Comments by "kazedcat" (@kazedcat) on "" video.

@NaN Go unsubscribe we don't need you to spread your idiocy here. Have you seen "How not to land a rocket video"? Count how many failures Spacex have to deal before they have a successful landing. But now they have successfully landed 50 booster. Now how many rockets have you launch into orbit and then landed with out any failure? Spacex don't need to prove their method because they have already proven that their method work and it works while achieving large cost reduction. If you think they are doing it wrong then it is you who needs to prove how to do it right. Go build a rocket and show us your superior methodology. I will only accept that your method is superior if you are able to launch and land 50 rockets at lower cost. Prove to me that you are not just a keyboard monkey who has not built anything significant in your life. Where is your rocket company building rockets with your superior methods?
10
@NaN You need to show your company doing 50 landing at a cheaper price. Nasa burns money and can't even send their own astronaut to the space station. I am sure great people in Nasa did great things in the past given unlimited budget. But you on the other hand have neither unlimited budget nor a rocket company. You keep calling Falcon 9 and Dragon Capsule as snake oil when you have only farts and toxic gas coming from your mouth. You are wasting the oxygen you are breathing in your mouth spewing toxicity and negativity. Prove your words and steal Spacex business with your superior methods? But you can't you are just a keyboard monkey that will not do anything significant or noteworthy in your life.
6
Not the same. Maximum aerodynamic pressure happens when the rocket have not expended most of it's fuel. The problem here is unbalance loading where the top tank is full and very heavy while the bottom tank is not pressurized enough to support the top tank. During reentry both tanks will be mostly empty so the tanks need only to support itself.
2
@NaN No radiation fallout means not a nuke. But how did nuke becomes part of the discussion in rocket construction methodology. And you said you are going to unsubscribe yet you are still here talking gibberish and random things just to be able to keep talking. That is the exact opposite of going away. You can't even bring coherent argument go unsubscribe already. The value of your comments is negative anyway. Getting rid of you will only improve the comment section. So go away already.
1
@NaN Go away you can't even distinguish which are you arguing with what. My last comment is about you bringing nuke in a rocket construction discussion now you are talking about energy density which has nothing to do with construction method And lastly you are still here clinging in the comment section when you said you are going to unsubscribe. So I will repeat myself go away already.
1