fast as possible and improve on it with next iteration of the rocket.
"200 people marooned to die a slow death from starvation or radiation and yet no way to help them -- tragic..."
its so weird, its like you think that we will be sending people there in droves with their lunch box and nothing more... Have you seen movie "Martian"? Point is that you actually can grow your own food on Mars, initial setup will be expensive and tedious, but Mars colony can be fully self sustaining.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrWyzdum
Lambo is a brand, not definition of what that car is capable of... You shot your your foot here with your analogy. There is literally a tiny slow tractor made by Lamborghini. What you tried to say here is that we, as generic human, associate car brand as "Lamborghini" with super cars, doesn't really mean that this brand only makes super cars, does it?
By the way, did you know that our sun is a star? So if Elon launches starship to the sun, would you then agree that it's a starship?
Why are you even so fixated on the name? You might be new here, but Elon likes weird goofy names, he literally wanted car line up with letters which spell "SEXY" tho Model E was copyrighted by someone, so he had to change that to Model 3. Similar thing happen with his optimus naming...
What name would you give to it? As it will be passengers carrying spaceship, should it be just called "spaceship"? People can't use more interesting names? Its not permitted under your watch?
1
-
@nightshade7240
"How many passengers has it carried anywhere?"
? Is this even serious question? Do you not understand what "TEST" means in "Test flight"? Do you seriously want for SpaceX to have few humans onboard just for shits and giggles while they push starship to its limits?... Like, how desperate are you here to grasp such silly straws like that?
"How many stars has it visited?"
How many brain doctors have you visited? Och none? Well that explains it.
"For a spaceship to be a spaceship, it has to actually go into space"
And it did, multiple times. Space starts at 100km altitude, starship reached over 200km, that's 2x the amount needed to count as reaching space. So it's a spaceship.
Feeling silly yet?
"Technically it has to go into outer space"
Technically it needs to reach space to be, well, in space... You do know how words work, right?
"Lamborghini never claimed to only make super cars"
It wasn't my analogy to claim that... You can't read? It wasn't me who used label "Lamborghini" to mean supercar by default, I was saying that "Lamborghini" makes other things than just supercars, so to use that label is wrong, as you have things like tractors made by Lamborghini.
Like seriously, you either can't read or you see what you want to see. As you generic Musk hater and worshiper of TF duno which is more likely to be the case, maybe both at same time.
"The name is part of the con"
To name a thing with cool sounding name is a con?... I guess in your world he should have called most powerful rocket ever built a "steel can" just to satisfy your personal weird fetish.
You people are funny, keep going, I like to have nice laugh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidspencer7254
OP talked about people like you going and attacking Musk instead of companies, then you made a comment attacking Musk and not a company, so you proved his point. What else do you want to hear here?
On top of this, will provide educate, free for you, as you clearly need it. Starship development isn't funded by taxpayer money, shocker, I know, if you been less of a boot licker here you would have actually looked it up and fact checked, but nope, you wanted to be embarrassed on public platform...
On top of this, the fact that you even try to compare starship to 1950 only shows how little to NOTHING you actually understand here on how vastly different those rockets are.
So yea, you proved OP's point here and we thank you for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grogery1570
It happen in las vegas, but funny thing is that Tesla itself basically negated a need to have those tunnels with Tesla FSD where you could have one car for multiple users, aka removing cars from the roads and parking lots while giving more free time for the ex drivers to do their own thing which would mean that getting faster to destination is no longer a big priority thing.
Those tunnels are fine'ish, issue is that you only getting point to point driving, so you can't really have actual web of those underground, so it makes it way less practical.
Its one of those things where you like "Yea, it does work, but like, should we really invest so much time and money into it to negate small inconvenience?" its borderline between useful and useless.
It's like having solar panel on your BEV's roof, do you really want extra inconveniences just to gain small benefit from it? Not really, even if it is benefit, its so small that it makes it meaningless
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacksmith-mu3ee
"I simply showed there no pixies die to lack of evidence"
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
We are talking about literal magical pixies which can use magic to hide behind your keyboard without you being able to detect them. So your "counter" argument makes ZERO logical sense.
"If you think I am wrong (you don't) them show pixies "
Why should I show you pixies? This convo with you started when you demanded OP to show TF wrong, my point was that this is not how burden of proof works. We don't need to show TF wrong, TF needs to show to be correct.
"F@rts won't work on vacuum due to lack of pressure"
? That's not how farts work... And those are, obviously, magical farts. You don't even understand how magic works...
"0 understanding of science"
Och, sweet summer child, I can bet I know more about science than you do, but again, we are not talking about science here, we are talking about MAGIC.
By the way, please, explain scientifically why farts could not work in a vacuum, because as of my knowledge farts would be higher pressure gas going to lower one throught your buthole. Maybe you tried to imply that there wont be a sound due to vacuum, well, then, have you ever heard of silent farts? And due to the fact that there would be expelled gas during farting you would have medium where sound waves could be formed, aka making it a legit farting by all criteria you cold come up. Now, which part did I got wrong here MR. science guy?
"Also in your previous comments you didn't mention any shovels or house"
It was implied when I mentioned magic...
" thanks for contradicting yourself. "
? That's not how contradictions work... I said that universes ws farted out by magical pixies, I never said where they were locale at when they did it... Can't you even read? Doesn't TF cult not have school were it teaches basic reading skills?
"Bcz magic doesn't exist . "
Prove it.
"Standard musk bots believing in magic"
Is this magic in a room with us right now? Its like you failed so much with your own argument that his is what's left for you to do, sad, honestly this is just sad to see people like you being so desperate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ninjaeule97
If person who watched the video didn't fail to understand why its stupid he would not be asking why its stupid... Right? Its like, in the question itself... When someone asks to clarify why its stupid you should not just say "its obvious, duh" if you respond then actually explain why TF/You think it to be stupid. Not that hard to understand.
I could turn this round and say "TF is wrong here" then you would be like "What did he said is wrong?" and I respond with "Its obvious, duh, just watch video or google stuff up on internet, duh..." Do you see how worthless my response would be here? If it was obvious you would not be asking for clarification for it.
By the way TF said that Spacex will go bankrupt in 2 years, which was like 3 years ago. He made crap ton of mistakes/lying over his hundreds of videos. He no longer has any actual credibility here and anything, and i mean ANYTHING TF says should be actually fact checked.
Like do you remember when he claimed that NASA picking SpaceX vs Russians increases costs, while on the second page of what he referenced was said that picking SpaceX is actually like 4x cheaper? Stuff like that indicates that TF isn't interested in actual reality and objective information, he is just looking for ANYTHING what could look like a bad thing for anything what is somehow related to Musk, this is why he is still crying about hyperloop failure while it never was a thing Musk invested into. But I guess he needs to make living and best way is to make stupid videos rehashing a thing he already said 500+ times before.
1
-
@Ninjaeule97
"I just thought it would be obvious why the Hyperloop was unrealistic from the start"
Hyperloop economically isn't viable, share amount of maintenance would kill any profit or meaning to have one. While general idea works, it just not worth the trouble.
And as always, reminder that hyperloop isn't Musk's project, what you have in mind is Las Vegas loop, which is different thing, tho faces similar issues with it makes little to no economical sense.
"Musk might have proposed Hyperloop to Stop California High-Speed Rail. You can verify that with a quick Google search"
Far left website saying that Musk killed high-speed rail when he had no power to do it? Shocker...
"but even Elon's investors are beginning to question him."
While having stock at highest prices ever?... Doesn't make much sense. And just FYI having few investors who started to question something doesn't actually prove anything, there are ALWAYS someone who is investor and questions things.
"If you think everything TF said should be scrutinized why not apply the same logic to Musk?"
Who said that it isn't the case?
" TF said in his video that using Rockets for point-to-point travel on Earth is kind of stupid"
Ok. And? So basically we have 2 main "arguments" here #1 Musk is late #2 Musk makes some stupid ideas. Ok. And?
Did you know that Edison failed like 1000 times before successfully making lightbulb? Failure is part of progress. Some things might make no sense at the moment, so you will simply invest money and time into it to check if it could work or not, if it doesn't then you no longer pursuing it, if it actually works, well then you have something like reusable SpaceX rockets which now dominates entire space industry.
You have to fail if you want to learn something.
"but if it's just what he recorded for that video, I don't think it was worth the time and money invested"
I heard that he is charging PER video on his patreon, so I think he got his money back.
"Maybe he keeps repeating the same points because people don't seem to listen to him"
No, he keeps repeating points because that creates new videos and new videos generate income for him. It's ALL about money.
TF would take your offer if you did it for free, after all better quality (visually) videos would make him more money, so he could repeat same nonsense over and over again more frequently. After all this entire complain now is "Musk is late"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saumyacow4435
"First of all, the largest cost factor in providing a launch is operations"
Largest cost is the actual rocket. And what does "operations" actually include? Would that include building a rocket?
"If you don't believe me on this you can go google what Peter Beck from Rocket Lab had to say about this"
A guy who is direct competitor says that his competitor isn't doing the right thing? Shocker... I would never thought of this happening...
"Thus you double the size and cost of everything else"
While getting fully reusable upper stage which can be refurbished and reused who knows how many times. Just like how first stage get reused and saves crap ton of money, second stage will do the same.
" If you can't turn the vehicle around quickly, you're paying for a lot of stuff that isn't doing much and requires more money to maintain"
Paying for what? Parking spot? And we yet to get actual times on reusability. Falcon 9 started with months in between re flights, now its like 2 weeks. How long will it take with Starship both stages we yet to see.
"Tiles that fall off."
Do they? Haven't notice any from last 3 flights. And are you still complaining about TEST thing not performing at 100% peak performance? Which part of word "test" you didn't understood? SpaceX is working on optimal solution, at the start tiles were falling off while starship was sitting in the bay, then those were falling off during static fires, then some fall of during launch, now I can't see any of those falling off. Do you see pattern here?
"Stuff that gets overheated"
Again, meaning of "Test"...
"Stuff that needs people to stand on a multi-storey access platform to check out"
Once more... Test... Do you not understand how R&D works? You do a thing, you check what happen with the thing afterwards... R&D... Heck, even basic planes gets regular checks before each flight... What the hell are you even complaining about here?
"And what do you do when your tiles fall off?"
Call TF so the he could make one more clickbait video to drain his fan base from the money, what else, duh...
TEST flights on TEST rocket which uses TEST equipment. Which part of word "test" you fail to understand?
"About 40 tonnes."
Is it tho? And on which build? Current one? With Raptor 2 engines? But can't find any actual reference to support your statement here about 40 ton payload. After all current version still have hot stage which gets ejected which should not be present in final product which adds like 10 tonnes of extra weight.
"But the obsession with full reusability doesn't translate to optimal economics."
Why not? How is recovering upper stage makes it less economically optimal than burning it in upper atmosphere?
And yes, physics will create diminishing return loop which is visible on how many rocket engines starship has in comparison to alternatives, but starship isn't being made to be optimal, its made to be most capable rocket to launch heaviest cargos into space while still being fully reusable, that's the ENTIRE point of it, big ass rocket which is fully reusable. If you want to send 20kg payloads with fully reusable rocket, it might be more economically viable, doesn't mean that its the goal of SpaceX.
"to satisfy elon's Mars delusion"
Just like it was a "delusion" more than a decade ago to have reusable rockets, just look where we are now... If your space company ising using reusable rockets, you are going bankrupt in no time. Clearly something is good with all of this reusability and clearly its achievable.
"The clueless one is you."
Because i'm not just generic Musk hatter like you are?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1