Comments by "Zach B" (@zachb1706) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. Well he hasn’t woken up in along time then
    53
  2. 0:35 That doesn’t take into account how much each source is used. Sure, overall fossil fuels might get more subsidies- but per MWH?
    32
  3. Thank you
    6
  4. But this weight is out shadowed by the battery
    5
  5. Yes I think that’s where electricity belongs, short distance trips
    4
  6. That’s shit
    3
  7.  @yassassin6425 not even worth it, these dickheads are on every space video
    3
  8. We are doing better in space than ever before. The Space Shuttle was in reality a failure. It was meant to be incredibly cheap because of its reusability but in reality it was far more expensive than conventional expendable rockets at the time. It was meant to have a quick 2 week turnaround time, NASA envisioned Space Shuttles taking off and landing every week. But it never got close, and after the Challenger disaster the turn around time was extended to almost 3 months. And it had many terrible safety flaws. The solid rocket engines had no way of being shut off, there was no Launch Abort System to get astronauts to safety in the case of something going wrong, and the rocket required a crew to be flown. Falcon 9 has truly surpassed the Space Shuttle in all these aspects. While it isn’t as flashy, it’s a great step forward.
    2
  9. Probably not.
    2
  10.  @weekiely1233  no doubt he had a better opportunity than most people. But you don’t make $200 billion and found multiple massively successful businesses from chance. Otherwise everyone who grows up in an upper class family would be worth $200 billion.
    2
  11. juster2432 hydrogen will not go far because of one reason - it is one of the most reactive elements on earth, and with the energy it holds, it’s like having a hydrogen bomb as a fuel tank.
    2
  12. Also you realise that this isn’t the only model of Starship, right? This one is specifically designed for StarLink so they can launch their new v2 satellites, which will be the main thing they launch early on. They will have multiple models, probably with a larger payload opening or like HLS with legs and a lift to lower astronauts.
    2
  13. Do you know that graphene costs the same as gold? Graphene is a slow and expensive material to manufacture.
    2
  14. Jonathan Brochu it’s not as easy as you make it sound. They are cutting graphite into atom thick pieces.
    2
  15. But losing so much in time and load size
    2
  16. You say that because you’re used to it. I couldn’t dream of device for anything by 6 or 12, it just isn’t as compatible with our current counting system. Plus imperial isn’t strictly base 12, it feels more like a random dump of bases. 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 1760 yards to a mile, ect. Then there’s chains, and so on.
    2
  17. That is space, also just below LEO
    2
  18. Military equipment is much more expensive today. A WW2 plane when adjusted for inflation would cost just over half a million compared to the cost of a F-35A which is $78 million. It's quality over quantity.
    2
  19. They literally landed something on the moon a month ago
    2
  20. Bin
    1
  21. Jk, idk
    1
  22. Explain more.
    1
  23. Meras Nzambemana 1, that would be dangerous. Imagine having electricity literally flying around you where ever you were. 2 that would be expensive
    1
  24. NASA uses Metric. Really America should just start converting by now, it’s a far simpler system.
    1
  25. SLS is behind schedule as well. Artemis 2 was meant to launch this year, they’ve pushed it back to next year but it’s questionable if that’s even possible. Really I think SpaceX will have plenty of time to get HLS ready, 2026 might not be it though
    1
  26. Well they put the man on the moon, built the biggest space station to date, has landed many rovers on mars, the list goes on. NASA has done so much good for the world.
    1
  27. One of the most reliable rockets, though its failures were tragic. Falcon 9 is much better
    1
  28. Are you part of the trucking community? I know that to be false, at least in Australia
    1
  29. You realise James Webb is further away from us than the moon, right? The Space Shuttle has no way of getting there.
    1
  30. What use would robots have for us?
    1
  31. It does. We are recording higher increases in CO2 levels in the last 300 years than ever before. This is not natural. But electric trucks... come on. I think nuclear or renewable energy is the future, but that does not mean fossil fuels have no purpose
    1
  32. It’s not.
    1
  33. does Aluminium scare you?
    1
  34. Then it’s expensive or weak. And couldn’t you do the same to fuel trucks?
    1
  35. Rubber
    1
  36. He explained, also wieght
    1
  37. Like...
    1
  38. It was just a fluke that all his companies have been massive successes and have each changed their respective industries…
    1
  39. Also do some research. StarLink satellites fly low to the Earth so will fall in months if they shut down or are destroyed
    1
  40. juster2432 there hasn’t been a full hydrogen car yet. But if there is I won’t be buying it.
    1
  41. Austin George bio diesel unfortunately has the same issues as lithium-ion batteries- it’s not as energy dense. Also it degrades over time, meaning long storage is not an option.
    1
  42. It can also damage your engine, and is around 1.5x more expensive to fill. It is not that bad, just not the best. And it releases carbon.
    1
  43. Carnots principal?
    1
  44. WHATTT??? Do you know how hard syncing 4 engines is?
    1
  45. Or planting trees
    1
  46.  @wouldntyouliketoknow9891 so get rid of everything that made SpaceX successful and switch to the NASA way that leads to massive delays and budget overruns. Genius
    1
  47. Not really, a nuclear reactor can last decades and doesn’t take the wear and tear of the wheels
    1
  48. They purposely didn’t for safety reasons… it was just barely suborbital in the test
    1
  49. The sr72 might make that pick easy
    1
  50. I was wondering how they got a nuclear reactor on board without melting the whole tging
    1