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