Comments by "TheEvilCottonBall" (@alexandermaximilianoetken7265) on "Scott Manley" channel.

  1. No the worst way is to tie a rocket to a helium balloon, then once it reached its final height go to the space elevator and bring it up to LEO (the counterweight of the space elevator is beyond GEO), then ignite the rocket to speed it up to orbital velocity while it is falling back to earth, then use a couple of skyhooks to save propellant. Now that we got the rocket into orbit but forgot the payload we accelerate the payload using a rocketsled bolted on the back of a large aircraft and hook it onto the orbital mass driver, detach and use steam powered thrusters to attach it to the rocket we shot into space earlier. From then on we use the rockets built-in fusion explosion motor to reach the target orbit.
    7
  2.  @thearpox7873  The mount everest is covered in snow, so it has both weather and atmosphere. The biggest mountain is not Mount Everest it is Olympus Mons anyway, it has less atmosphere, less gravity and less of what we would describe as weather, so that would be the better location to launch rockets from.
    4
  3. 1.) Write a bot to send 2 million mails to yourself. 2.) Claim you are more famous than Scott Manley 3.) ???? 4.) Profit
    4
  4. All they have to do is to open the gas pipeline simultaneously. The valves would not open fast enough. Parallel? pipework. You know the gas only travels at its speed of sound so its slower than the projectile. > There's no need for valves or burst disks. Maybe if they build a railgun and propel the projectile electromagnetically. I don't know whether you can build capacitors that can hold that much power and discharge that quickly though. (Now its your turn to find the obvious flaws in my design :-))
    2
  5.  @Procedurallydegeneratedjohn  The rock would be slowed significantly during reentry.
    1
  6. Hasn't that been clear from the beginning? Constellation also wanted to return to the Moon. Humans on the moon are not really necessary, rovers are cheaper and can do most of the science anyway. Apollo was politically motivitated as a result of the cold war, so no. Also Lunar starship ain't gonna happen. Since there are international partners for Gateway we might get Gateway...
    1
  7.  @nagualdesign  It wont land on the moon, if SpaceX cannot get the lander developed. Starship is an increadibly hard design, (full reuse requires high engine performance, getting to the moon requires cryogenic propellant transfer between multiple ship, SpaceX needs to relight a Raptor engine in Space after the propellant depot has been in orbit for several weeks if not months, they need to think of backups in case their stupid cable crane fails, they need to develop lunar Starship itself, land it on the moon to prove that it is worthy and so on... They can fail in many ways, and Starship is a bit like the Cybertruck, costly to develop, eventually scaled back to be more traditional in manufacturing, no real market (few people need 100 tons to LEO in rapid cadence), economically suboptimal (Starship can currently maybe get 40 tons to orbit (they still fly empty without mass simulators, so maybe even less) and still has problems with re-entry. Well, we'll see how it goes, maybe the chinese will be first this time...
    1