Comments by "Zach B" (@zachb1706) on "Thunderf00t" channel.

  1. SpaceX is the world’s best cargo and human launch provider. What are you on about?
    47
  2. She didn’t decide alone, she made her decision based off the ratings that stakeholders gave to each proposal and there was no doubt a lot of discussion behind the scenes. One thing Thunderf00t glosses over is that the stakeholders and later a GAO investigation agreed: SpaceX’s bid was simply the best.
    39
  3. I can’t wait to come back to this video in 3 years time and laugh at comments like this. Thunderf00t has been wrong about SpaceX every time he makes a video but you guys still buy into his grift
    15
  4.  @iUseVegas Neom isn’t even his project, I don’t see the relevance.
    14
  5. 1) Falcon 9 already proved you wrong. Also all launch companies are working on reuse because of how much it saves 2) Yes, it’s called iterative development. 3) The tower wasn’t hit by the blast, and once they get reuse working it’ll pay for itself in a dozen launches.
    14
  6. We need to stop pretending a single person was able to make a decision about where $3 billion was allocated on their own. They just followed what the committee who analysed the 3 submissions found
    14
  7. It also had a development budget over $40 billion and cost $1.5 billion to launch
    10
  8. What will you be saying when StarShip succeeds?
    9
  9. Exactly 😂 This guy has been hating on SpaceX for years.
    9
  10. Why don’t you drive down and watch it happen then.
    8
  11.  @williamgeorgefraser  Musk takes the impossible and makes it merely late.
    8
  12.  @Refertech101  well no, Neom is impossible regardless of timeline whilst Starship is just going to be a few years behind schedule (rather common in the Space industry)
    7
  13.  @DataScienceDIY  the price is fixed, the timeline is really the only issue. That wasn’t helped by the Blue Origin lawsuit holding up HLS, preventing NASA from working with or providing funding for Starship development for 7 months. And the GAO found that the program was just optimistic to begin with. NASA expected the lander to be built 25 months faster than most of their own projects take. But even if it was ready this year it wouldn’t have been able to launch. Artemis 2 hasn’t even happened (meant to be 2023) and it is delayed until 2025 because of Orion. The Space Suit still isn’t ready, and won’t be ready until atleast 2026. Etc etc. The only thing ahead of schedule is the damn rover!
    7
  14.  @LordZontar  all of his “SpaceX: BUSTED” videos have aged terribly. The Falcon 9 rocket has proven to be the cheapest orbital launcher in the world, thanks to its reusability. It has saved NASA billions over continuing the Space Shuttle program.
    6
  15. 1. SpaceX’s bid was far cheaper than the other options. It was half the cost of Blue Origin’s lander, and a third of Dynetics 2. It was the best thought out. SpaceX delivered a detailed document and quickly responded to issues NASA bought up. Both others were much slower to respond and many issues were left to be figured out later 3. Starship was a much more capable lander. Blue Origin had to essentially redesign their lander for the second round. It was reusable and didn’t leave anything behind on the moon 4. NASA was interested in its capabilities to launch large masses to LEO and beyond. 5. NASA is heavily focused on commercialising space, as it makes it cheaper for them if they aren’t fitting the entire cost of development. Blue Origib and Dynetics didn’t have a good plan to commercialise their landers, whilst SpaceX did.
    6
  16. No he’ll go onto bashing the next Musk thing. That’s what he did with Falcon 9 and electric vehicles.
    6
  17. All he did was make the cheapest and most reliable rocket ever made
    6
  18. Thunderf00t please do some more research before you start throwing out “$1million per life”, it’s not $1 million stimulus into covid 19 treatment its into the economy to reduce the impact that this epidemic would have had either way. Even in Australia we are getting stimulus packages to reduce economic deficits, it’s not a case that “everyone else did it right and it’s costing us”
    5
  19.  @nancypotts9877 Apollo didn’t need refuelling because: - It was much smaller - Most of it was left behind, with the astronauts leaving on an even tinier ascent stage - It could only support 2 astronauts for 2 days, so the life support system was smaller
    5
  20. Thunderf00t 2035: Starship 15 BUSTED: only takes 50 people to Mars
    5
  21. Starship also uses cryogenic engines…
    5
  22.  @Homiloko2  Artemis’s scope extends far beyond Apollo. To fit into that scope, Starship HLS must: - stay on the moon for a whole week rather than 1-2 days - carry up to 6 astronauts instead of 2 - take off without leaving anything behind - be refueled in space - carry more cargo All this whilst having 1/10th the budget of the original Apollo Lunar Module ($2.7 billion vs $25 billion), and less time to develop it (4.5 years vs 6 years). SpaceX is also providing the launcher (Super Heavy) and covering the cost to carry out the mission with that $2.7 billion.
    5
  23. Part of the reasons Starship was chosen is that it’s more than just a lander. It has many commercial purposes that can keep costs down. It will be used to launch satellites, space stations, take cargo to the moon, transport people. It can even be a space station itself. This development isn’t strictly for Artemis, it’s everything at once.
    5
  24. It was a complete success. But you’re right if you mean Starship development isn’t finished IFT4 showed reuse as they plan (landing of ship and booster) was possible. So I’m very optimistic. IFT5 apparently will test a full landing so let’s see
    5
  25.  @RanEncounter  it showed that they could land the ship and booster, the hardest part of the whole thing.
    5
  26. ⁠ @theangryotaku3361 Starship isn’t just copying other people 😂. No one has ever made a fully reusable rocket before, let alone a fully reusable super heavy rocket. Refuelling has never been tried either. Hot staging of a rocket this large has also never been tried.
    5
  27.  @TheLumberjack1987  Starship is under development, we don’t know how it will perform yet. But going off SpaceX’s success with Falcon 9, no one has made a more reliable rocket than that.
    5
  28.  @ConsciousExpression  Russia launched like 12 times last year, SpaceX launched 96 times.
    5
  29. Ie SLS, which cost $24 billion and has launched once…
    4
  30. Mate, who gives a shit about some baby turtles 😂
    4
  31. SpaceX has saved NASA billions. And this will be no different. It would have cost NASA a lot more than $2.9 billion to develop a lunar lander. NASA was estimating $10-15 billion
    4
  32. Wasteful? Most of those launches will be reused tankers being launched multiple times. It’ll be far cheaper to launch HLS and refuel it than to launch SLS.
    4
  33. My favourite thing to do is to go on random “eco-friendly inventions to save our earth” videos and link your videos.
    4
  34. Humans can explore bodies much more thoroughly and quickly. Also a lot of Artemis is exploring how we can survive on another body, we are the experiment
    4
  35. There’s also actually good reasons to go there. Half the point of Artemis is to learn how to build a sustainable human colony - we are the experiment. Humans can work faster and are more flexible.
    4
  36. *does
    4
  37. And then SpaceX landed them. The Falcon 9 has landed more reliably than any other rocket in history has launched. And it’s saved them a shit ton of money.
    4
  38. Lol.
    4
  39. Thunderf00t is a grifter. NASA spent $24 billion developing SLS, it has a projected launch cost of $4 billion. Where’s his video on that?
    4
  40. It isn’t very strange she left for SpaceX either. Many top NASA execs have left for SpaceX recently, actually SpaceX has created a problem for NASA as they’re taking all their talent.
    4
  41. Thank you!
    4
  42. Because it’s faster and cheaper. Starship’s development is proof of that. Thunderf00t gets so angry at $2 billion in taxpayer money going towards starship while NASA spent $24 billion on SLS for it to launch ONCE.
    4
  43.  @RyviusRan  well we’ll start with Falcon 9: - Claimed they’d never land one - After they landed one claimed they would never reuse it - After they reused it claimed reuse was pointless because the Shuttle was more expensive than similar rockets - Moved on after he realised he was wrong as now every launch provider is attempting reusability
    4
  44.  @icemachine79  see I hear you complaining about SpaceX winning a contract legitimately, but you aren’t at all disturbed by the Senator of Blue Origin’s home state essentially gifting them a contract of their own?
    4
  45. That’s essentially what the SLS is. It cost $24 billion
    4
  46. Apollo was expensive. At its peak NASA was spending $60 billion a year on it, it took up their entire budget. Artemis on the other hand is meant to take up a fraction of NASA’s budget which is much smaller than it was in the days of Apollo (adjusting for inflation). All this whilst having a much larger scope. Apollo’s approach was safe and expensive
    4
  47. Yes it was remote controlled
    4
  48.  @tatata1543 1 video and he’s back to musk. Got to get that bag 😂
    3
  49. Well it will.
    3
  50. Then changed the thumbnail which originally said “debris field guaranteed
    3
  51. Except it isn’t. SLS damaged its launch mount on Artemis 1 which still hasn’t been repaired. Orion has massive heat shield issues that NASA hasn’t decided how to resolve. Mobile Launcher 2 is years behind schedule and its budget has ballooned by $2 billion. The Exploration Upper Stage (needed for Artemis 4 onwards) is years behind schedule and won’t be ready until 2029 at the earliest.
    3
  52. SpaceX has saved NASA tens of billions…
    3
  53. 1 watt = 1 joule/second 1000 watts = 1 kilowatt 1kilowatt running for one hour = 1 kilowatt hours So 1 kWh = 3 600 000 joules
    3
  54. Ikr
    3
  55. Capitalism: Rocket and Lander for $2.9 billion (Starship) Socialism: Rocket without Lander for $24 billion (SLS)
    3
  56. So was JFK, he started Apollo
    3
  57. ⁠ @Jkim890 except it hasn’t. Falcon 9 and now Super Heavy are the only orbital boosters that have landed back on land. And second stage recovery is hard, Starship was designed from the ground up to solve it.
    3
  58. What do they have to add? NASA has already said they believe in this being manageable.
    3
  59.  @ahettinger525  because there’s a lot of unknowns involved. How much fuel will be needed, how much a Starship can take up, how long the refuelling will take (longer = more boil off). When we get closer we’d get a clearer picture
    3
  60. It doesn’t, in space velocity is generated by throwing matter out at a very high speed.
    3
  61. No there’s some companies working on them. But they’re never replacing standard engines.
    3
  62. Lmao did you just say the ESA
    3
  63. Pretty much every Space Enthusiast is insanely excited for Starship. It’ll change the industry.
    3
  64. ⁠​⁠ @Neront90 that’s okay man, 2 more than me. I don’t know why people watch this, but the algorithm loves it so Thunderf00t just keeps making these videos
    3
  65.  @kurknielsen  Yes, you made some very compelling arguments…
    3
  66.  @Jkim890 he based his analysis off of Shuttle which was a terrible vehicle. Falcon 9 has proved rapid reusability is viable and very economical, that’s how they’re able to undercut every other launch company and why launch companies are all working on their own reusable rockets.
    3
  67. Exactly. $3 billion is for HLS, Starship is privately funded
    3
  68. We can’t do both? NASA already tracks potentially catastrophic asteroids Starship could be used to launch a probe that knocks one off course
    3
  69.  @Daneelro I preferred it when he talked about shitty kickstarters. Now he’s just playing into the algorithm. If he’s so worried about $1.9 billion going to SpaceX why isn’t he worried about the $24 billion that went to the SLS, pr the number of other much worse examples of wasteful spending.
    3
  70. There was an investigation, nothing was found. In fact they supported choosing SpaceX, who had the best offer.
    3
  71.  @3DisFuntastic yep, delays are normal: - SLS: 6 years - Vulcan: 5 years - Ariane 6: 6 years - New Glenn: 4 years - Falcon 9: 2 years - Falcon Heavy: 3 years
    3
  72.  @ContraVsGigi  the Apollo lander was tiny. Starship will be twice as wide and have 3 levels of living space and a large carho hold. Starship will be able to support 6 astronauts on a week long mission, Apollo could only support 2 for 2 days. Starship will be fully reusable and will not leave anything behind, both aren’t true of Apollo. They are completely different crafts.
    3
  73.  @dameonwalker8994 is that it, a delay? It’s obvious you don’t know much about space flight, delays are not just normal but like entirely expected. I can’t even think of a rocket that wasn’t
    3
  74.  @dameonwalker8994  see, you have no actual rebuttal.
    3
  75.  @jacksons1010 Thunderf00t has been a long time denier of EVs. Just one of the many bad takes he has. EVs are the future.
    3
  76.  @falkenlaser 😂 yeah. “Special Relativity BUSTED!!”
    3
  77. SpaceX released a full video of the landing from the Buoy, you can see in it Starship made a soft touchdown on the water.
    3
  78.  @geebsterswats  plenty of NASA execs have jumped ship. I think what is really odd is the senator who wrote the law that ended up giving Blue Origin a contract for Artemis 5 was from Blue Origin’s home state…
    3
  79.  @icemachine79  and yes it was legitimate. She based her decision off the findings of a committee. It’s analysed my multiple people. If there was any sign of a conflict of interest it would be studied. But I think the most damning evidence is the GAO report that came out later: Starship was by far the best option
    3
  80.  @icemachine79  she didn’t aid in the technical aspects of the bid, she didn’t even change the price. She negotiated with SpaceX to push payment clusters into later parts of development so that NASA could afford it in the short term. Why was this done with SpaceX and not the others? Well SpaceX’s bid was already determined to be the best, and it was by far the cheapest - half the price of BO.
    3
  81.  @icemachine79  that decision of who had the best proposal was done by the Source Evaluation Panel, not Lueders
    3
  82.  @icemachine79  have you read it? It literally says that it was the SEP that evaluated all of the proposals, rated them on a number of metrics, write a report on their methods and conclusions and advised Lueders. She stuck with the conclusions of the SEP, which was most favourable towards the SpaceX bid. It was also the cheapest by far which was an important factor when your budget is cut.
    3
  83.  @icemachine79  that’s pretty standard for Source Selection Statements. TF criticised the use of first person language which is also standard. Actually everything about this process was standard. Just go read the SSS document for the xEAVS (the Space Suit) contract, or Commercial Crew, or any program that has gone this same process Accusations of corruption are pure speculation that aren’t supported by any evidence.
    3
  84. Robert Reid can you explain where he went wrong?
    3
  85. 50 people launched to space without issue. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket ever
    3
  86.  @winstonwho the contract is fixed price. SpaceX gets $2.9 billion for putting astronauts on the moon, no more no less. This isn’t like a construction project which is cost plus.
    3
  87. I think Renewables can make up a large part of the grid, but as you build more they get exponentially more expensive as storage needs and redundancy goes up. So you will need something else, and really it’s chemical or nuclear
    3
  88.  @MaticTheProto ha. I think the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbus would disagree. Actually SpaceX Dragon is the safest Human Rated launcher in the world right now. The redundancies are second to none, also bring the first capsule with a built in abort system. All riding on top of the most reliable rocket ever launched, Falcon 9
    2
  89. It’s called iterative design. SpaceX could spend a decade meticulously designing Starship, or they can rapidly build and test prototypes with big changes SpaceX can build these prototypes insanely cheap, so the approach isn’t as pretty, but it’s faster and cheaper.
    2
  90.  @mathiaslist6705  the same guy who designed the V2 designed the Saturn V who took astronauts to the moon. The V2 also laid the groundwork for the Soviet space program, who took a lot of the designs
    2
  91. Exactly. He even compared the Apollo lander to Starship. Even if we ignore the massive increase in capabilities that Starship HLS will have, the Apollo Lunar Lander cost taxpayers $25 billion in today’s money. Starship HLS will cost $2.7 billion, with additional funding if they successfully carry out Artemis 3. And that doesn’t include the $75 billion for Saturn V.
    2
  92. Well their criticism was wrong. Commercial Crew saved NASA tens of billions
    2
  93. You can’t just build a rocket from 50 years ago. All the people who worked on it, factories that built it, infrastructure set up for it are all gone. It was also an insanely expensive rocket. The $2.9 billion that NASA is paying SpaceX would cover 2 Saturn V launch’s not including the cost of the lander, crew module, development, etc. In ending, Starship is the most promising option we have of getting back to the moon. And it will get us there, it’s just in development
    2
  94.  @KingsMoveSocialClub  lol, Thunderf00t could have started SpaceX hey? Why didn’t all the other space companies that are failing at the moment just think about that. Or do you think he could have started Tesla? Thunderf00t was denying that BEVs could work from the get go, but yet I see more and more Tesla’s on the road every day. Thunderf00t has been a YouTuber for almost 2 decades now and what has he built?
    2
  95. I wonder if the Apollo 1 crew agree. Or Apollo 13. Or Challenger. Or Columbus.
    2
  96.  @friedrichjunzt  you mean Starship? SpaceX goes to orbit all the time, they currently operate the most reliable orbital rocket launcher in the world
    2
  97.  @friedrichjunzt  they’ve sent 31 rockets to orbit just in the past 3 months.
    2
  98. Prove the concept... So they’re on Mars already, or has the definition of proof changed
    2
  99. Because Apollo was a barebones mission for $250 billion. Artemis is much bigger and importantly meant to be sustainable, so NASA is pushing for more risky endeavours which could have a great payoff.
    2
  100. The LLM cost $20 billion to develop. SpaceX developing it for $3 billion is a bargain
    2
  101.  @ahettinger525  NASA would have to delay it to 2026 anyway because Orion, the Space Suits and more aren’t ready. The original Sep 2024 timeline was impossible, the Sep 2025 timeline was optimistic, Sep 2026 to early 2027 (like GAO suggested) is a lot more reasonable on the timeline of average NASA projects.
    2
  102. There is no over budget here anyway. It’s a fixed contract
    2
  103.  @DeepDeepSpace  no by Payload Research
    2
  104. Is it wifi connected?
    2
  105. It’s almost like it was the plan… They reached orbital velocities but kept it suborbital for safety.
    2
  106.  @seawolf9616  such a cope 😂
    2
  107. There’s a big group of people who have no idea about space flight or SpaceX, they just like hating because of Elon. It’s really funny to watch
    2
  108. Because that would be pointless. Apollo was made to get us to the moon, it wasn’t really useful beyond that. Only 2 astronauts could go down, and they got 1, maybe 2 spacewalks? And it was fucking expensive. Artemis is meant to allow for much longer missions (1 week, months once the moon base is set up), allow much more astronauts to go down (6) and so on. All while being cheaper.
    2
  109. I think the craziest thing about it all is the claim that Lueders chose the Starship to get a job at SpaceX. Like she alone has the power to choose how $2.9 billion was spent and she never had to explain herself to anyone else. The 2 events (choosing Starship and joining SpaceX) didn’t even happen close together. BO already had their contract by that point. And it isn’t uncommon for NASA execs to jump to SpaceX, many of SpaceX’s executives are ex-NASA employees. It’s a weird argument that teeters on libel. Especially because later investigations agreed that NASA chose the best option. Really it wasn’t even a contestz
    2
  110. (And then conveniently ignore the strange circumstances that lead to Blue Origin getting a contract)
    2
  111. Because it isn’t fraud. SpaceX is changing the world right here, Thunderc0pe is just fooling you with his half truths and terrible research
    2
  112. Starship isn’t designed specifically for Artemis. It was well designed, by far the most detailed and well thought out of the 3 HLS proposals but it isn’t purpose built. Which is actually one of its strengths. Being able to do so many things keeps the costs low, SpaceX quoted half of the BO bid. It also is interesting for NASA who might want to use it to launch payloads. But yeah it’s overkill. But again for NASA they see that as an opportunity to expand their scope.
    2
  113. And they do. You’re looking at a rocket that’s only just started to ramp up development, by the end of the year it will be much further along.
    2
  114. Sounds more professional than saying 100x
    2
  115. The government shouldn’t have the power to censor people.
    2
  116. Yeah it would be. But SpaceX doesn’t they made clear goals before the test.
    2
  117.  @theultimatereductionist7592 didn’t meet their legal requirement? SpaceX put in the best offer, plain and simple
    2
  118. Exactly. NASA isn’t allowed to take risks which is why all of its projects go well over budget and far behind schedule. They tried it once. “Faster, Better, Cheaper”. Instead of spending $4 billion doing 1 missions with a 95% success chance, they spent $4 billion doing 4 missions each with an 80% success chance (because it’s really that final 20% that is the hardest). It actually performed well over its time Congress couldn’t stomach it after a few failures in a row. In another universe NASA never gave up on that and we’re on Mars right now
    2
  119. $250 billion
    2
  120. All of the experts and engineers, all of the factories and equipment, and many of the designs and technologies used to build the lunar lander aren’t around anymore.
    2
  121. They haven’t had any of the problems that the N1 had
    2
  122. Elon talked about it in an interview just before the launch, they knew it could be a flaw and tested anyway and surprisingly it survived till landing. The next design of Starship puts the wings out of harms way, and the new heat shielding which they tested on the flight will be much more protective.
    2
  123. ⁠ @roberthorwat6747 fuel is super cheap.
    2
  124.  @dustyhurd424  Kessler Syndrone is overblown. It isn’t an issue for space flight or LEO satellites, mainly satellites in higher orbits
    2
  125. And the launch towers, and offices, etc. I mean the launch towers alone, NASA is spending the equivalent entire Starship HLS contract on building a second launch tower for SLS.
    2
  126. They do come true though, just not on schedule. Yeah Starship is behind schedule (every single rocket in history has been), but it’s making great progress.
    2
  127. ⁠ @SmokeTheHolyChalice  NASA couldn’t afford 2. The HLS budget had been cut by Congress. SpaceX had to change their contract just so NASA could afford it, and their bid was half the price of the others.
    2
  128. That’s called the SLS. It came in at the small cost of $24 billion
    2
  129. Lol
    2
  130.  @ZakiHaider-y9o  yes it is. It’s paid for by StarLink, Falcon launches, investments and future customers
    2
  131. SLS: $24 billion Starship: $2.7 billion “tHe pUbLic SeCToR iS mOre eFFIciENt thAn thE pRIvaTe sector. iN EverY caPAcIty”
    2
  132. I think there’s one thing we are forgetting, this package isn’t strictly to prevent COVOD 19, but to reduce the economic impact of this pandemic. No matter what COVID 19 would have cost American - and the world - trillions simply because of the lockdowns worldwide
    2
  133.  @Homiloko2  so no, they didn’t “do this” decades ago.
    2
  134.  @Homiloko2  I don’t think they have a harder job. The engineering that went into Apollo was insane and laid the groundwork for everything to come. But it’s just stupid when the other’s say that Artemis or SpaceZ is just rehashing Apollo because they aren’t. It’s a far bigger mission with a far smaller budget. There are significant engineering challenges to solve, and they can’t meticulously design every feature. They also have a smaller margin for error, Apollo killed 3 astronauts and almost another 3 more, that can’t happen or Artemis will be set back years. SpaceX has made significant progress in just the last year, and they’re ramping up development threefold this year. Let’s check back in 2026.
    2
  135. He wasn’t always like this, but I guess the figured the algorithm liked his Elon videos
    2
  136. Liquid hydrogen needs to be kept at like -250C, and no wouldn’t be much safer
    2
  137. It’s not that bad. They get 60 days severance to find a new job.
    2
  138.  @n.f.9317  welcome to the tech industry
    2
  139. Lmao what? SpaceX is the only reason the US has any astronauts in space right now
    2
  140. Jason Viper how?
    2
  141. Falcon Heavy is their biggest currently in use. It’s essentially a Falcon 9 with 2 smaller boosters attached to it. Both boosters land back on the launch pad and the main stage will land on a drone ship like the Falcon 9. This allows it to carry a higher load, ~68t to LEO whilst being mostly reusable
    2
  142. Starship is their next rocket, it’s significantly larger than the previous two. It stands at 120m vs the 70m of Falcon 9/Heavy. It has a diameter of 9m vs 4m of Falcon 9. Instead of Merlin engines it has the new much larger Raptor engines which use methane instead of kerosene. It has about 40 of these engines. So yeah it’s big. And unlike the previous two it’s meant to be fully reusable with both the first stage, the Booster, and the second stage, called the Ship, landing. So even though it’s bigger it will be cheaper to fly. And it will take 100-150t to LEO
    2
  143. By NASA’s numbers the cost of fuel is $900k. Of course there’s costs uncovered in cooling it, loading it, etc. But that’s nothing when it comes to launching rockets. The big cost, which is currently undetermined, is the cost of maintainance. Supposedly they will be far less than Falcon 9 because of the simpler design, use of methane, etc. $1m launches are bullshit, but even if it just costs $30m that’s a massive cost saving.
    2
  144.  @Nomolyx1 😂
    2
  145.  @RogerM88  IFT-3 failed because it was flying sideways. Anyway Steel was chosen because it was cheap, heat resistant, but most importantly because it’s significantly rasier to work with than aluminium or god forbid carbon fibre. That suits their goals of a low cost, mass produced, reusable rocket.
    2
  146. Or SLS, or Orion, or New Glenn, or Ariane 6, or…
    2
  147. No, an interstellar craft will need to be assembled in space, will need to involve fission or fusion, and will take decades to get to our closest star system. Definitely out of our lifetime, and it definitely won’t be Starship. Starship will take us to mars though
    2
  148.  @durshurrikun150  interstellar travel will happen. The only thing that would stop us would be us blowing h ourselves up which is a non zero possibility but I remain optimistic. And Starship will take people to both Mars and the Moon. They’ll be taking them to the moon in 2-3 years.
    2
  149. Starship is already quite heavy, and the lower the fuel load to account for no payload. In fact having no payload is what caused Flight 2 to fail because they vented oxygen mid flight to adjust for the lack of payload, and that oxygen set alight
    2
  150.  @hozz that is actually a pretty good indicator…
    2
  151. SpaceX does test each component separately. But that can only go so far, it’s impossible to put them under the same environment and stresses of a real rocket launch. I don’t see why this approach is “ridiculously wrong”. This is where SpaceX differs from NASA: these rockets are built very quickly and very cheap. Launching them costs them practically nothing, estimates put it at $90 million. The value they get out of the data exceeds that.
    2
  152.  @MaticTheProto  Relighting an engine isn’t hard on the ground, gravity pulls the fuel to the engine. But when it’s in orbit or falling the fuel floats away, and that is a challenge. It’s actually one of the things you can only test in a flight.
    2
  153. Exactly. Also Starship is designed to be extremely cheap to begin with
    2
  154.  @ContraVsGigi  and in terms of refuelling, Starship will be fully reusable. So you aren’t throwing 15 ships into orbit, you’re sending a few multiple times. NASA isn’t concerned because all of this happens in LEO without anyone on board where issues can be addressed quickly.
    2
  155. I’ll pay attention when they actually build an orbital rocket
    2
  156. NASA will be gutted. It needs to be, they're such an inefficient agency
    2
  157.  @herrschaftg35  “working” It currently can’t launch because it damaged its launcher and it’s taking them ages to fix it.
    2
  158. They reached an orbit of (234,-50) which roughly equals a 92km circular orbit But that was the plan. It was purposely kept suborbital
    2
  159. You say this like SpaceX hasn’t been regularly reusing rockets for the past few years.
    2
  160. He’s saved the US space industry. He’s directly saved NASA tens of billions, he’s the only reason the US has astronauts in space at the moment
    2
  161.  @jessicaandtrains7768 soon EVs will be the only cars on the road 😂
    2
  162.  @jessicaandtrains7768  yeah they will, either Battery EVs or Plug-In Hybrids. Then as Batteries mature every car will be a BEV. The only things keeping them back are range and charge rate, two things that are improving rapidly.
    2
  163.  @jacksons1010  it doesn’t need to be the energy density of motor fuels. The new Model 3 Long Range has a range of what, 600km? It’s more around 500 because the tests are idealistic but that’s a long way. Double the energy density and that same car could do 1000km Sounds crazy but it’s possible, we already have lithium batteries that dense. The DoE is planning on us having a commercially viable battery with a 50% greater density by 2030, by 2050 an additional 50% increase seems expected. Charge times will improve too and costs will go down.
    2
  164.  @Azamat421 not wrong at all. Thunderf00t has barely any idea about the industry. His last livestream was an embarrassment, he got so much wrong.
    2
  165. Wernher von Braun said the first ruler of Mars would be named Elon
    2
  166. He’s not paying himself anything. He’s trying to get shareholders to bring back the compensation package that they first agreed to in 2018.
    2
  167. It’s $50 billion for increasing the companies value by 17x in 3 years. Paid through stock options so it’s comping from the shareholders
    2
  168. But they aren’t. SpaceX has saved NASA billions and essentially revitalised the space industry.
    2
  169. Well that video aged terribly because now every launch provider in the world trying to make their rockets reusable.
    2
  170. No, the program is already behind schedule because Orion and the new Space Suits have issues
    2
  171. Yeah he’s hated EVs for a while. Points out all their downsides, ignores their benefits and leaves no room for technological advancement which is going fast in a relatively new technology like EVs
    2
  172. It’s pretty obvious that he’s autistic from his maneurisms. But also a lot of his children are also autistic, which is a sign
    2
  173. Tesla’s are far less likely to catch on fire than an ICE.
    2
  174. 2 launches of the SLS cost more than the entire funding that NASA has awarded SpaceX for Starship. This on top of the $12 billion in development costs for the SLS. No one wastes money better than NASA… well except the DoD
    2
  175.  @vask3863 it’s a level 2 for liability, but it’s not any less capable than a level 3 system.
    2
  176. In the far distant future, assuming we don’t blow ourselves up, that’s how I see us dominating the galaxy. We’d send thousands of ships to a planet with materials and robots to build a sustainable colony and then clone humans to populate it. They’d be sent all across the galaxy.
    2
  177. No, Apollo cost more like $250 billion. At one point it was receiving 5% of GDP, that’s a greater percentage than we spend on the military now. NASA estimated the cost to develop a new lander was $10b. Add on the cost to launch it up with SLS ($2b), and you have 6x the cost of what SpaceX is charging
    2
  178.  @TheLumberjack1987  btw the only thing canceled was a private flight around the moon. SpaceX is still the primary customer of Artemis
    2
  179.  @TheLumberjack1987  😂 okay then
    2
  180. So serious they killed 14 astronauts… Okay but yeah there risk averse approach to development is why their projects are so expensive
    2
  181. ⁠ @weightlifting_socialist Elon has so much money because he me provided insane value to the world. Without him EVs would be a decade behind where they are now, NASA would be still wasting billions on the space shuttle and so on
    2
  182. Apollo sent a tiny little lander that could barely fit 2 people to the surface, and left most of it on the moon’s surface. Starship on the other hand is absolutely massive, and won’t leave anything behind. All that is added weight, which means refuelling is needed.
    2
  183. It isn’t like saying we’ll have a space elevator. It’s far less complicated than a space elevator We’ve already refueled things in orbit, just not a cryogenic fuel.
    2
  184.  @lazarus2691  wow that’s crazy. I knew SLS was bad but wow. Contracted for $380m, now estimated to cost $1.5b. Meant to finish early last year, instead will finish late 2027
    2
  185. But it does...
    2
  186. It’s like he has autism or something.
    2
  187.  @durshurrikun150  Russia isn’t even a contender, I don’t know why you keep bringing them up.
    2
  188.  @infernaldaedra  the shuttle was a death trap. An insanely expensive death trap, adding up all costs it came to $1.5 billion per launch. It was a complete disaster that set NASA back decades.
    2
  189.  @Loading-lg6hs deleted and reloaded to continue profiting off of musk haters
    2
  190. That’s pretty normal for business acquisitions. Stocks aren’t very liquid at large scales, so it’s better to draw down on debt and slowly pay them off. His debt will be at a very low interest rate.
    1
  191. I don’t see that going down so well.
    1
  192. Imagine letting this bloke ruin your dreams.
    1
  193. aussj4link it’s cheaper to just have the bike, no electricity. The electricity produced in a whole gym of these would only power 1 house. He’s just saying it’s a waste of money.
    1
  194.  @MaticTheProto  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#/media/File%3AShuttleAbortPre51L.png Those black spots are why Challenger died. There was no way to abort during launch. The solid rocket boosters also had no way of being turned off. Crew Dragon has an abort system built in unlock other systems which keep it seperate. The boosters have loads of redundancy. Falcon 9 also uses boosters that can be throttled and turned off if need be, making an abort faster and safer.
    1
  195. Bonus wasn’t for this year. It was for Tesla’s stellar performance from 2018-2021. He literally got shareholders a 20x return
    1
  196. Gerafix what are they?
    1
  197. But planting trees in the wrong environments can actually hurt the ecosystem
    1
  198. Oh it definitely has been. Before SpaceX, ULA (Lockheed Martin + Boeing) was absolutely ripping off NASA and the military. SpaceX has undercut them. They’ve saved NASA tens of billions (which they admit themselves)
    1
  199.  @WinstonSmith685 SpaceX cut their contract so NASA could afford it
    1
  200. Tesla has been massively cutting costs and passing them onto consumers.
    1
  201. It is crazy because that’s not what happened. A single person doesn’t have the ability to decide on a lander without reporting to a committee of experts and stakeholders. The committee and a later GEO investigation found that SpaceX simply had the best bid. It was the most capable, most feasible, most detailed and came in at the lowest price
    1
  202. > they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a manned program You know they provide manned flights to the ISS, right? They’ve sent 50 people to space, they’re the only US entity capable of manned spaceflights at the moment. They’re more than capable
    1
  203.  @JohnDoeWasntTaken  yes but she based her decision off of findings of a committee because not doing so would have immediately got her done for fraud. Thunderf00t critiqued things like her use of first person language, which is generally a standard for these sorts of documents. Don’t believe me? Look up the Source Selection Statement for the new Space Suits, or any NASA contract for that matter. He’s obviously not a reliable source in this matter
    1
  204. I don’t know. The first fully reusable rocket will be a pretty big contribution. Or the first spacecraft capable of taking humans to mars.
    1
  205. You can’t just build the lunar module. All the factories and engineers are gone, a lot of the designs and technologies lost. You’d have to build them almost back again, which would be enormously expensive- that’s just what happens when you don’t build something for a long time.
    1
  206. But on top of that it wouldn’t be capable of this mission anyway. 1) It could only carry 2 astronauts and support them for 2 days. Starship HLS will carry up to 6 for 7 days. 2) It couldn’t take much cargo to the surface. Starship will be able to take tons of cargo down with the astronauts, and will have a cargo variant that could carry even more. 3) The LM was expensive. The program cost $30 billion, and each lander billions. Starship will cost $2.9 billion, and each subsequent mission probably costing below $1 billion 4) There’s no way to launch it. SLS wouldn’t be powerful enough to launch the Apollo payload. You’d have to do a second launch and assemble in orbit, which is just more cost And so on. It’s just a dumb idea
    1
  207.  @nomsuranom1665 they don’t design the experiments. But yeah the ISS was a giant disaster. When NASA gets rid of it, it’ll be replaced by a number of commercial stations for a fraction of the price
    1
  208. I wish libertarians had taken over the government. The country would be in a much better state. Anyway, SpaceX has already saved NASA billions and are doing the same here with their Starship program. NASA expected the cost to develop a lunar lander to be around $10 billion, and knowing them that means more like $20 billion. So SpaceX is doing the same at 1/7th the cost.
    1
  209.  @mathiaslist6705  yeah
    1
  210. It’s in development…
    1
  211.  @johnthefactfddict3281  > you literally can’t drop below the 0.5-1.0 billion dollar per launch Falcon 9 charges $62 million for a launch. SpaceX’s claims it costs them between $20-25 million to pull off that launch. Where are you getting these numbers from? Fuel is cheap, it makes up less than 1% of the cost of most launches. For Starship it’s estimated to cost ~$1m to refuel. The main cost is construction, which is why Starship is aiming to be fully reusable.
    1
  212.  @johnthefactfddict3281  Starship does not cost $1 billion to launch. That price includes the total cost of the Starship development which includes R&D and Infrastructure like launch sites, offices, factories, storage bays, etc. The actual marginal launch cost, the amount for SpaceX to launch a new rocket, is estimated to be around $90 million, and that’s now with no reusability or mass production. Starship WITH reusability and a high frequency of launches will be cost less than $10 million to launch, cheaper than Falcon 9
    1
  213.  @johnthefactfddict3281  but the benefits aren’t just lower costs. Starship will enable larger and heavier payloads to reach orbit. One example is Airbus’s new module for Space Stations, LOOP. It’ll be the largest and heaviest module sent to orbit, and it can only launch of Starship. Starship will also enable massive satellite constellations. Being both cheaper and larger than Falcon 9 it’ll have an unparalleled ability to launch satellites on mass. And single satellite launches will get cheaper, Starship can take up multiple all at once.
    1
  214. neoqueto haha 😂, Thunderf00t a flat earther?
    1
  215.  @lazarus2691 exactly. Falcon 9 actually far over-exceeded expectations, which essentially killed the Falcon Heavy
    1
  216. Orunitor because he’s talking about the weight of the gasoline, not the volume it takes up.
    1
  217. Creators want ads, they get paid for them
    1
  218. I’d hire that safety inspector.
    1
  219.  @gaborrajnai6213  imagine defending the SLS. Even NASA employees know it’s a rort, it’s there for Congressmen to buy votes. SLS launched 6 years behind schedule and $12 billion over budget. And it was meant to be launched again this year but that’s been delayed until next year.
    1
  220.  @gaborrajnai6213  and it’s not like they had to reinvent the wheel. It’s essentially a revamped Saturn V connected to Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters.
    1
  221. Send the engineers to Antarctica?
    1
  222. $3 billion paid out over multiple years would do nothing. Universal healthcare would cost $3 trillion… each year.
    1
  223. Yeah he was actually. Thunderf00t is a grifter
    1
  224.  @Jkim890 I don’t understand your point, but developing a lunar lander with the capabilities HLS will have for $3 billion is a miracle. NASA was estimating it’d cost them $10 billion, and that was for a far less capable lander
    1
  225. That actually isn’t a nefarious case. The hammers were sold along side a large engine, and nothing was itemised. But when it came time for accounting NASA needed it itemised so they simply divided the cost of each item equally despite obviously being skewed because of a large space resistant engine
    1
  226. Besides, NASA itself has admitted that SpaceX has saved them tens of billions already. Starship HLS itself comes in at 1/4th the cost NASA was projecting if they had developed a lander themselves.
    1
  227. Because that’s not how the world works. All of the engineers and technicians that worked on the Saturn V are gone, all of the factories are gone, many technologies used are obsolete, many of the designs lost. You can’t just rebuild Saturn V, you need to redesign it. SLS is just that. And just like Saturn V it is insanely expensive.
    1
  228. It’s still under development. > $3 billion so far It’s a fixed contract, $3 billion up front.
    1
  229. No one has ever made a fully reusable rocket before.
    1
  230.  @miscamisca6775  the Space Shuttle expended a massive fuel tank with every launch. That tank alone cost $270m each. So no, it was only partially reusable. And the nature of the reuse was nowhere near as good. The Shuttle and SRBs required massive refurbishment. Much of the time the boosters weren’t reused at all and just scrapped for parts. Starship is built to require minimum refurbishment.
    1
  231.  @miscamisca6775  except not all of it is reused, hence it isn’t a fully reusable rocket. The original design of the Space Shuttle was actually meant to be fully reusable, but its design goals changed due to the Air Force wanting a larger cargo bay and yada yada. They had to ditch the idea because with full reuse they wouldn’t be able to support the increased payload.
    1
  232. Those terrawatts of energy go straight into our atmosphere as heat
    1
  233. Well that’s why it is released into space isn’t it. Or absorbed by plants, or other things.
    1
  234. And billions of dollars
    1
  235. What?
    1
  236. corthew 1. Mars is 142 times as far away from earth as mars. So we’re not even 1% there. 2. Sending people to the moon does not equal supporting them as a colony, thus not a proof of concept. 3. We haven’t shown our ability to send a rocket back to earth from mars. Any feasibility will come from the ability for us to give the astronauts a safe return 4. What about the challenges of surviving on mars, the temperatures, the lack of oxygen and water, ect.
    1
  237. They’re not the only ones making a lander. Blue Origin is making one as well. But they’re years off. They say they’ll be ready by 2029 at the earliest but it’s more likely going to be later than that.
    1
  238.  @goldenshatter  ikr. People just like hating on SpaceX because of Musk, even though they’re the best astronautic company in the world.
    1
  239. I think if you looked further they weren’t made by the government at all, but contractors that the government paid. And yes they did hold the IP and if a company wanted to use it they’d have to pay. Anyway the first commercial microprocessor was developed by Intel on their own around about the same time as the Air Force.
    1
  240. Why do this, why not develop it themselves? I’ll just say this, the structure of government departments are not well suited for keeping costs low or innovating. There’s no incentive to do either of those. SpaceX has saved NASA billions because they do what NASA does at a fraction of the price. Why? Because if they don’t they go out of business. It’s a direct incentive, that’s why capitalism has been so successful
    1
  241.  @tycurtin7565  when the shuttle program shut down many were kept on under the SLS program. By your same standard that should have been a roaring success because NASA of the past had already laid out the groundwork. No, it was an absolute disaster. 6 years behind schedule and $12 billion over budget. All that to deliver a rocket with no commercial value.
    1
  242.  @tycurtin7565  a public organisation certainly can do everything a private organisation can. I mean there’s nothing on paper that stops them. But they don’t, because they lack any mechanism to incentivise keeping costs low or innovation. For a private company it’s built right in. The more they can cut costs the more they can profit. They’re more likely to take risks in order to make that happen. And in a competitive environment not innovating can lead to bankruptcy.
    1
  243.  @tycurtin7565  But most importantly, and this is incredibly true for NASA: instead of being run by people with a real passion and success in the industry, these departments are overlooked by people who have absolutely no clue. Actually not just people who have no clue, but people who are incentivised to work against the departments wishes in order to gain votes or donations. That’s how we got SLS
    1
  244. SpaceX is attempting something far more ambitious than anyone has built before on a fraction of the budget Saturn V had.
    1
  245. He has a big say over the design of Starship. He’s the reason they’re catching the booster, the engineers weren’t sure it was possible. Well we know now
    1
  246. They aren’t. They were already developing Starship as a fully reusable vehicle from the ground up - the first rocket of its kind. HLS came later and their bid was essentially an adaptation of what they were already developing. That’s why they were able to bid at such a low price ($2.9 billion for a lander is a steal).
    1
  247. We need a 4000 lb white man with a bitchy black woman with the worlds oldest man
    1
  248.  @kirishima638 literally nothing melted through on the booster. But you are right it’s not reusable yet, that’s something they can work on now that catching is a sure thing
    1
  249.  @kirishima638  no the cover shielding the QD nozzle broke off during reentry, there’s videos online showing it happen. It’s an easy fix. There was no burn through.
    1
  250.  @Cara.314 fuel is cheap.
    1
  251. What?
    1
  252. Yeah, we could’ve given Russia $3 billion dollars and done what? Why do we need Soyuz’s?
    1
  253. No it’s not.
    1
  254.  @YouShouldThink4Yourself  the moon mission (Artemis) isn’t canceled.
    1
  255. The last flight was a success. It launched and got to orbit.
    1
  256.  @Raptorace225  I’m not twisting it, NASA called it a success. Landing on Earth is not a capability they claimed they’d have yet, nor is it necessary for Artemis. The 2 milestones it needed for Artemis was 1. Getting to orbit 2. In orbit transfer of fuel Both were successful
    1
  257.  @Raptorace225  NASA called it a success…
    1
  258. Yeah Starship is not impressive at all. It’s only the largest rocket ever made, designed from the ground up to be the first fully reusable rocket.
    1
  259.  @CrawfishDeluxe  Thunderf00t isn’t an engineer. Actual engineers or people who work in the space industry are watching Starship with excitement (or fear if you’re one of the dozen countries building new rockets)
    1
  260. Gasoline has a MUCH higher safe temperature range. Any small leak of hydrogen can be set off by a small spark.
    1
  261. jmitterii2 another problem is efficiency. Making H2 uses more energy than you get back, it’s just changing where you use the petroleum.
    1
  262. Efficiency has never been something NASA is known for. Literally every one of their projects goes over budget and years behind schedule. They are full of bloat and bureaucracy.
    1
  263. It was actually Obama. He started it with Commercial Crew after a report found that the Constellation program was an absolute disaster in every aspect. It did extremely well.
    1
  264. And that includes the construction of a new launch tower, factory, 5 storey office building, and everything else that’s going on at the moment. The best estimates put the material and labour costs of a full stack at $90 million. Where does $1 billion come from?
    1
  265. 0.3% of the US budget as a whole not the US military budget
    1
  266. No they wouldn’t. They estimated it’d cost them ~$10 billion. Which is probably very optimistic, and if the development went anything like SLS and Orion it’d probably balloon out to $20 billion. SpaceX is doing it for $3 billion. It’s a fixed contract, that’s all they’re getting. An absolute bargain
    1
  267. SpaceX has launched and brought back over 50 people to and from space. Dragon is the safety capsule ever built, and it rises on top of the most reliable rocket ever built. What are you on about?
    1
  268.  @DeepDeepSpace estimates say that 15 expendable missions with Starship would be cheaper than SLS. Way cheaper in fact, and that’s without reusability.
    1
  269. Why?
    1
  270. Ha
    1
  271. Because it isn’t? I’m guessing you’re talking about the Apollo rovers already being developed, well if you go and watch that footage you’d realise the rover was pretty awful.
    1
  272. There’s nothing like Earth, but there’s definitely inhabitable planets. Or planet, it’s really only mars. Some moons of Jupiter could be candidates
    1
  273. Because when NASA does it it costs 20x the price and has no commercial value. Starship will be significantly cheaper than SLS. Not only that but it will do more than SLS, whose only job is to launch Orion and Gateway.
    1
  274. Yes a supercharger v3 can charge a battery in 20 minutes, but does that really compare to a gas stations ~2 minutes? And what about the energy grid? Our grid cannot handle a full population of electric vehicles, driving up prices once again.
    1
  275. Colonisation of Mars is easily achievable in our lifetime. It’s not a question of if we can live there, it’s a question of if we want to fund it. All the problems you mentioned have been technically solved. It’s now an engineering problem.
    1
  276. A massive city on mars like Musk wants is a bit further away. But we will have a colony that we will be exchanging astronauts and supply’s to within a few decades at most.
    1
  277. “easily achievable” as in it just needs funding and willpower. If you look into the problems that must be solved none of them require any science fiction to solve.
    1
  278.  @Marco-bq3wc  if Starship can land on the Moon, which NASA and SpaceX are confident it can, why couldn’t it land on Mars? In fact it will be easier to do it, Mars atmosphere acts as an aero brake, slowing Starship down. And its surface is a lot harder so they don’t need to worry about the Raptor engines creating a crater when attempting a takeoff.
    1
  279.  @Marco-bq3wc  an early colony won’t need to be self sustaining, like the ISS it could be supplied with everything the astronauts need. But we would want to build a sustainable colony, and for that goal a fully self contained environment (like Biosphere 2) isn’t even a requirement. Mars has plenty of resources we can use and would be stupid to ignore.
    1
  280.  @tatata1543  I just answered it. Supplies can be sent down ahead of time, like what they’re doing right now with Artemis. In the long term we can exploit Mars resources, everything we need to survive is already there or can be produced from the resources already there. In the long long term maybe a fully self contained system like Biosphere 2 could be developed but that’s far off, I agree.
    1
  281.  @Marco-bq3wc  I know Biosphere 2 was a failure. I said it’s a long shot. It’d be much easier to replenish more support using resources off of the planet instead of building a self sustaining ecosystem
    1
  282. Humans can do a much wider range of tasks more quickly than any rover can. Humans don’t need to be designed for years to carry out specific tasks, they can be flexible.
    1
  283. SpaceX vs NASA is a great case study on why Agile works. Eventually everything NASA does will be done by SpaceX. Well they’ll also contract someone like Boeing so it doesn’t look like they’re favouring one company too much.
    1
  284.  @Ihaveanamenowtaken  Starship doesn’t cost billions to launch. And no it isn’t a terrible approach to software. Strict adherence to the manifesto is stupid, but at a broad level it is leaps and bounds better than a traditional approach that involves massive amounts of planning and design. Imagine building the backend for YouTube with a traditional approach. It would be a fucking nightmare
    1
  285.  @Ihaveanamenowtaken  the traditionally designed SLS that NASA uses was 6 years over schedule, $12 billion over budget and costs $2 billion to launch. The iteratively designed Starship will be delivered at a fraction of the price and will launch cheaper. And it will be more capable. SpaceX has proven over its lifetime that Agile is simply superior - if implemented well.
    1
  286. Jaden Pelate google.
    1
  287. Well you could get a sample of the air and test it for it’s build up (which has been done countless times) To save you time, just take their word. Not everyone is a massive scam on this earth.
    1
  288. Jaden Pelate which video
    1
  289. ⁠​⁠ @electric7487 you realise SpaceX’s design approach purposely causes failure, right? Falcon 1 failed seconds after its first launch, now the Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket ever made.
    1
  290. ⁠ @electric7487 even if starship falls short of it’s 100 ton goal, or can’t find demand, it’s still cheaper than Falcon 9.
    1
  291. It’s easy to make Musk videos and the algorithm loves them
    1
  292. Canada is powered 59% by Hydro, 15% Nuclear, 19% Coal and other fossil fuels, and 7% other renewable sources. Just going to ask, do you think Canada’s energy grid could hold 350 million people?
    1
  293. Do you think Toyota would shoot an incendiary round when trying to show safety?
    1
  294. Exactly. He then says Saturn V was a roaring success on its first launch. Well no shit, it cost $75 billion over its lifespan. SpaceX ain’t got that kind of money, they can’t sit around slowly tweaking everything.
    1
  295. Yeah he quickly changed that title 😂. It’s sorta funny really, every launch the goalposts shift as the skeptics slowly devolve into insanity.
    1
  296.  @jshowao  what do I have to cope about? I just watched the most insane rocket launch of my life.
    1
  297.  @ayushkadel1168 the $3 billion is for the Lunar lander SpaceX is developing. Starship’s development is mostly privately funded
    1
  298.  @EdwardHowton because fusion will cost more money than even Elon has to make work. Billions have been spent on it and there’s still no viable pathway for a business
    1
  299. He’s purposely conflating Musk’s claim they can get the marginal launch price of Starship to $2m with the entire cost of development (which is currently $1.9 billion, well atleast that’s NASA’s share)
    1
  300. You have absolutely no idea what you’re on about. SpaceX is best poised out of the entire space industry for the future. Even if Starship goes bust (which it won’t but stick with me), Falcon 9 is the cheapest and most reliable heavy lift rocket ever built, and has a cadence no one could dream of Even without NASA SpaceX could survive. The Space Industry is already mostly built for the military, Space Force has a higher budget than NASA
    1
  301. Colin Overkamp no
    1
  302. He has never spoken well, but I think he has noticeably worsened
    1
  303. Sodium ion doesn’t have much potential but there are battery technologies that do. But they aren’t needed. Lithium ion is good enough and has a lot of room to continue to improve.
    1
  304. And landed it
    1
  305. Not to the point of being uninhabitable, as said in the program
    1
  306. They never had LiDAR. LiDAR is insanely expensive, I think every Waymo car has $50k in LiDAR on it on top of an additional 30 cameras, USS sensors and a massive Radar. He believes it’s a waste of money, that a camera + processor can do the same job as a LiDAR for a fraction of the price.
    1
  307. What about the lithium? It’s not cheap to make batteries you know, and that fact alone makes EV’s terrible when compared to a ICE
    1
  308. It was a camera placed on the rover. It wasn’t Apollo 11, I think it was 15 or something.
    1
  309. Ever watched boats go over the horizon? You’d see it curves
    1
  310. The Van Allen belts are spheres of high concentrations of radiation and other particles caused by our magnetic field. Dangerous, but not to astronauts who travel through them quickly. It mainly prevents us from putting a space station in the belts
    1
  311. Rockets curve to build up horizontal velocity. If they just went straight up they’d just fall straight back down. They need horizontal velocity so they maintain orbit
    1
  312. lol 😂
    1
  313. The us army demonstrated a “rail gun” which uses electromagnetism to shoot a large projectile to compromise a tanks armour. Very cool, but it was noted that it used a lot of electricity compared to conventional methods of shooting projectiles. Plus, it gets really hot.
    1
  314. But accurately shooting a thing “into orbit” is harder than it sounds
    1
  315. Pretty much every proposal required refuelling of some sort.
    1
  316. You lack imagination
    1
  317.  @ExxonValDeezNuts  interstellar travel is possible. Whether humans will do so is a different question that no one can answer. But I choose to think we will becauseI l like to look on life optimistically.
    1
  318.  @ExxonValDeezNuts  it isn’t impossible. We theoretically know how to make an engine to do it now. Project Orion looked at Nuclear Pulse Engines which could push us to 10% the speed of light. An optimised version with more powerful nuclear warheads could probably push us to 20% which would get us to Proxima Centauri in 30 years. In the future we’ll perfect fusion power which could theoretically get up to 90%. The only thing stopping us is the will to do so.
    1
  319.  @ExxonValDeezNuts  Proxima Centauri has an Earth-like planet in its habitable zone. It’s a potential source of life, but at the very least could support human life. Supplies would be sent in advance that could allow humans to build a self sufficient colony. Supplies and humans could be sent continuously to ensure it survives.
    1
  320.  @ExxonValDeezNuts  what are you on about technology hasn’t evolved? The last 30 years have been the fastest period of growth in history, and the next 30 will be as well. Just because you have kept your head in the sand doesn’t mean the world isn’t changing.
    1
  321. No one simps for the SLS. Not even NASA employees. It’s so bad that it’ll essentially be relegated to Artemis as all of its other missions get changed to far cheaper rockets. And it’ll probably be replaced before Artemis ends.
    1
  322. Actually no they don’t. A lot of designs were lost, either accidentally or purposely thrown away by suppliers when Apollo was ended. But even if they did have them, all the experts and engineers, all the factories and equipment, and many of the technologies simply don’t exist. You’re starting from scratch
    1
  323. And then on top of that we want to make it cheaper (Apollo was incredibly expensive), safer, more capable, etc.
    1
  324. I don’t see any rational debunking, just the same talking points he’s used for years. He was wrong about EVs, wrong about Falcon 9, why should anyone care what he says about Starship?
    1
  325. Free Speech is dead sadly. People don’t want free speech, they want to be in a bubble of speech that they agree with
    1
  326. Yeah pretty much. Artemis isn’t just redoing Apollo, it has a much greater scope.
    1
  327. lol
    1
  328. He can’t be nice because he used to be an engineer for the DoD?
    1
  329. It’s actually way harder to catch it,
    1
  330.  @brentonherbert7775  because it saves a lot of weight and cost on each ship and booster
    1
  331. Apollo cost $250 billion. Also a lot of digital processing power wasn’t needed because the Apollo lander relied on analog inputs and had humans that could manually guide it.
    1
  332. Russia? Keep up with the times, Russia hasn’t been competitive in space for over 5 decades. China is the new kid on the block.
    1
  333.  @hackmedia7755 SpaceX has been giving results though.
    1
  334. Ok it’s fine in already forested or once forested land, but it can actually damage ecosystems by destroying plants that animals that live in that biome depend on.
    1
  335. *15k
    1
  336. Nuclear is the future
    1
  337. And the other 13 also contain musk rants.
    1
  338. We don’t really. It’s more of a testing ground for technologies like infrastructure, but it’s not needed to put people on Mars. The current best plans for a Mars mission (Starship and Mars Base Camp) both launch from LEO
    1
  339. What about Musk’s track record of 50 people to orbit and back aboard Crew Dragon?
    1
  340. Why? Keep it simple, you don’t need to over complicate things. Probably, but it wouldn’t be that great. Nuclear is the future.
    1
  341. *300th very soon. They’re at 295 or something
    1
  342.  @thomasbecker9676  https://youtu.be/A0FZIwabctw?si=CiXG0Dv37vK6VjQT
    1
  343. Why didn’t who use compressed air + CO2?
    1
  344. I see it as a testbed for technologies we’d use on Mars (space suits, enclosures, rovers, solar/nuclear power, in situ resource utilisation). But as a launchpad like NASA proposes, I think it’s foolish. The 2 best options we have of getting to Mars atm (Starship, Mars Base Camp) make no use of the Moon.
    1
  345. Cheaper is wrong. Saturn V was incredibly expensive. The Lunar Module it launched was also tiny and isn’t close to the capabilities that HLS needs
    1
  346. Isn’t it like -125 degrees Celsius? The amount of energy needed to keep the crew alive would be enormous
    1
  347. No, he hates his stupid ideas.
    1
  348. You can’t just blow the dust off something you haven’t used in 50 years. All the experts and engineers, all the factories and machinery and many of the design documents are gone. You’d be starting from scratch. Which is what NASA initially planned. But then they went to commercial partners and SpaceX offered a much more capable lander at a quarter the price. Of course they were going to go with them.
    1
  349. Starship is still in development… Starship V2 will come out sometime this year I believe. It’ll have the new Raptor 3 engines, a slight height increase, a few other changes and will have a 100-150T capacity
    1
  350.  @thorin1045  what? They aren’t changing the engine, V2 will have the upgraded Raptor V3 engines though. This is something they did with Falcon 9 as they have improved the Merlin engine over the years. And completely redoing the second stage? They are changing the arrangements of the doors slightly and making it a couple meters taller, but I’d hardly call that “completely redoing”.
    1
  351.  @thorin1045  1. “Not fully from scratch”. No young’s right, it’s not fully from scratch. In fact it’s not from scratch at all. It’s still a Full-Flow Closed-Cycle Methalox engine. It still has many of its components V2. Some are removed, some are changed. It’s an upgrade. 2. No again it’s not a complete redo because you already have the design down pat. Making the fuel tanks a bit bigger (if that’s even necessary) isn’t a massive overhaul. 3. What does this have to do with anything? The design doesn’t need to be locked in yet.
    1
  352. They were initially going to have an internal heat dissipation system but swapped to tiles because they are far lighter. Starship being steel still provides a lot more resistance to heating meaning the tiles don’t need to be as thick. They can also break off in places and the rocket can survive.
    1
  353. But no that’s not the reason. The tiles don’t weigh enough to change the payload mass that much. The reason is Raptor 3 has been behind schedule, which is what’s going to enable them to reach their 100 ton goal.
    1
  354. 1 Falcon 9 launch equals the emissions of 100 cars driving for a year. Which is significantly more, but not much considering how few launches there are vs how many cars there are
    1
  355.  @Irobert1115HD SLS was 6 years behind schedule and $12 billion over budget. And it literally couldn’t launch today if it wanted because it damaged its launch pad and it still hasn’t been fixed. And it is too expensive so NASA has moved all of its missions to other rockets and it is facing full cancellation.
    1
  356.  @Irobert1115HD SpaceX’s entire R&D spending over its lifetime comes to about half of SLS’s development budget. So for the price of half of the SLS, SpaceX has developed Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Starship, StarLink, Dragon 1 and Crew Dragon Which got better value for their money?
    1
  357. Apollo was a rush to the moon. There was no worry about budgets, safety, future sustainability. Artemis is bigger, better and cheaper that Apollo in every way, that’s the goal atleast.
    1
  358.  @piotrd.4850  hardly cheaper? NASA spent ~$290 billion on Apollo before they put the first people on the moon with Apollo 11. Today it’s expected they’ll spend ~$90 billion by Artemis 3. If you go part by part you’ll see this same reduction as well. SpaceX is being paid $2.9 billion to design, build and launch a lander (well 2 if we count the rest). They’re charging $1.1 billion for Artemis 4. If we just assume that $1.1 bullion be the cost for all future landers then after 6 (the number of times Apollo landed), NASA will have paid $8.4 billion. The Apollo Lander program cost $27 billion.
    1
  359. Russia doesn’t use Soyuz because it wants to, it’s just that they couldn’t afford to build its replacement. It’s coming though, they’ve been working on its replacement for the last 15 years and it’ll be ready in 6 years or so if it stays on schedule (which it definitely won’t, this us RosCosmos we’re talking about)
    1
  360. Claim? 8 years of successful Falcon 9 launches in a row isn’t a claim it’s reality
    1
  361. The average EV is about 130% heavier than a petrol vehicle, owing to its lithium battery.
    1
  362. lol what
    1
  363.  @dmwalker24 at the moment, but eventually they’ll get this rocket to the reliability of Falcon 9
    1
  364. He’s already made a video on nuclear cars.
    1
  365.  @nunofoo8620  A closed ecosystem isn’t needed for a sustainable colony on Mars, Mars already has the resources to sustain life.
    1
  366.  @mdjey2  anything useful? Like water and CO2 which is abundant? Like iron (literally the reason the planet is red) and other metals which are abundant throughout? Sustainability is definitely achievable. And it doesn’t have to be done right away, the first humans will have ample resources to support themselves sent in advance.
    1
  367. Total car sales last year were about 75 million. There’s plenty of demand but the biggest issue is Chinese automakers who will always win on cost. Tesla is trying to combat that by providing a better quality product
    1
  368. So you’re starting from scratch. But we don’t just want to go back how like did in Apollo, we want it to be cheaper, more capable, support more astronauts for longer, and carry a larger payload with it.
    1
  369. Oh come on, NASA is insanely fraudulent. They made the SLS for god sake, $25 billion in taxpayer dollars for something that’s so expensive they have canceled nearly every mission with it.
    1
  370. Elon is the only person keeping the US up to the pace of China in EVs and Space. He goes down and you have pretty much kissed both of those industries away
    1
  371.  @toomanyaccounts  They changed the thermal system from internal water-cooling system to tiles to save weight. Is that your big burn?
    1
  372. Because that’s NASA’s philosophy. Even if they wanted to test they can’t because a failure would lead to massive repercussions throughout. SpaceX has the liberty to fail. They knew IFT1 wasn’t going to succeed, that wasn’t the plan. It was to test their systems, gather data, and price to NASA that they have met a number of milestones. They have to test. They don’t have 12 years and $24 billion of taxpayer dollars to blow.
    1
  373. It wasn’t even a partial success, every goal was met.
    1
  374. They’re doing much more than what the NASA engineers did in the 60s. Not only will it be way safer, way more capable, way cheaper, it also needs to be fully rapidly reusable which is incredibly hard. Not to take away what NASA did, because they had to contend with the technology of the time. But it’s a whole new can of worms
    1
  375. What a good use of money, really should invest in more projects like that.
    1
  376. Yeah lol. The Apollo Lander alone cost taxpayers $25 billion in today’s money to develop. SpaceX is doing it for 1/10th the price
    1
  377.  @LesterBrunt  hold onto your horses, they’re still developing it. It took 6 years of full development to develop the Lunar Module and it had actually been planned by Grumman for over a decade before. Starship is in a similar boat, it has only been in full development for 3 years. And again, is coming in at a tenth the price whilst being more capable.
    1
  378.  @LesterBrunt  I can because it’s a fixed cost contract. They only get paid if they meet certain milestones. This is unlike a NASA project which can balloon out to as much as Congress will allow
    1
  379.  @LesterBrunt  oh, that’s never going to happen. What’s your point?
    1
  380.  @LesterBrunt  Musk isn’t walking any money to the bank. SpaceX has put a whole lot more than NASA has into Starship. It’s currently a big hole in the SpaceX budget because that’s what you need to do to develop a rocket like this. If it doesn’t succeed they lose a lot of money. There’s no skipping to the bank, it’s a slow walk to the liquidator.
    1
  381. Any rocket will only be able to launch every 2 years. That’s fine, you’ll just need to figure out how to live on Mars for 2 years between launches
    1
  382.  @I_dont_need_a_handle  radiation already has a solution. Living underground or piling Mars’s dirt ontop of your base would allow you to live indefinitely. I’m not saying it’s easy, I’m saying it’s doable. You’ll see people on Mars in a couple decades
    1
  383.  @dustyhurd424 because launching payloads has been so expensive in the past, satellites had to be over designed. That’s why payloads were so much more expensive than launch. Now that launch is cheap it’s opening up a whole new market, satellites that are insanely cheap and launched on mass.
    1
  384.  @roberthorwat6747  fuel is cheap
    1
  385.  @dustyhurd424  the analysis I saw was from the Shuttle, which was a terrible vehicle. Falcon 9 isn’t shuttle, it’s far more suited to reuse. But don’t take my word for it, take the word of every launch company in the industry. Everyone is now working on a reusable rocket. Rocket Lab, Blue Origin, Firefly, ULA, Relativity Space, all are working on reuse.
    1
  386.  @dustyhurd424  Kessler Syndrome is blown so out of proportion. Even the original author of the paper regrets writing it. We’ll never be trapped on Earth, even in the most extreme scenarios . It only affects satellites that have to orbit Earth constantly. And really only satellites in high orbits are vulnerable, at LEO like most constellations will be, satellites decay in months to years.
    1
  387.  @dustyhurd424  Kessler Syndrome is blown so out of proportion. Even the original author of the paper regrets writing it. We won’t be stuck on Earth, even in the most extreme scenarios. It only affects satellites that have to orbit Earth constantly. And really only satellites in high orbits are vulnerable, at LEO like most constellations will be, satellites decay in months to years.
    1
  388.  @dustyhurd424  I tried to give a better explanation but YouTube kept deleting so I gave you that. I’ll try again:
    1
  389.  @dustyhurd424  Kessler doesn’t impact space travel because even in the most extreme scenarios the particles are so sparse you won’t get hit.
    1
  390.  @dustyhurd424  and it doesn’t effect LEO because all objects in LEO decay within months to years and fall back into Earth.
    1
  391. Go look at how Dragon meets up with the ISS
    1
  392. “Some” They’re the biggest launch provider in the world. They launch 90% of Earth’s mass to orbit.
    1
  393. And that’s just what NASA paid, they pay extra to help develop the thing. SpaceX charged $55 million a seat for Axiom-1 to 3
    1
  394. Shake oil salesmen are also not usually leaders in their respective industries…
    1
  395. There is a few teething problems, but the result is an extremely capable launch vehicle and lunar lander at a fraction of the price that NASA could do it
    1
  396. ⁠ @SmokeTheHolyChalice > why are we not questioning that the women She wasn’t responsible. Her report was based on ratings by a larger committee that thoroughly scrutinised each submission. SpaceX had by far the best submission, and came in at half the price
    1
  397.  @SmokeTheHolyChalice  Writing in the first person is standard for these sorts of documents. Go read the Source Selection Statement for the Space Suits as an example. It doesn’t mean the author made the decision on their own, they have to go through many consultations to come to that conclusion.
    1
  398. The money? You realise the development of Starship is 10x cheaper than the SLS?
    1
  399.  @WokeandProud  because it’s in development?
    1
  400.  @WokeandProud  SLS has cost taxpayers $24 billion so far and has launched once. SpaceX is developing Starship at a fraction of the cost and it will be more capable. Why? Because its agile philosophy that purposely makes mistakes means that can quickly test changes and gather data. I guess they could have cancelled the last 3 launches, the engineers knew they weren’t going to work. But what does that get you, now you have to solve the same problems without that data.
    1
  401. A lot of companies do that. It was ultimately not why they went bankrupt
    1
  402. SpaceX hasn’t didn’t have any issues with the number of engines in flights 2 and 3.
    1
  403. Corruption is the government spending $24 billion to build the SLS which is utterly useless Not the government spending $2.7 billion on Starship HLS.
    1
  404. Is it? SpaceX is doing this for significantly cheaper than their competitors
    1
  405. But that’s stupid. We’ve put loads of things on the moon, and we’ve put loads of people in space. But it’s impossible to put people on the moon because Starship’s development is a bit delayed?
    1
  406. In Destin’s video he literally says that we will go to Mars in the next couple decades
    1
  407. That’s pretty much is the SLS. NASA contracted out the lander to SpaceX instead of designing it themselves because SpaceX offered to do it at a tiny fraction of the price and with more capabilities
    1
  408. Blue Origin’s bid wasn’t as good, they were just pissed their lobbying didn’t work the first time Oh well, they lobbied their way to a contract anyway.
    1
  409. Space is actually more competitive now than it has ever been before. It’s going through a sort of boom, loads of companies are building reusable medium-heavy lift rockets.
    1
  410. I think Elon fans have realised that he exaggerates. But he’s undeniably doing a lot for humanity, so they can overlook it
    1
  411. Australia did get it under control, I am an Australian, but you cannot believe the Chinese lies. Apparently they haven’t had a single case in over week at some point. Come on
    1
  412. I also don’t think the federal government had the power to instate country wide quarantines. That’s up to the states
    1
  413. They would be OceanGate if OceanGate had built the most reliable submarine on the planet and was repeatedly launching it every couple days.
    1
  414. Flapjackbatter this comment makes me want to die
    1
  415. threeMetreJim (I think it’s a joke)
    1
  416. But on such a low scale, the energy used to induce a vacuum would counteract the reduced energy required to vaporise the air. Also taking into account costs to manufacture a vacuum dryer.
    1
  417. Well there is. NASA is planning to invest heavily into commercial space stations. Mass satellite constellations similar to StarLink.
    1
  418. But it’s not just targeting large payloads. It’s planning on not only being more reliable and have a shorter turnaround time than Falcon 9, but be cheaper as well. In the future it will be the only rocket SpaceX launches.
    1
  419. I’m pretty sure Elon can already retire…
    1
  420. Phil, these are the sorts of geniuses that are on your side 😂
    1
  421. Yes there’s 3 or 4 still there.
    1
  422. Well most contracts are actually cost plus, ie the government will keep paying no matter how inefficient. Starship HLS is on a fixed cost contract, $2.9 billion is all they are going to get. They haven’t spent it all yet obviously, unlike what Thunderfoot would have you believe
    1
  423. Apollo Objective: Don’t lose the crew* *Optional
    1
  424. Starship is still in development. Falcon didn’t just fly perfectly from the get go.
    1
  425. You mean, like the NASA executives he was talking too?
    1
  426. Except they have already far exceeded the N1. None of the problems they are having is due to having lots of engines
    1
  427. British
    1
  428. CraigHi5 are too expensive
    1
  429. ⁠ @myeka1273 SpaceX isn’t a legitimate space company? Are all those Falcon 9 launches a facade?
    1
  430.  @myeka1273  exiled, what? The military is paying SpaceX to develop and build StarShield for them, their own communications and reconnaissance satellite constellation similar to StarLink.
    1
  431.  @myeka1273  you “highly doubt that”? It’s literally on their website
    1
  432. Starship by a mile.
    1
  433.  @michaelmay5453  no they haven’t received all the money. The contract gets paid out in parts as they hit a number of milestones, they’ve received $1.9 billion out of their $3.6 billion for Artemis 3 and 4. And there’s no recording of how much of that has actually been spent by SpaceX. There’s also a lot of private investment, actually the majority of funding for Starship will be private because it’s not just a Lander. It’s intended to launch satellites, space stations, supplies, etc.
    1
  434.  @michaelmay5453  and NASA is working with another company. Blue Origin has its own lander but it won’t be available until 2029 at the earliest. It requires in orbit assembly and then refuelling around lunar orbit.
    1
  435.  @michaelmay5453  there was an investigation. There were significant benefits to SpaceX’s proposal and significant drawbacks to the other two. - SpaceX offered the cheapest proposal, at half the price of BO and a third of Dynetics - SpaceX offered the most promising proposal, with a far more detailed plan and technical aspects like the Raptor engines already being in development. Redundancy was designed from the get go, with each system having a backup - this is something both other proposals had problems with - SpaceX offered the most capable proposal. It could carry a large payload to the surface and back. It was noted that it also had a large commercial potential beyond landing on the moon, such as supply missions or launching satellites. Neither of the other two proposals addressed how they planned on commercialising their projects, which is important to NASA as that will lead to lower costs down the road.
    1
  436.  @LordZontar  they are on track to double their commercial launches this year. It has had a massive impact, it is strangling other companies who simply cannot compete on price. Falcon 9 isn’t just cheaper than the Shuttle, it’s cheaper than competing expendable rockets. And you said it yourself, Falcon Heavy doesn’t have much demand. Falcon 9’s drone ship landing allows it to carry the vast majority of payloads to orbit Heavy is almost obsolete. The Shuttles slightly higher payload isn’t much of an advantage when most satellites are more volume bound than weight bound.
    1
  437.  @benjaminmeusburger4254  I already talked about it above, the Starship HLS is miles ahead in capability. That’s not to take away from the work Apollo engineers did, their engineering was the peak of human ability at the time. But it’s apples and oranges man They also don’t have the $250 billion budget that Apollo had.
    1
  438.  @LordZontar  Falcon 9 (and Heavy) has had 11 commercial launches so far and has 47 planned this year, so 58 in total. That’s almost double last year’s 31, and is bound to increase as more launches are planned.
    1
  439.  @LordZontar  so what if their biggest customer is the government? Who’s Lockheed Martin’s biggest customer? NASA isn’t “keeping them afloat”, SpaceX is providing the best service at the lowest price.
    1
  440.  @LordZontar  Starship is in development. Nothing more than to say they’ve made significant progress in the last year alone, and this year they’re ramping up development even further.
    1
  441.  @marianpazdzioch6632  no
    1
  442.  @grisflyt  it isn’t impossible to colonise mars, far from it. It’s very possible and it will happen.
    1
  443.  @Baerchenization  wait you think the problem stopping a Mars mission is a toilet? SpaceX has built toilets before, there’s one on Crew Dragon. There will be one on Starship HLS. I agree Musks timeline was stupid, but his ambitions aren’t. We will go to Mars
    1
  444.  @Baerchenization  no I don’t understand how a toilet, which we have decades of experience building for space missions, is going to be the killing blow to a Mars mission. The tiny Orion capsule is going to need to support astronauts for up to a month on Artemis 2, but a craft with the interior space of the ISS won’t be able to manage it? None of the challenges you’ve said are impossible to overcome. They don’t require any crazy technology like fusion or antimatter. It just needs funding and good engineering, it will happen
    1
  445.  @lolasdm6959  the main market will be launching things into orbit. Starship will be able to launch far cheaper than Falcon 9, and carry much more up. That was one reason behind why Starship was chosen by NASA, it isn’t just a lander but it has a large commercial application.
    1
  446.  @Wheatthin21  you’re a moron if you support Nationalising SpaceX Have you not seen how poorly NASA is run?
    1
  447.  @lolasdm6959  there’s a growing demand. Falcon 9 has twice as many commercial launches as last year. From now to 2030 there’s expected to be 20000 satellite launches, with several companies planning on building a satellite constellation like StarLink. Multiple commercial Space Stations plan on being launched. And even if the demand doesn’t materialise, Starship plans on being cheaper than Falcon 9 and especially Falcon Heavy.
    1
  448.  @Wheatthin21  you’d be an idiot to think nationalising SpaceX would be a good thing.
    1
  449.  @lolasdm6959  because it will be fully reusable and far more reliable. Full reuse is a big one because currently Falcon 9 has to replace its second stage with each flight. That replacement makes up most of the cost of each refurbished launch, cutting that saves a lot of money. And reliability is too. Currently Merlin engines can last about 10 launches before a large replacement/refurbishment. The new Raptor engines are targeting 50-100 reuses before that.
    1
  450.  @lolasdm6959  ontop of that we also have 5 new Space Stations launching. Axiom Station, Starlab, Orbital Reef, Gateway and Haven-1. Starlab is purpose built with Starship in mind, it is the only rocket that can take it up, not even New Glenn could.
    1
  451.  @lolasdm6959  Starship will be Cheaper than Falcon. And carry much more people/cargo, that was one benefit of the Space Shuttle actually and one thing that was lost when it was cut (though it was still a good choice) But when I mentioned the Space Stations I wasn’t talking about resupply missions. I was showing how this period of space is far different from the last. The US hasn’t launched a new Space Station module in 15 years, yet in the next 6 we are building 5 entirely new stations. There is going to be a massive demand for Starship to launch modules, some in sizes that are impossible on any other rocket, and resupply these stations.
    1
  452.  @GrahamCStrouse  are you okay?
    1
  453. He’s right about SLS. It is outdated (the first stage is pretty much the shuttle’s) and expensive (it cost $24 billion to develop and $2 billion to launch) It has some unique capabilities but for its cost it was a complete waste of money
    1
  454.  @n.f.9317  you can just say “the tech industry” because no country outside the US has any sizeable industry. :)
    1
  455.  @poisonduckee  what I’m saying is SpaceX has the only human rated space capsule in the US. If SpaceX didn’t exist, the US would be reliant on Russia to get to space which probably wouldn’t work out so well after Ukraine. It’s likely SpaceX is the only reason the US still has astronauts in space.
    1
  456.  @poisonduckee  I don’t even know what this is referring to, the Starliner situation? How is that SpaceX’s fault? Private space flight has saved NASA tens of billions, and actually is incredibly safe (the Shuttle killed 14 people)
    1
  457.  @poisonduckee  Shuttle comparatively was a ticking time bomb. It had so many close calls, the same error that took out Collumbia almost happened on an earlier flight. It was a terrible vehicle despite its technical marvel
    1
  458.  @Daneelro  oh come on, he chooses not to talk about SLS because it wouldn’t draw in the views, not because it’s already been done. But moving on, what problems have critics flagged in advance that have been issues in these flight tests? I certainly don’t think Lord Thunderf00t had predicted the spinning that ultimately ruined the last launch. Most of the issues critics point out aren’t even ones NASA is worried about. Like its height or the number of launches. NASA hasn’t even mentioned the former as a concern and has addressed the latter stating it isn’t a concern because it will be carried out in LEO where issues can be addressed easily.
    1
  459. Then what’s your excuse for not being a billionaire?
    1
  460. What?
    1
  461. ⁠​⁠ @ayushkadel1168 takes 30s to comment, takes hours to create a video. Who’s more affected? Though let’s be fair, Thunderf00t does it for money
    1
  462. You Elon haters are craaaazy 😂
    1
  463. Uh huh…
    1
  464. You mean the rocket we haven’t made in 50 years? You can’t just make Saturn V. All the experts and engineers, all the factories and equipment, and many of the techniques, technologies and designs simply don’t exist anymore
    1
  465. Falcon 9 is their smallest rocket currently in use. It’s about 50m tall and has 9 Merlin engines hence the name. Partially reusable, with the first stage landing either back on the launchpad or on a drone ship and a second stage which is expendable. It can carry ~11t when landing back on the launch pad, 19t when landing on the drone ship and 23t if fully expended.
    1
  466. Falcon Heavy itself was a bit of a failure. Not because it’s a bad rocket, but because Falcon 9 exceeded expectations and are up all of its demand. And it was also meant as a way to get to the Moon or Mars but SpaceX is now doing that with Starship. Falcon 9 on the other hand has been a massive success. The most reliable rocket ever made, it’s more reliable at landing than any other rocket has been at launching.
    1
  467. If SpaceX had your mindset they would never had attempted landing Falcon 9. Risks need to be taken. Hot Staging has worked perfectly both times, why would you cut that?
    1
  468. No one lives anywhere near Boca Chica. SpaceX has been landing boosters back at their launch site for years. It’s really the only way to go if your goal is rapid reuse. Catching it saves massive amounts of weight and cost that’d go into legs.
    1
  469. Sure, but we want a more capable lander. Apollo could only support 2 astronauts for 2 days, was not reusable - leaving most of itself back on the moon, and could not carry much cargo. There are other more technical details like it was kept at a very low 5 psi pressure to reduce mass even more but to keep it simple it was a barebones machine. HLS needs to support up to 6 astronauts for a week, is fully reusable, can carry a lot to the moons surface, will run at higher pressures and so on.
    1
  470. Good for you, how much did it cost?
    1
  471. Not bad.
    1
  472. You can do both. NASA takes up a tiny fraction of the governments budget, its existence is not stopping the US from tackling poverty.
    1
  473. Lithium is slot more explosive than gasoline. Just look at that car in China, or those Samsung phones that exploded.
    1
  474. Pulse Fel your phone isn’t constantly in car accidents, and there aren’t that many car accidents. But the risk is there. Fuel isn’t going to explode, but slowly burn. If a battery is impacted there will be an explosion.
    1
  475. Pulse Fel no, I can smash into a gas barrel and have a huge mess (or worse case scenario a fire) Smash into a lithium battery however: It will start smoking, and the heat of the impact alone could easily make it explode. So it’s actually quite a fair compromise.
    1
  476. Pulse Fel yes phones are safe, but they don’t have a half tonne battery strapped to them pumping out crazy high wattage. Please stop comparing full gas vehicles to small smart phones. Now about parts and failures, you know that if your cooling mechanism fails (like the incident in China) it can lead to flames and even an explosion.
    1
  477. Pulse Fel and a side impact into an electric vehicle could be just enough to puncture the battery pack. 💥
    1
  478. If you bothered to research before your videos you’d have seen Elon said the donation thing is a lie.
    1
  479. Lmao
    1
  480. I don’t think he’s ever claimed he’s the only one working on the rocket. He does have a good say in the design of the rockets but more importantly the philosophy of SpaceX. He’s the reason SpaceX is so ambitious and not afraid of risk because he pushes his teams to do things they might think are too hard - like catching the booster.
    1
  481.  @stratometal  well no, you said Elon claimed the work
    1
  482. Yeah when you don’t do something for 60 years you tend to forget how to do it. The engineers retire and die, the blueprints get lost, the factories shut down. NASA is essentially having to rebuild everything to get back to the moon.
    1
  483. Very little of the DoD’s R&D is useful for space flight.
    1
  484. Disappointed you didn’t strap a solar panel on the side.
    1
  485. That’s pretty much what SLS is. $14 billion dollars over budget and 6 years behind schedule and we have a rocket which is so expensive to launch all of its missions have been shifted to other rockets
    1
  486. No, I can just compare it to SLS which has cost $24 billion to make and is so expensive NASA is trying to avoid using it
    1
  487.  @klzeccwozi1290 well it’s in development. What more can you say. SLS development was even more delayed and even more wasteful but you don’t seem to care. Maybe you just hate Elon, fine by me - but atleast be honest with your biases.
    1
  488. Yes, SLS is more than 12 Starships even if they’re all expended. Also you’re not factoring in the cost of developing a lander. NASA estimated it’d cost them $10 billion to develop one
    1
  489. No, an electric car on average ways 30% more than a petroleum car. This is a bigger number than it seems, that can easily be a few hundred kgs. Anyway weight is a big thing when it comes to efficiency, speed and acceleration. It is the reason solar cars suck, and that electric cars can never get the the power or top speed of petrol cars.
    1
  490. No it’s just hard. Ask anyone in the industry
    1
  491.  @than217  Apollo had a 1/10 chance of killing its crew. It’s a miracle it didn’t. Even the best capsules today still have a 1/300 chance of losing a crew - imagine if planes were like that. Spaceflight is hard
    1
  492.  @than217  all I’m saying is Space is Hard. Which is true
    1
  493. No shit.
    1
  494. Starship isn’t even the critical path. It’ll be ready well before SLS/Orion are
    1
  495.  @Irobert1115HD  actually SLS isn’t ready, its launchpad is still damaged from Artemis 1. And no the problems aren’t the same, because SpaceX can work way faster than Lockheed Martin.
    1
  496.  @Irobert1115HD  yeah Starship tore up its launch pad. But SpaceX had it fully repaired and upgraded with a deluge system in 6 months SLS damaged its launch pad back in 2022 and it still hasn’t been repaired That’s the difference between SpaceX and NASA.
    1
  497. It’s risen by 0.8 degrees c since 1730, or when the industrial revolution started. It’s not much but as it keeps going temperatures will start to rise faster and faster
    1
  498. Yeah but the rest of the world soundly, which would effect you. Do you know what else will effect you? Rise in water pH.
    1
  499. David Mcintosh the engines cheap, but the battery isn’t.
    1
  500. David Mcintosh no, an electric vehicle can be anywhere from 50-200% more expensive. Run costs in mind, you aren’t saving to switch to an electric vehicle.
    1
  501. David Mcintosh that is true, and the service costs are low due to the lower amounts of moving parts, but when the battery gives, it can be very expensive to replace.
    1
  502. I don’t understand your point. If it were not possible to propel yourself in space, then Voyager 1 would bomber be possible. Space isn’t a perfect vacuum, but it also provides little air resistance.
    1
  503. 😂
    1
  504. Steel was actually a good change. Building Starship out of carbon composites would have been a nightmare, incredibly expensive as well. Steel is much cheaper, much easier to build with, much more heat resistant and so on.
    1
  505. Why not?
    1
  506. matthew dawson according to eyewitnesses of the event, no one attempted to “seal” the reactor
    1
  507. Why not?
    1
  508.  @SillySatire  okay but that’s wishy washy, what’s the concrete reasons that won’t SpaceX be able to overcome their issues and land Starship?
    1
  509. Well there is a point where you are over correcting, where you start being more harmful than beneficial.
    1
  510.  @RTSFirebatYT SLS works alright. It might be $12 billion over budget and 6 years behind schedule, but it works. It might be so expensive to launch that NASA has moved all its missions to other launchers, but it works. The best rocket ever!
    1
  511.  @RTSFirebatYT and they had already solved the unreliable engine problem with Raptor 2 over a year ago. Raptor 3 is in testing and it’ll be even more reliable.
    1
  512. No he’s not saying the ideas bad, but pointing out the flaws in its design. Electric vehicles have a future, but just can’t stand up to the power or price of an IC car. Hydrogen is bad, that’s for sure.
    1
  513. I love Thunderf00t, but I hate when he gets into politics. But I respect his opinion because he has the freedom of speech.
    1
  514. When it comes to space flight, it’s more of a question how much it will be delayed not if. SLS is delayed, Orion is delayed, Gateway is delayed, the space suits delayed, the Lander is delayed
    1
  515.  @joecoolioness6399 he’s been “exposing” Musk for years and almost every one of the things he says end up wrong. You’re on the wrong side of history my man.
    1
  516. We don’t know about all of Starships deployment methods. I’d assume they’d have some off of faring option like Rocket Lab’s Neutron rocket because there’s already payloads they would require it.
    1
  517. The current plan is to work on Booster reuse, and then start launching payloads before Ship reuse is done. So they’re already have a staggered approach like you suggest, just without a massive redesign in the middle.
    1
  518.  @DeepDeepSpace  they wouldn’t have gotten the HLS contract with a Falcon Heavy lander.
    1
  519.  @DeepDeepSpace  and did any of them get a contract? Starship was a more capable machine. But not just more capable, it was the cheapest option, because Starship has commercial applications outside of taking humans to the moon.
    1
  520.  @RogerM88  well do the math. Currently it’s estimated it costs ~$90 million to launch a full stack. Even at that price HLS + 16 refuelling missions comes short of the $2 billion launch cost of SLS. With partial reusability that cost would come down even further. With full reuse it would come down further again. Whilst also taking much more mass than SLS can.
    1
  521.  @RogerM88  propellant costs are between $1-2 million based off prices NASA pays for Methane and LOX. And yeah $90 million. $2 billion includes many external costs like R&D, building infrastructure and other fixed costs all of which don’t increase with successive launches. $90 million is the marginal launch cost as estimated by Payload Research
    1
  522.  @RogerM88  great, so a rocket which costs 20-200x the price to launch can carry up the same payload. Big win for SLS indeed 😂 And a larger Starship V2 with Raptor V3 was always the plan. They’ve been working on Raptor V3 for a few years by now. And we can’t really comment on deployment methods yet. Starship will have a reusable fairing configuration similar to Rocket Lab’s Neutron rocket. This is because there are already payloads built for Starship, like Airbus’s LOOP module, which require a large opening. There’s a lot behind the scenes we don’t know.
    1
  523.  @RogerM88  mate I already explained that the launch costs are far less than $2 billion. Do you have a developmental issue or something?
    1
  524. Wouldn’t you rather see them succeed?
    1
  525.  @saltedquackers5264  wouldn’t you m rather see them succeed and self driving cars become a reality than fail because you hate musk?
    1
  526. DEVIL COMMANDER because we have been recording temperatures for a while, and we can estimate
    1
  527. NASA spends $24 billion on a completely useless rocket (SLS) You: I sleep NASA spends $2.7 billion on Starship HLS You: Real shit
    1
  528. HLS will have legs.
    1
  529. I mean he’s not wrong. There is a point where more safety is a waste, he was just way under that point
    1
  530. About his aerospacial science (what the hell is that) he really hasn’t made any amazing advances. He still can’t make a rocket as powerful as Saturn V, which is sad seeing as that was over 50 years ago
    1
  531. RemindMe! 3 years
    1
  532. What are you on about?
    1
  533. You can’t just swap out the engines 😂
    1
  534.  @karstenschuhmann8334 so spend hundreds of millions redesigning Falcon so it can give them data? Falcon will be obsolete soon, that’s the plan. Starship will be the only rocket SpaceX launches. Estimates from Payload Research put the cost to launch a fully reusable Starship will be half the price of Falcon 9, whilst being able to carry 10x the mass.
    1
  535. Orion doesn’t have the Delta-V to follow the path Apollo took. It was designed under Constellation to only go to LEO; where tugs would take it to the moon. That and the lower payload capacity of SLS compared to Saturn V mean it’s very underpowered.
    1
  536. The prices did go down. SpaceX offers the cheapest product. Now let’s say you’re in charge of SpaceX. You offered the cheapest product and were booked to capacity, why would you lower your prices further? The answer is there is no reason, SpaceX is a business and it’s in its interest to charge as high a price as they can while remaining fully booked, putting the excess profits into R&D so they can maintain their competitive advantage. Running a business any other way is just going to end in failure.
    1
  537. That’s why they have to burn 4600t of fuel/oxidiser to get 100t into space Well technically they take more into space (you have to include the mass of starship and the fuel they leave behind for the landing), but yeah the payload is tiny for the amount of fuel. That’s just physics of a chemical fuel engine
    1
  538. The only solution would be to use Fusion/Fission to get to space.
    1
  539. ? What
    1
  540. To make hydrogen it uses loads of power
    1
  541. logan graham it uses slot more energy than you get out. We have electricity grids instead.
    1
  542.  @nikitatarsov5172 you’ve made up a whole story in your head just because a NASA executive moved to SpaceX, loads of NASA higher ups have done that.
    1
  543.  @Nomolyx1  oui?
    1
  544. Or that the NASA contract has been fully spent already. Either Thunderf00t has insiders in SpaceX, or he’s purposely conflating numbers to manipulate his gullible audience
    1
  545.  @Yomotomen Flight 4 showed that control was fine. In fact it was able to complete a full landing manoeuvre even with significant heat damage. The heat shield and engines are the main issues. They’re completely redoing the thermal solution for the next flight, and the new Raptor 3 engine is nearing production.
    1
  546. To fly it back!! Genius.
    1
  547. It pushes off the matter it expels behind it at high speeds.
    1
  548.  @jadediquattro5355  no one told me, I applied the Conservation of Momentum.
    1
  549. Riderlessharp47 no it’s not. SSB’s are way to expensive to produce, often costing tens of thousands for a single cell (3000 of which are needed to fuel an electric car)
    1
  550. Its worked for over 60 years. It was first thought of before the lithium battery was released
    1
  551. I see, but dead animals still taste so good
    1
  552. It doesn’t look sci fi though. Hard certainly, but it isn’t the Millennium Falcon
    1
  553. ⁠ @GNMbg saying ”not really different than Andrew Tate” just makes you look like an idiot
    1
  554. Tesla isn’t using LiDAR and theres no signs they will ever use it. LiDAR is pretty pointless, a super expensive sensor that’s just worse than a camera with depth processing.
    1
  555.  @Elkarlo77  Radar is likely coming back. There’s apparently already room to install them in the current cars. Same with front bumper cameras. LiDAR isn’t though. Tesla uses it for testing their processing. LiDAR doesn’t do anything you can’t do with cameras with depth processing.
    1
  556. lol. Starship saves NASA money. They were expecting to spend $10 billion on a lander
    1
  557.  @ThePastelAssassin  > starship can’t reach orbit It can, it reached orbital velocities in IFT-3. But SpaceX purposely put it on a path where it intersected with the Earth. This ensured that in the case of a mishap the ship landed in a predictable area. > each flight seems to cost about a billion No, a flight cost a fraction of that amount. The best estimate for the marginal launch cost puts it at ~$90 million, and with reusability <$10 million.
    1
  558.  @ThePastelAssassin  and you keep going on about Chandra, Starship didn’t kill Chandra, Congress did.
    1
  559. ⁠ @ThePastelAssassin we’re talking about 2 different prices here. The price to develop starship and the price to launch. It cost $2 billion to develop starship last year. Most of that is spent on R&D, infrastructure, maintenance and other fixed costs. The actual cost to launch is lower, a fraction of that cost. Infrastructure is a big one, their facility out at Boca Chica is seeing massive investment including factories, houses, office buildings, launch towers, etc. To illustrate the point, they plan to launch 6 times this year on that same $2 billion budget.
    1
  560. NASA still has to pay $1 billion of the $3 billion it owes, that doesn’t mean SpaceX has already spent the other $2 billion
    1
  561. They’ve really exhausted all they can do with the Falcon platform.
    1
  562. Except it wasn’t left out, they test fired the engine in that exact configuration. But I don’t blame you, even the CEO of ULA got that wrong. SpaceX is truly spectacular, denying that is just ridiculous at this point
    1
  563. This is the sort of people who watch your videos Thunderf00t. Nice community you have here
    1
  564. Yeah, part of the reason NASA chose Starship was that it had commercial applications. That’s important to NASA because it means they don’t need to fit the full bill and that it’s more sustainable. Blue Origin and especially Dynetics had no real plans to commercialise their landers.
    1
  565. Unless you’re Bill Whang 😂
    1
  566. EV batteries last for ages. Average degradation after 250k km is ~10%.
    1
  567. Who launched Clipper, may I ask?
    1
  568.  @larswhitt1549  yeah but it was initially meant to launch on NASA’s SLS. But it is so terrible and expensive they had to move it to Falcon Heavy. Doesn’t make SpaceX look bad at all. Clipper makes them look great, and SLS look like the joke it is
    1
  569. Robots are shit still. Nowhere near as fast or versatile as humans, still need to be preprogrammed to do everything, still fail all the time. In a day an astronaut could do what it takes a month for a rover to. And they can do stuff a rover can’t.
    1
  570. Could you debunk elon?
    1
  571. But if you want to talk about corruption, why not talk about the fact that Blue Origin even got a contract was because a Senator wrote a bill forcing NASA to reopen the HLS bid…
    1
  572.  @ContraVsGigi  well that’s the plan with Starship. It’ll require very little refurbishment between flights. Every component has been designed with that philosophy in mind. I don’t know the schedule they plan for the refuelling run, but if it’s over a month they can use 4 Ships each going up once a week and being refurbished for the next week.
    1
  573.  @ContraVsGigi  I guess when you’re out of good arguments you can default to that 👍
    1
  574.  @ContraVsGigi  English please? Anyway, I’ll leave SpaceX’s history of proving people wrong as my final proof. People said they would never land a rocket. They did. People then said landing rockets made no economic sense. Now everyone is trying to make one. The head of NASA said that Boeing’s Starliner was more promising than Crew Dragon. 4 years of successful Crew Dragon launches later and Starliner is nowhere to be seen.
    1
  575. Loool now I’ve heard everything
    1
  576.  @flowrebaz6189  it was never meant to go to orbit. It got pretty close to orbit velocities but was kept suborbital to ensure it landed where they wanted
    1
  577. It was quite recently, and his claim was that he could do it for way cheaper than a proposal someone made. Not that he would do it
    1
  578. What do you mean, like a space tug?
    1
  579. Just have a look at what Thunderf00t said about the Falcon 9. That really sums up all you need to know about this
    1
  580. They’d either have manned charging stations or charging stations that plug you in automatically.
    1
  581. Engine development has been one of the biggest challenges SpaceX has faced, the Raptor engine is truly a marvel. Also, don’t listen to Thunderf00t. He doesn’t actually know what he’s on about, he admitted he doesn’t know the details of Starship in his latest livestream
    1
  582. It’s a very real goal. He’s spending a fraction of taxpayer money that other competitors or NASA themselves would have spent building a lander. NASA’s SLS costs $4 billion to launch. 4 BILLION PER LAUNCH. That’s more than what NASA is granting SpaceX to design, build and launch 2 landers. And that’s ignoring the $24 BILLION IN DEVELOPMENT COSTS
    1
  583. I guess it’s taste, but I like him ranting at random things for 15 minutes, but he should mix up his videos a bit, give us something else...
    1
  584. threeMetreJim as a child I thought of many solutions, my mind was “open”, the impossible became the possible because I did not understand simple things. The thing I’m trying to say, there’s a reason things are the way things are. If there was truely a super fuel that could give no emissions, last for years and be dense, we would already be using it.
    1
  585. threeMetreJim about your ideas, ion propulsion and MPEG compression is being done today and Thunderf00t hasn’t done any videos on either.
    1
  586. threeMetreJim well I haven’t seen him wrong yet, so I have no problem with him.
    1
  587. ⁠ @ownedmaxer607 and the other way is true as well. Line go down doesn’t mean line will continue to go down, like this very video claims.
    1
  588. Yes let’s throw Elon in jail because his rocket is still in development
    1
  589. He’ll go back to making his anti-SJW videos
    1
  590.  @Cockwallet I think it’s a joke
    1
  591. The hint is there is no scam. SpaceX is a great company which has accelerated the US’s space capabilities.
    1
  592. Artemis has over 20 partners I believe. Japan and ESA are major partners, Canada is a big partner as well.
    1
  593. Where was his misunderstanding?
    1
  594. Puck sadly many people don’t know that, just check the comment section of the trailer
    1
  595. Starship isn’t developed like Ariane 6. SpaceX is developing far earlier into the cycle so they can speed up development. Makes sense for the complex vehicle they’re developing Ariane 6 was 4 years behind schedule by the way.
    1
  596.  @FunnCubes  10 years ago it was writing on paper. It wasn’t even called starship and had a complete different design. What do you mean it’s 10 years behind schedule?
    1
  597.  @FunnCubes  omg did Ariane 6 seriously cost $4 billion to develop? It’s an expendable medium launch vehicle
    1
  598.  @FunnCubes  Falcon 9 is a more capable rocket, is partially reusable and was developed for 1/4th the cost of Ariane 6. That’s crazy.
    1
  599.  @FunnCubes  anyway, back on topic. Yeah it’s going to cost a lot more when you’re designing a fully reusable super heavy lift rocket. It’s on another scale really. Not just that, but SpaceX has built out massive infrastructure to support Starship which accounts for most of its spending.
    1
  600.  @FunnCubes  nah I was just commenting on how terrible Ariane space was. Didn’t know they were that bad. For real though, that’s the side you’re on. The traditional space companies that only exist to extract as much money as possible. SpaceX has innovated on a tiny budget and has undercut all of them Anyway I answered your reply properly in my third comment
    1
  601.  @FunnCubes  clearly not paying much attention if you think SpaceX has achieved nothing. Yes, they’ve got a lot to go. It’s like the rockets still under development or something
    1
  602. Rockets aren’t 8x more efficient. In fact Starship will be using less efficient fuel Starship is also far heavier, and will bring that entire mass down to the moons surface, and then back up to Orion. That’s why it’s so tricky
    1
  603. You think he’s lying because he’s autistic? That’s where he gets his mannerisms from
    1
  604. Because it broke up above the ocean not even within 1000km of another human?
    1
  605. ⁠ @TheColleenDabeanShow they didn’t sell that off, they just stopped doing it because Apollo was insanely expensive with no goal beyond putting men on the moon.
    1
  606. Because he actually has very little idea about Starship, SpaceX or the rocket industry. It’s blatantly obvious when you watch his livestreams where he frequently gets basic details wrong.
    1
  607. Moved on from the 2016 SJW hate craze and is onto the 2022 Elon hate craze
    1
  608. SpaceX would 100% have a Mars colony by now.
    1
  609. What?
    1
  610. Who, Thunderf00t?
    1
  611. Heat damage was minimal. A lot of it was caused by plasma being trapped by the heat shields, which will be removed with Raptor 3 (which will also have an internal cooling system to further withstand heat)
    1
  612. NASA designs spacecraft to be safe? Lets ask the crews of Challenger and Columbia if they agree
    1
  613. It’s great actually. Commercialisation has saved NASA billions. They’re saving billions with Starship HLS. They were predicting it would cost $10 billion to develop their own lander. Starship is doing it for less than a third that price
    1
  614. Do you think Elon is making money off this? SpaceX has spent way more than $1.9 billion up to this point. Artemis is just one of the many purposes of this rocket
    1
  615. It could have made it to orbit months ago. They have purposely kept it suborbital for safety reasons
    1
  616. c muller it’s not as easy as taking batteries out of a toy car, these things are heavy - and are usually inside the car - for safety reasons.
    1
  617. Got to get views some how.
    1
  618. Still, nuclear power plants have not only gotten safer, not only gotten more efficient but also we are a lot more wary.
    1
  619. The Dynetics proposal was heavily flawed. Their proposal had negative fuel reserves meaning they’d have to cut mass - a considerable amount. They weren’t able to tell NASA how they planned on solving that problem. That was one of the many issues they didn’t address. It was also incredibly expensive. Their quote was 3x greater than SpaceX’s. NASA also believed SpaceX was more capable. And it also had no real plan for reusability or commercialisation, and was less capable than Starship.
    1
  620.  @downix  except Dynetics didn’t have a plan to solve the glaring issue of their lander being too heavy. And that was just one of many problems they didn’t address sufficiently. SpaceX had no unaddressed issues in their proposal.
    1
  621.  @RyviusRan  now that live stream: T+00:00:35 Phil claims "oh thats all f*cked up" in response to the color of the exhaust vapors which are no different to previous flights T+00:00:52 He realizes the raptor out (that has been shutdown since ignition). He then claims it will not be able to make orbit with 32 engines. T+00:02:10 He claims that Starship will not have enough energy to make orbit because oxygen is lower than methane (something they purposely do for safety) T+00:02:25 He interprets a nominal pitch-over maneuver as "wobbly" T+00:02:45 At stage separation Phil claims that "they are screwed on the recovery of the booster" T+00:03:1 He again claims they don’t have enough oxygen T+00:04:17 Confused about the hot staging ring jettison, mistakes it for the reaction control thrusters for some reason. This is despite it being written in the flight plan and reiterated multiple times by SpaceX T+00:04:40 Claims booster is "f*cked", again due to oxygen levels T+00:07:00 Claims the booster has hit the ocean, moments before it correctly completes a soft touchdown He then rambles for an hour about how venting gas is bad (it’s a normal part of the flight procedure), upon other things. Then when the feed comes back and the ship makes a soft touchdown he incorrectly thinks the engines didn’t relight.
    1
  622.  @danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307  what?
    1
  623. Said no one ever. Even NASA employees know it’s a jobs program that somehow developed a rocket
    1
  624.  @Michael-sb8jf  yeah it works, as long as you have the $2 billion it costs to launch it. Actually the cost to launch it was so great a satellite that was meant to launch on it this year instead is launching on Falcon Heavy
    1
  625. Pay boost is coming out of the pockets of shareholders.
    1
  626. lol. Musk is an idiot but somehow also runs 5 companies worth more than a billion dollars
    1
  627. And it won’t be HLS. It’ll be a fuel depot in orbit.
    1
  628. SpaceX saves the taxpayer billions each year. What garbage you’re spewing
    1
  629. That’ll be fixed with growing adoption.
    1
  630. Lmao what?
    1
  631. It made it to orbital velocity, but the path they put it on had it intersect with the earth. This meant if there was a mishap they can ensure the rocket lands in a safe area.
    1
  632.  @JCTheSniper15  he was insulting theangryotaku It was pretty lame though ngl
    1
  633. No they obviously should’ve kept paying for the Space Shuttle which was costing them $5 billion a year
    1
  634. Well yeah that’ll be their main market. And it was one of the reasons they were able to offer such a low bid.
    1
  635. Apparently they are going to the moon to set up a colony by 2024
    1
  636. That’s a big shift from what they were saying a few years ago
    1
  637. https://youtu.be/vl6jn-DdafM
    1
  638. Weight. You’d need to add so much more mass to make it able to land like a plane.
    1
  639. Also you can’t land on the moon or mars like that.
    1
  640.  @Marconius6  you’re right, it will land on legs. Because of the low gravity on Mars and the Moon, the legs don’t need to be as large or heavy
    1
  641. Utilising private soace companies has saved NASA billions. “Think musk is taking his NASA money and spending it on StarLink” You realise SpaceX is spending billions of their own money ontop of the NASA contract of Starship. They need it to succeed to launch StarLink v2 satellites and so on. And they only get the full payout from NASA if Starship succeeds
    1
  642. Exactly why SpaceX has been able to outperform NASA. NASA once tried to make their organisation more efficient. “Faster, Better, Cheaper”, the idea being that they could cut the cost of projects significantly if they stopped caring about perfection, thus allowing them to do more projects for the same budget. AND IT WORKED. The target success rate was cut from 95% to 80%, but doing so costs lowered by 1/10th - sometimes more. But then 2 accidents in a row happened a Congress cut the program despite it working fantastically. NASA has no freedom to run itself how it wants, so will never be an efficient organisation
    1
  643. Starship will definitely be rapidly reusable, at least the first stage will be.
    1
  644. Artemis was never a sole NASA project, Constellation was. And that was far more bloated and behind schedule than Artemis
    1
  645. Pretty much what the SLS is, at the low low cost of $25 billion
    1
  646. Doesn’t need to be profitable, just affordable for NASA. We will have a moon base
    1
  647. That’s just stupid. Should we put the president on SLS?
    1
  648. NASA “figured out” that landing boosters like Falcon 9 was impractical but SpaceX did it anyway. Starship is bottom heavy, and wind isn’t an issue on the moon. Whether it can land isn’t something NASA is concerned about.
    1
  649.  @Shipwright1918  The LEM: - can only hold a crew of 2, Artemis requires up to 6 - can only last up to 3 days, Artemis requires 7+ - cannot carry any cargo - most of the lander is left behind, that’s not suitable long term - was insanely expensive and has no commercial benefit (this is important to further cut down on costs) The LEM was not the best option, not even back in 1960. It was simply the only option that could fit in the weight and size constraints alongside the crew capsule on the Saturn V
    1
  650.  @Shipwright1918  Starship’s in development. It took LEM 6 years of full development to be ready. Is that your point, that a completed product is better than one in development? Absolutely brilliant
    1
  651.  @volk4523 ”nothing was achieved here” 😂, you’re too far gone man
    1
  652. Apollo landed an absolutely tiny lander and left most of it behind on the surface. Artemis is using a massive lander which will land and take off in it’s entirety
    1
  653.  @coasterblocks3420  all of the landers were unrealised…
    1
  654. Fun Games steam is a terrible way of turning matter into energy. A nuclear explosion is over 1000000 times stronger.
    1
  655. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been A steam conversion would only produce around 1kT
    1
  656. Fun Games https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been
    1
  657. Fun Games that’s what he said. There’s not much water, definitely not enough to equal 5 MT of tnt
    1
  658. Fun Games yes, calculations put it at ~1kT
    1
  659.  @patrickcardon1643 the Russians? Don’t tell me you’re still comparing Starship to N1 🤦‍♂️
    1
  660.  @johnkasianowicz6536  I mean you can just watch this video, and then you can go and see that electric truck demand is massive - not just Tesla’s. They have a slightly lower payload, but they make up for it by being way cheaper to run and maintain. And their range is good enough to meet regulations (that force drivers to take a 1 hour break every 8 hours in the US or 4 hours in the EU) EV cars as well are getting very good. China has cars with a range of 1000km (600 miles) and can recharge 600km in 10 minutes.
    1
  661. Lmao
    1
  662. The most complicated part is living there for 2 years. Getting there and back is relatively easy. Methane can be synthesised from the planet’s water and abundant CO2 to refuel the ship. Low gravity means you don’t need a massive booster like on Earth so the upper stage of the Starship will be able to do it itself.
    1
  663. Sounds a bit on the nose
    1
  664.  @herrschaftg35  does it? It was meant to send a manned crew in orbit this year but that’s been delayed. NASA won’t launch a rocket that doesn’t complete its mission. That’s better for PR, but it makes the design process take longer and cost more. Starship being tested early is a great thing.
    1
  665. NASA couldn’t launch Apollo today. The disaster that is SLS cannot lift a payload that large. But even if they could, that would just be stupid. The Apollo Lunar Module can only carry 2 astronauts and can only stay on the moon for just over a day. You leave most of it behind every launch. It can hardly take anything with it.
    1
  666.  @alexturnbackthearmy1907 no, literally everything is behind schedule. From Orion to even the Space Suits. The original timeline was highly optimistic
    1
  667.  @alexturnbackthearmy1907  yeah they do, they just haven’t told us. They have a full mockup of HLS’s interior, it was sitting behind Musk during his speech last week.
    1
  668. SpaceX is literally the leader in launching things to space, but yeah
    1
  669. Because Saturn V only launched a tiny payload, of which only a tiny fraction went to the moons surface and an even tinier portion came back. In contrast Starship is massive, and all of it will go to the surface and all of it will come up. So it needs refuelling That’s just physics until we develop Nuclear Pulse Propulsion or something
    1
  670.  @dcon9995  they did…
    1
  671.  @mc1993  what does this have to do with the 2008 housing crisis?
    1
  672.  @Kandralla  um how?
    1
  673.  @Kandralla  any method of evaluation will be subjective, is that you’re revelation?
    1
  674. What do you mean?
    1
  675. They’re building a new rocket
    1
  676. Well they seem to work perfectly. The Raptor engines are actually pretty amazing. Full flow closed loop means they are more efficient. It also means they can run at lower temperatures, which combined with the use of methane means much more longevity. And it doesn’t assertive power, even though they’re about half the diameter of the BE-4 engine they have a higher thrust
    1
  677. Artemis is by far the most public and detailed of the 3.
    1
  678. And Japan is decades away.
    1
  679. Yet I doubt you complain when NASA blows $24 billion of your taxes building their SLS rocket. Or when the DoD blows over a trillion annually
    1
  680. I thought the Theranos comparison was stupid. This just took the cake. How is this in any way similar to the Fyre festival
    1
  681.  @dfdfdgggjhjjh5081  it’s like Fyre Festival if Fyre Festival was a car company bringing in $100 billion a year. And they already have cars driving people around today. There are tons of videos on YouTube of the latest update driving people around without them needing to intervene at all. Not perfect yet, but it is not far off. And that’s where the value is.
    1
  682. This is saving NASA billions
    1
  683.  @Craco186  NASA’s own lander was estimated to cost $10 billion to develop, and based on large NASA projects in the past it was likely to far exceed that. So they put out a bid for private companies. SpaceX put in by far the cheapest bid, half the price of BO and a third the price of Dynetics. So this is saving NASA billions
    1
  684. They’re still 2.5 years away at minimum so… finish Starship? It’s not just a tiny NASA contract riding on this. They have global contracts with Telcos that rely on them launching StarLink v2 satellites on Starship. Contracts with the DoD. A multi billion dollar Starbase. Starship is the future of SpaceX, if it fails the whole company does.
    1
  685.  @kain6996 he literally said their timelines are optimistic.
    1
  686.  @RSBDeprecated  FTL travel isn’t necessary to travel in a human lifetime. Proxima Centauri is “only” 4 light years away. It also happens to have a potentially habitable planet.
    1
  687. You’re crazy
    1
  688. He does not like hydrogen based cars. It’s like sitting on a hydrogen bomb.
    1
  689. I mean airplanes also need individual stations But yeah there’s no way there’ll be enough demand for this that they start building out landing platforms across the world. There might be one, but it will be more of a novelty thing
    1
  690.  @J-Johna-Jameson let’s return to this conversation in a couple years when Starship is regularly launching massive payloads to space.
    1
  691. The only effect 5G has on your body is at high energies it can lead to tissue heating up... like a microwave. It also can interfere with the anti-radical functions if your cells whilst can lead to higher amounts of radicals, however it’s pretty negligent with the amounts of RF that 5G emits, and any RF radiation also does this.
    1
  692. SomeAnon that’s one source, and it’s not really clear if they are referring to RF radiation or all radiation as a whole. And can we prove that 5G will increase this happening? 4G, 3G, etc all run in the radio frequency range of EMF radiation. There is no evidence that 5G is dangerous to life, and even if it was you would have to also prove that it’s more dangerous than 4G. Please stop overreacting to progress
    1
  693. SomeAnon your papers also say it can lead to brain tumours and cancer, which we both know cannot happen with the levels of RF radiation 5G emits. Are we to pick and choose which papers are correct or are we to go with the vestibule government and independent organisations that all say there’s little evidence to say it’s dangerous at the levels emitted. RF is dangerous, that’s why all of your devices have strict limits to the annoying they can emit. However 5G isn’t going to nuke us, it’s less powerful than 4G and it’s a Great Leap Forward.
    1
  694.  @KingofCrusher not all of the design documents survived. On top of that all the experts and engineers, all the factories and equipment , all the calculations are either gone or outdated. So you’re essentially starting from scratch. That was what the SLS was
    1
  695. ICE have an efficiency of 35%, but petrol carries way more energy per gram, making it more suitable for driving.
    1
  696. The number of engines doesn’t matter. Starships engines are smaller, they’re going to have more. It’s the cost. SLS costs so much to launch. Estimates put it around $2 billion, some more. The cost was so great that the Europa Clipper satellite that was meant to launch on it was instead launched on Falcon Heavy. They could do that for Artemis, have the astronauts launch to lunar orbit on Falcon Heavy but Congress doesn’t want SLS to look like the big waste it is. And that’s without including development costs.
    1
  697. CO2 levels today are higher than any other level in the last 800 000 years
    1
  698. What we know is that we are going to high, it could hurt our oceans, our ecosystems - our climates
    1
  699. CapriciousBlackBox well with higher levels of CO2, many places around the world will become to arid to sustain life.
    1
  700. Lol
    1
  701. SpaceX has done a terrible job of that thus far. Instead they’ve saved taxpayers tens of billions on launch and development costs
    1
  702. SLS has cost $25 billion. SpaceX’s entire R&D spending over its life time is half that. Ie for half the cost of developing SLS, SpaceX developed Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon 1 and 2, StarLink and is developing Starship. No, NASA could never
    1
  703.  @TheLumberjack1987  it’s like 40 words, is that too much for you to focus on?
    1
  704. Well yeah. Starship will be the first fully reusable rocket ever as well as the largest rocket ever. The Raptor engines on it are the first of its kind.
    1
  705.  @treadinglightly-gg9cc you realise SpaceX is the leader in space at the moment? They make up 80% of earth’s launch capacity. They’re the only US company capable of putting people into space and they do so regularly to the ISS. They operate the most reliable rocket of all time. Is that snake oil?
    1
  706. Who else has made a fully reusable super heavy rocket?
    1
  707. lol what is that comparison.
    1
  708. What do you mean “how could Germany allow a Giga Factory to be built”? Why wouldn’t you allow a company to invest billions into your country, hire tens of thousands of your people and pay loads of taxes?
    1
  709. Which makes them suck
    1
  710.  @NamNguyen-xt4yk yeah lol.
    1
  711. Labour unions can’t prevent layoffs.
    1
  712. It’s a fixed contract. $3 billion is the entire contract to develop and launch HLS. They’re getting great value for money considering it’s probable cost them 4x that to develop their own lander (and that’s a highly optimistic estimate)
    1
  713. Yeah fire him 😂 How will NASA get astronauts to and from the ISS without SpaceX
    1
  714. If you think $3 billion is a lot to develop a rocket, NASA spent 8x that to develop SLS. Not to mention when it is finished Starship will be cheaper to launch and more capable than SLS.
    1
  715.  @cccmmm1234 on purpose. They chose a path that purposely intersected with the Earth so they could ensure it landed in a safe area in the case of a mishap. They were within 0.1% of orbital velocities
    1
  716. SpaceX has saved NASA billions
    1
  717.  @tomservo5007  NASA literally said that themselves. Commercial Resupply and Commercial Crew alone have saved tens of billions alone.
    1
  718. 1. Starship HLS was a cheaper option. NASA estimated it would cost $10 billion to develop a lander on their own, Starship costs $2.7 billion 2. SLS is a disaster. It’s way too expensive, and far behind schedule. It isn’t a great launch vehicle to base Artemis off
    1
  719.  @youtubevanced4900  okay? It’s still way too expensive. It costs between $1.5-2 billion to launch it. Also where is this lander coming from?
    1
  720. Or SLS. Or Orion. Or the space suits.
    1
  721. We aren’t terraforming mars anytime soon. We don’t need to though. I agree we should be working on fixing the planet, that doesn’t have to come at the cost of the future of our species
    1
  722. ROFL you musk haters are another breed
    1
  723.  @leshommesdupilly  I hope you used ChatGPT because if you wrote this yourself that’s quite sad
    1
  724. A Biosphere isn’t needed for Mars, nor does SpaceX have to fund it.
    1
  725. Yeah we definitely should’ve kept with the Constellation program. Its estimated budget at the time was $400 billion (adjusted for inflation) and it would have ballooned out for sure.
    1
  726. Thunderf00t is a grifter. SLS is 6 years begins schedule and $12 billion over budget, where’s his video on that?
    1
  727.  @tede1838 Apollo barely worked. It was a great feat but America had no job going to the moon back in the 60s, it was a miracle no one died.
    1
  728. Starship HLS will be cheaper, far safer, and far more capable - it’ll take more astronauts to the moons surface, have them stay for longer, bring more payload with them, and not leave anything behind
    1
  729.  @herrschaftg35  adjusted for inflation it was over $3 billion
    1
  730. It isn’t a waste of money. These rockets are comparatively extremely cheap to build. They already have 4 others ready to launch.
    1
  731.  @drmiyu6964  those are NASA numbers. SpaceX builds their rockets to be much cheaper, estimates put the cost of launching a full stack starship at $100 million. That’s far cheaper than the competition and at that price it’s easily possible that the value they get out of the launch is worth it
    1
  732. SpaceX has become the leader in rockets because of its agile approach.
    1
  733. And ICE has an efficiency of 35% The rest is converted to heat so 35% of the energy reaches the wheel (not 10%) An electric engine has an efficiency of 60% If we instead filled a fuel tank up to the weight of a battery, the range would be enormous.
    1
  734. I like the idea of countries fighting over who can go to the moon first instead of launching nuclear war
    1
  735. They’re the world leader in launch systems.
    1
  736. You won’t need that many. You wouldn’t even need 10. If they’re able to reuse Ships then redundancy is built in as long as you have 3 or more tankers
    1
  737.  @papaaaaaaa2625 SLS’s development budget is $25 billion so far. SpaceX’s R&D spending through its entire existence is half that. Ie for half of SLS’s budget, SpaceX has developed Falcon 1/9/Heavy, Dragon 1/2, StarLink and is now developing Starship.
    1
  738. Doesn’t water boil at lower temperatures at different pressures? In school we’re learning about hydrothermal vents, and how the immense pressure means that it can take over 200 degrees Celsius to boil water. Also it is demonstrated that boiling water a high altitudes (with less pressure) means people cook for longer due to the lower boiling temperatures
    1
  739. How?
    1
  740. Only the last couple years has SpaceX spent that much. But yeah, Starship development (including construction of Starbase) has cost around $5 billion according to Elon. Most of that is private
    1
  741. Because Saturn V launched a tiny little Lunar module, Starship is absolutely massive.
    1
  742. He gets the same amount whether it explodes or not
    1
  743.  @DrWhom  says who? Starship isn’t just being funded by NASA. Actually NASA is a small part of the total made up of government and private contracts, StarLink contracts and SpaceX’s funding itself. This is the future of SpaceX right here, in 10 years they will be launching everything on Starship. Funding isn’t an issue.
    1
  744. Exactly what? Starship and the Shuttle are nothing alike - not in their goals, not in their capabilities, not in their development
    1
  745. Water vapour.
    1
  746. No, Saturn V could only take 140t. Officially Starships capacity will be 100-150t, so it isn’t finalised. And importantly that is fully reusable, expendable will be able to do higher capacities.
    1
  747.  @JoeOvercoat  SpaceX is currently the best launch company in the world. Not realising that shows your ignorance
    1
  748.  @speedrunner9907  SLS is the world’s best money burner. SpaceX is actually really bad at it, they’ve cut prices so low that traditional launch providers like ULA are nearing bankruptcy
    1
  749.  @illarionbykov7401  Russia hasn’t been a contender since the fall of the USSR. Today they barely make double digits in launch numbers, and their new rockets are still in development as they have been for 30 years
    1
  750.  @illarionbykov7401  the Dnepr and Strela are repurposed ICBMs. Is that how low we’re sinking to claim Russia is at all a competitor in this space race despite launching 1/15th the rockets that the US does?
    1
  751.  @illarionbykov7401  btw the rocket I was referencing was the Angara A5, which took almost 30 years from starting development in 1997 to launching its first payload just a month ago.
    1
  752.  @ConsciousExpression  Falcon 9 is the world’s most reliable rocket, with a 99.5% success rate and over 300 successful missions in a row. And SpaceX is on track this year to launch 90% of the world’s mass to orbit But it’s not just that SpaceX is great, which they are. Russia just sucks. China is a real competitor, landing things on the moon, building new space stations. Russia isn’t even trying.
    1
  753. As much as I can tell, when they land a rocket they scrap most of it.
    1
  754. Constellation was really the only other attempt. A report came out that it would run way over budget and wouldn’t land people on the moon for 25 years. Many parts from Constellation was scrapped or repurposed into SLS and Artemis. Artemis plans on getting people to the moon for 1/4th the price and less than half the time.
    1
  755. Well, he’s right about the thermal explosion not being 4MT, not even 1 MT
    1
  756. With NASA’s record of they started now they wouldn’t have a lander until 2040
    1
  757. Plenty. One interesting piece of research was printing organs in space. Weightlessness makes it possible to accurately shape complex parts of the organ.
    1
  758. No, every car has energy loss. There is always some that is lost. Most of the energy is lost at the power station. The huge battery no matter where you put it, puts a strain on the engine.
    1
  759. BlurpGooDiJabba my point exactly. I said in my first comment that there is loss. Most power loss will occur at a power station.
    1
  760. 2?
    1
  761. Fukushima and Chunobyl
    1
  762. Yeah. These rockets are cheap, that’s why they can afford to test them. It cost $4 billion to launch the SLS, Starship costs a tiny fraction of that
    1
  763. Ilya Popov what about it?
    1
  764. Tero Känsäkangas a steam explosion would not be the same as a 1 MT of TNT
    1
  765. Starship V3 in its expendable form plans on launching almost as much mass as Sea Dragon was planned to.
    1
  766. If resisability didn’t save money, SpaceX wouldn’t be able to undercut every other company, nor would those companies be trying to replicate it for themselves.
    1
  767. Fuel isn’t expensive though. It costs around $500k to refuel a Falcon 9 compared to its launch price of $62m
    1
  768. “Elon is a literal nazi bro”
    1
  769. Well hopefully things improve. Lithium batteries are pretty terrible atm.
    1
  770. John H they don’t use much electricity. Lithium batteries are one of the biggest drawbacks to our electrical grid. They are expensive and don’t hold much, are prone to overheating and can easily explode. Your car uses a considerably bigger amount of electricity than your laptop or tv remote. A stupid comparison.
    1
  771. What are you even trying to say? You think it’s too big?
    1
  772. SpaceX’s design was more capable and came in at about 1/4th the price. It’s delayed for sure, but let’s not kid ourselves, the NASA design would be as well. The NASA space suits were so behind schedule that had to contract that off to a private company
    1
  773. Starship V3 is the final iteration, it’s their target. Theoretically it is possible but they need to make some leaps to get there, but again it’s the long term goal.
    1
  774. 1. It’s very bottom heavy, the bottom half is where all the fuel is. So it won’t fall over. 2. One of the reasons it got the pick was that it was a single stage to orbit from the moon. It didn’t leave anything behind, which will be good for transporting people to and from a moon base. The moons gravity is very low, it’s not hard to take off
    1
  775. Nuckear War or a massive Asteroid both pose a massive threat to the future of our species, the only way to ensure our survival is a self sustaining civilisation on another planet.
    1