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

  1. Maybe with a Gravity Tractor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor The idea is pretty simple. Just get a spacecraft close to the asteroid at a critical point and let the spacecraft's gravitational field deflect the asteroid so it misses the Earth. You'd need precise calculation and perfect timing, but the good part is that gravity will effect every loose rock.
    3
  2. Exactly! He explains what we're seeing and makes it mean so much more.
    3
  3. Definitely more fins.
    3
  4. It's a good day in space.
    3
  5. We're so confident we'll tell everybody in the world we're coming.
    3
  6. For a space colony not tied to the actual day (like a habitat floating in orbit) that might make a lot of sense. When we don't have to take the sun into consideration the only remaining factor we need to keep in mind when designing a calendar is the human body's circadian rhythm - so we'd still need to use "days" of around 24 hours length. But that's just approximately 24 hours. People who live underground with no natural light sometimes shift to a 25 hour "day," so that may be more optimal.
    3
  7. I hope they succeed with this new lander.
    3
  8. THE ARTEMIS PROJECT!!! I remember buying a membership for that in 1993, at the Winnipeg Worldcon. Good times! For a couple of years I was convinced they were going to make it, because their plans were so detailed and realistic sounding. And on top of that the membership included a subscription to the "Moon MIner's Manifesto," a wonderful little photocopied magazine put out by one guy who considered every possible detail of a lunar colony. Today he'd have a YouTube channel, but back then magazines were the way to go.
    3
  9. Thank you for another incredible video. The heat shield on Starship/Superheavy is of great interest to me, because it's such a critical system and hasn't yet been tested.
    3
  10. I know you're joking, but just rewind the video. I watched it twice and rewound a few parts more often than that. It gets easier because you remember a little bit more each time.
    3
  11. Yeah, he put that video together on the road! That's quite an achievement.
    3
  12. Thanks for another wonderful video! You add so much context and such great explanations to these videos, it just makes everything 100x better. This is one of the best channels on YouTube!
    3
  13. Success! It feels good, even just watching from a distance. Congratulations to SpaceX for bringing one back alive. And thank you Scott Manley for another wonderful video! Every time there's a test I always wonder what you thought of it. You're the great explainer of our generation.
    2
  14. Thank you for the Space Updates! As usual, your depth of knowledge about pretty much everything is astounding.
    2
  15. Kids love positive ions!
    2
  16. The question now (imo) is what will Roscosmos do without huge injections of American money? Will the Russian government make up the difference, or will they somehow be expected to self-fund through launching flights for tourists or whatever? Russia should support the development of that new "Federation" spacecraft they've been working on. The best way to respond to competition is to step up and improve your game.
    2
  17. This paper: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1910/1910.05224.pdf has a chart on page 4, but the results are given in nanograms per cubic meter. The results range from 0.1 to just over 1000 ng/m3 on Earth, but someone else will have to make the conversions. I tried but I'm pretty sure I got it wrong.
    2
  18. According to this: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.files/fileid/14285 the formula is: Concentration (ppm) = 24.45 x concentration (mg/m3) รท molecular weight So to do the calculation one needs to - convert ng/m3 to mg/m3 - plug in the molecular weight of phosphine (PH3), which Google says is 33.99758 g/mol, and convert it to mg/mol, I guess If anyone wants to give it a go. The chart's value of 1000 ng/m3 would provide a nice outer bound for comparison to Venus's 20 ppb.
    2
  19. Thanks for doing this video! I hope they don't collide, though... We don't need any more debris up there.
    2
  20. We are so lucky you make these videos. I can't think of anyone else in any media who could be on top of the latest news, explain complicated concepts clearly, and even construct a demo with Kerbal Space Program! You should be getting all the awards, Scott.
    2
  21. Wow! It's a good thing you were aware that it didn't work. Apparently the Mariner I programmers didn't have that same level of awareness. They just transcribed everything into machine code.
    2
  22. That's a clever solution!
    2
  23. I know what you mean, Leuk. But that's going to make it even more awesome when it does fly.
    2
  24. I know, Leandro Gabriel. It was a joke.
    2
  25. The differences between the two companies come down to the differences between the founders. Elon Musk wants to revolutionize everything and get to Mars within his own lifetime. Jeff Bezos wants to build a strong company that will eventually revolutionize everything, but he doesn't need to be there to see it. For Bezos building Blue Origin is itself the achievement. He doesn't make decisions about rocket engines, he hires people who he can trust to do that well. Bezos is more interested in making Blue Origin a part of the industry, working with other companies, instead of upending his competitors.
    2
  26. Maybe it's got something to do with corporate culture at Boeing, they're a big, old company with many levels of bosses - so their first instinct is to avoid blame. Meanwhile SpaceX is a startup with a much younger culture where everything, both good and bad, ends with Musk.
    2
  27. Yeah, that was the best burn today.
    2
  28. Thanks for another fun video! Sounds like it would take infrastructure and preparation (And quite a bit of risk. Didn't you say in a previous video the early Shuttle flights had a 1 in 9 chance of catastrophic failure?) just to send a Shuttle on a flight around the Moon. They'd be better off putting the time and resources into something that could actually land there. But it is a TV show, so their main concern is coming up with striking visuals the audience will immediately recognize.
    2
  29. This is such a cool video! Thank you for making it. Those spaceplane pilots are real fliers, no doubt. It hadn't occurred to me that they're the modern inheritors of the X-15, but of course you're totally right.
    2
  30. Yay for another space video! Thanks for this, Scott Manley. So let me get this straight. If the timing error hadn't occurred, Starliner's thruster error could have resulted in a collision with its own module, and possible damage to the heatshield resulting in loss of the vehicle? Like, one error balanced out another? That's extremely disturbing, especially since, as you said, it's the sort of thing they should have found and fixed before the test, not afterward.
    2
  31. At least Scotland actually exists, although they have no right to sell any of it to you. With the star thing and the Moon thing they're selling us a set of coordinates that may or may not be real.
    2
  32. Thanks for another cool video! I really enjoyed your Kerbal simulation. The video is cool, but I'm not very excited by Stratolaunch System's new plan. If it really is a choice between this and mothballing the Roc then I guess this is better, but are there any peaceful uses for hypersonic technology? Frankly, the last thing we need to build (as a species) is hypersonic weapons. The combination of hypersonic weapons and AI suggests a new kind of incredibly dangerous high speed warfare that would largely be out of human control - and thus a lot more likely to happen. But then again, in the absence of some kind of treaty or agreement banning hypersonic weapons, every country with a significant military is is going to explore this technology, and the US will probably build their own test vehicles if they haven't started doing so already. Renting space from Stratolaunch Systems might be a cheaper and faster way to do that research. But I wish we could just collectively leave this particular branch of the technology tree unexplored.
    2
  33. I love the idea of commercial modules attached to the space station! (As long as they're safe and properly connected, of course.) It could be the start of commercializing space, and building other infrastructure in orbit.
    2
  34. Thanks for another great video! I hope they do fly safe, and have a flawless mission.
    2
  35. Thank you for this awesome new video, Scott! Loving these updates.
    2
  36. Thanks for another great video! Spaceplane Two is a cool little spacecraft, but it seems kind of... off by itself, outside the flow of where the industry is going. It's all about reusable rockets now. Is there anything about the concept of a non-reusable spaceplane that might be useful beyond its current role?
    2
  37. Sort of, but you have to replace the engine for each flight.
    2
  38. All I know is this video, where Scott says the tail section has to be taken off and replaced every time. To me that sounds like the engine is one-use only.
    2
  39. Oh man, Starlink. I really hope they get that going! There's a way to self-finance ambitious goals in space.
    2
  40. It's equal parts ridiculous and wonderful, like some of the best things in life. Maybe someone someday will make this concept work. I hope so.
    2
  41. He was right, but unfortunately far ahead of his time. The future took a couple of generations to catch up with him.
    2
  42. It can still change the rest of your life (and mine too), even if we're only learning this stuff as amateurs.
    2
  43. Thank you for this video! It's fascinating like always.
    2
  44. Consider The Ocelot is my favorite 80's glam metal band. Thanks for the update, Scott! And yay for SpaceX!
    2
  45. If Starship blows up, they can just weld a new one together right there not far from the pad.
    2
  46. That's why ISRO doesn't need people mindlessly defending them on Twitter. They've accomplished a lot with very little, and still have the orbiter. If they're really doing all this for science, then openness and honesty is the way to go.
    2
  47. I know what you mean. Every mistake is a step on the road to mastery. But the process only works when we're transparent about what went wrong and how to fix it.
    2
  48. I was just thinking this is the kind of thing you'd see as a fake news clip in the opening credits of an asteroid or alien invasion movie: "The Arecibo Telescope was damaged today..." Next up is unexplained power failures in major cities.
    2
  49. That's fascinating! Thanks for this video on a little known launch vehicle. It's handicapped by the retrograde orbit, but if the Shavit is just launching spy satellites they probably don't need a larger payload capacity anyway. There's probably a parallel history of fantastic feats of miniaturization somewhere inside the Israeli defense industry, as they fit more and more hardware into the same limited payload size.
    2
  50. That's a good point, Beezqp. The government funded programs will still be found because lots of other sites will still connect to them, but nostalgic favorites like The Artemis Project will probably become effectively invisible.
    2