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

  1. 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
  2. SpaceX has saved NASA tens of billions…
    3
  3. 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
  4. Ikr
    3
  5. Capitalism: Rocket and Lander for $2.9 billion (Starship) Socialism: Rocket without Lander for $24 billion (SLS)
    3
  6. So was JFK, he started Apollo
    3
  7. ⁠ @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
  8. What do they have to add? NASA has already said they believe in this being manageable.
    3
  9.  @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
  10. It doesn’t, in space velocity is generated by throwing matter out at a very high speed.
    3
  11. No there’s some companies working on them. But they’re never replacing standard engines.
    3
  12. Lmao did you just say the ESA
    3
  13. Pretty much every Space Enthusiast is insanely excited for Starship. It’ll change the industry.
    3
  14. ⁠​⁠ @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
  15.  @kurknielsen  Yes, you made some very compelling arguments…
    3
  16.  @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
  17. Exactly. $3 billion is for HLS, Starship is privately funded
    3
  18. 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
  19.  @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
  20. There was an investigation, nothing was found. In fact they supported choosing SpaceX, who had the best offer.
    3
  21.  @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
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24.  @dameonwalker8994  see, you have no actual rebuttal.
    3
  25.  @jacksons1010 Thunderf00t has been a long time denier of EVs. Just one of the many bad takes he has. EVs are the future.
    3
  26.  @falkenlaser 😂 yeah. “Special Relativity BUSTED!!”
    3
  27. 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
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @icemachine79  that decision of who had the best proposal was done by the Source Evaluation Panel, not Lueders
    3
  32.  @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
  33.  @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
  34. Robert Reid can you explain where he went wrong?
    3
  35. 50 people launched to space without issue. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket ever
    3
  36.  @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
  37. 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
  38.  @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
  39. 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
  40.  @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
  41. 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
  42. Well their criticism was wrong. Commercial Crew saved NASA tens of billions
    2
  43. 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
  44.  @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
  45. I wonder if the Apollo 1 crew agree. Or Apollo 13. Or Challenger. Or Columbus.
    2
  46.  @friedrichjunzt  you mean Starship? SpaceX goes to orbit all the time, they currently operate the most reliable orbital rocket launcher in the world
    2
  47.  @friedrichjunzt  they’ve sent 31 rockets to orbit just in the past 3 months.
    2
  48. Prove the concept... So they’re on Mars already, or has the definition of proof changed
    2
  49. 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
  50. The LLM cost $20 billion to develop. SpaceX developing it for $3 billion is a bargain
    2