Comments by "Kevin Street" (@Kevin_Street) on "Scott Manley" channel.

  1. You love to know more about these things, and we love to listen as you tell us what happened. thanks for another wonderful video, Scott! It's really impressive how you went through the available video evidence to figure out details of the flight.
    6
  2. Thanks for this informative video! I'm learning after the fact, but it's still learning. As we know, Vulcan Centaur launched perfectly, so that's great news for ULA. I hope this leads to a great future for their company. It's too bad about the Peregrine lander, but whatever happened there probably isn't because of the launch vehicle.
    6
  3. Thanks for another great video! I think we've all come to love that little helicopter. Go Ingenuity, go! On another note, what you said about the heat of the rotors being the chopper's main limiting factor is really interesting. That might end up being the main limiting factor of any kind of high performance machinery on Mars. We never really think about the role Earth's atmosphere plays in dispelling heat because it's ubiquitous, but on Mars evaporative cooling won't work so well and we'll have to design around it.
    6
  4. That's a really good point you made at the end about amateur astronomy. It's always more fun to use telescopes and see things for yourself, but any amateur who truly wants to advance science should be learning about algorithms and data mining.
    6
  5. The Indian space program has come a long way in a short time, especially considering their lack of funding.
    6
  6. Thank you for this video! It's really interesting and I love your analysis of all the information. But it's sad that this is about a military program and not a civilian one. (It's not sad that you made a video out of it - that's fascinating and fun. I'm just talking about the intentions behind the launch.) Civilian rockets feel like they're part of something grander: a rising tide of hope and progress. But with military rockets the best thing one can hope for is that they're never used.
    6
  7. Thanks for another great video! Who cares about Area 51 when cool stuff like this is happening in real life!
    6
  8. At least Orion can be nicknamed "Ryan" or "Rian" or "Rion." I've no clue what the short form of X AE A-12 might be.
    6
  9. Thank you! That was very interesting.
    6
  10. Probably not, 5Andysalive. And Virgin Galactic will no doubt take precautions like telling the passengers not to eat before the flight, and giving them anti-nausea drugs. Someone has already thought of this, guaranteed.
    6
  11. "Doesn't seem like a particularly interesting rocket to many of you..." It's amazing there are so many rockets now we can play favorites.
    6
  12. This was in the news, but nobody explained the whole thing as well as Scott Manley. Boo, Sapa Profiles! A 46 million dollar fine doesn't seem like enough when you consider the cost of everything that was destroyed.
    5
  13. It is pretty cool when you think about it.
    5
  14. This channel should absolutely have a million subs or more. It's one of the best channels on YouTube.
    5
  15. Good luck to Chandrayaan 3! I hope its mission is successful.
    5
  16. Thanks for this video, Scott! It's interesting how the Koreans decided to go it alone in their space program (certainly not the cheapest option) and seem to be making good progress. It's too bad about this launch not being 100% successful, but its still a big step up for them.
    5
  17. Ugly German Truths: "I do not think many of the subscribers of scott's channel are "mad" at india for failing to land the object... but the attempt to deny it crashed is pretty much unforgivable in this industry..." This is it exactly, although I wouldn't say unforgivable. It's just regrettable more than anything.
    5
  18. What a fun video! Thank you, Scott.
    5
  19. It's going to be insane! (In the heavy metal sense of the word.) Giant freaking craters with every launch. They'll have to use a few more stakes to hold that tent down.
    5
  20. Right, I'm just saying the approximate orbit must have been pretty good in the end.
    5
  21. Good point, E Cognitio.
    4
  22. Whatever it takes, piranha031091. Whatever it takes to make this happen!
    4
  23. I was thinking this too! My Dad's sixty-year-old field glasses can give a better view of the Moon than that Vivitar. Not as steady, though.
    4
  24. Wow, that was a really interesting deep dive on Firefly and their relationship with Northrop Grumman. Thank you! It's your unique insight and analysis that makes this channel such a treasure.
    4
  25. Wow, thank you for the video, Scott Manley. This might be coolest thing I've ever heard. A crazy, continuous nuclear reaction rocket that can produce thrusts somewhere between 60-70 km/s and one percent of the speed of light! "Which is probably a good thing, because you don't want a nuclear reaction running up inside your engine plumbing.." I'm not an engineer, but this sounds like good advice. You'd probably want to make sure the exhaust is never pointed at the Earth as well.
    4
  26. The Orion Drive is far and away the idea most familiar to viewers of this channel, and it still has the allure of something that might someday, somehow be possible. But building that pusher plate and all those bombs would be quite a challenge. The craziest idea on the list (imo) is generating nuclear power using pulsed nuclear bombs. At least with the Orion Drive you're accelerating away from the explosions and hopefully don't have to deal with their full effects. But Project Pacer would just sit there on top of all the nuclear fire and hope the radiation and seismic effects didn't eventually destroy the facility. Btw, I love the diagram at 8:44 with the optimistically named "Safety" component that would protect the surface from any nuclear byproducts coming back up the hole. As for terraforming Mars, I think redirecting comets so they smack into the planet is the best way to go. But you'd need to do it in a way that allowed a significant portion of the volatiles to stay on the planet instead of erupting back into space again. It would come down to precisely controlling the angle of impact and maybe the orbital velocities of the comets. Definitely not something we can do today, but it may be achievable in the more distant future.
    4
  27. The reality is that we could die at any moment, from many different causes. No life should be taken for granted.
    4
  28. Thank you for another wonderful video! These updates are so fascinating.
    4
  29. And make it all so fascinating! I rewound and listened to some sections a number of times, so for me it was even longer than 15 minutes. Totally worth it.
    4
  30. Thank you, I was wondering how they were still doing their launch if they had no money.
    4
  31. Haven't seen the comet yet, but I hope to see it soon. Thank you for the great video, Scott Manley! NEOWISE is a fascinating mission. It just amazes me how many asteroids there are, and they keep finding more!
    4
  32. You're one hundred percent right.
    4
  33. They've just been to space and survived reentry. I think a little quiet time to just sit and process could be a good thing.
    4
  34.  @imjashingyou3461  How could they figure that out? Did he remember it???
    4
  35. That's a really insightful comment, Peter Anderson. If the programmer(s) had possessed a greater understanding of what each part of the program did, they may have wondered at the lack of filtering and sent a question to someone higher up that could have exposed the flaw. But their job involved such a tremendous amount of detail they probably didn't have any time or energy left over to do more than transcribe instructions. This is a good example of how automation can actually increase human intelligence, since software can now take over all that tedious compiling.
    4
  36. It's an achievement for the history books, and a demonstration of what their network can accomplish. I saw one of the press conferences, and it sounds like they're going to keep observing M87* for now. There's probably lots more to discover there!
    3
  37. The Canadarm is version 1.0 of astromech droids like R2D2. Except in real life they'll be big enough to haul around whole sections of a structure and look more like giant bugs than cute trash cans.
    3
  38. Thanks for a truly fascinating video! This is a subject I've heard almost nothing about, and it's really interesting. Thank you for explaining it so well, and for finding those relevant video clips! It must have been quite a job to track them down. So the Coriolis forces are more noticeable with higher rotations, and larger rotating bodies could spin more slowly to simulate the same gravity. They should have put that centrifuge on the ISS! We could have had years of data on centrifugal effects without the interference of Earth's gravity by now. Anyway, it seems that bigger is better when you're trying to simulate gravity with rotation. For something smaller like a spaceship on a long duration trip, it might not be worth it to put in a centrifuge, because the crew would have to train to relearn things as simple as picking up a coffee cup, and there'd be additional strains on the ship itself. Imagine using a big water tank wrapped around the living area as a radiation shield and then spinning the ship! That tank would be constantly sloshing around, creating different pressures on stuff like pipes and seals.
    3
  39. That is a natural endpoint for the service life of the component.
    3
  40. It's neat that somebody found the lander - and doing it using publicly available NASA data just shows how silly it is to keep these things secret. ISRO accomplished something really cool with their orbiter, keeping the fate of the lander secret just distracts attention from that. If ISRO was more transparent about their accomplishments and failures, and let people look at their data (like NASA does) they'd have far more support from everyone.
    3
  41. One of the best jokes in the whole series.
    3
  42. Thanks for this wonderful video! And RIP 1058. You were a good booster.
    3
  43. Yeah, I was thinking about Seveneves as well.
    3
  44. True.
    3
  45. You're really good at this, Scott. Thank you for this video where you take a very complex subject and break it down in an understandable way. I think I'm going to watch the video again tomorrow just to experience that feeling of understanding a second time.
    3
  46. John Dee was an astrologer before there were any astronomers. If you wanted to study stars and planets, astrology was the only game in town.
    3
  47. I'm totally with you on that imagined future! Hopefully it will come to pass, and sooner than we may think. As for all these proposed satellite networks, the biggest thing that stands out for me is that none of them are intended to be permanent. For instance, Starlink satellites will apparently be de-orbited and left to burn up after five to seven years, and hopefully all the other proposed networks will have similar limited lifetimes. If the development of these networks follows the development of similar systems on Earth, there will probably be an initial proliferation followed by a gradual and steady winnowing out process, until we're eventually left with one or maybe two competitors that have the market carved up between them. This will still lead to thousands of little satellites orbiting up there, but it will eventually be far less than the complete free-for-all that seems to developing now. It'll make astronomy more difficult, but after an initial burst of almost ridiculous proliferation, the number of satellites will settle down into a more steady and limited number dictated by economics. So the difficulty won't keep increasing without limit. And when there's only one or two big providers it may be easier to negotiate things like the "science loss" tax you mentioned with them.
    3
  48. Yeah, and it doesn't even matter if you use this knowledge for anything. Learning new things about the universe and understanding it better can be it's own reward.
    3
  49. Yeah, I saw a Curious Droid video where he talked about that. 1960's rocket engineering was sort of halfway between art and a science. There were an amazing amount of after-design modifications for virtually every component that never made it into the blueprints.
    3
  50. Yeah, it looks like it condensed from a cloud of small particles.
    3