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

  1.  @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
  2. There is no over budget here anyway. It’s a fixed contract
    2
  3.  @DeepDeepSpace  no by Payload Research
    2
  4. Is it wifi connected?
    2
  5. It’s almost like it was the plan… They reached orbital velocities but kept it suborbital for safety.
    2
  6.  @seawolf9616  such a cope 😂
    2
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. (And then conveniently ignore the strange circumstances that lead to Blue Origin getting a contract)
    2
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Sounds more professional than saying 100x
    2
  15. The government shouldn’t have the power to censor people.
    2
  16. Yeah it would be. But SpaceX doesn’t they made clear goals before the test.
    2
  17.  @theultimatereductionist7592 didn’t meet their legal requirement? SpaceX put in the best offer, plain and simple
    2
  18. 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
  19. $250 billion
    2
  20. 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
  21. They haven’t had any of the problems that the N1 had
    2
  22. 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
  23. ⁠ @roberthorwat6747 fuel is super cheap.
    2
  24.  @dustyhurd424  Kessler Syndrone is overblown. It isn’t an issue for space flight or LEO satellites, mainly satellites in higher orbits
    2
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. ⁠ @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
  28. That’s called the SLS. It came in at the small cost of $24 billion
    2
  29. Lol
    2
  30.  @ZakiHaider-y9o  yes it is. It’s paid for by StarLink, Falcon launches, investments and future customers
    2
  31. SLS: $24 billion Starship: $2.7 billion “tHe pUbLic SeCToR iS mOre eFFIciENt thAn thE pRIvaTe sector. iN EverY caPAcIty”
    2
  32. 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
  33.  @Homiloko2  so no, they didn’t “do this” decades ago.
    2
  34.  @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
  35. He wasn’t always like this, but I guess the figured the algorithm liked his Elon videos
    2
  36. Liquid hydrogen needs to be kept at like -250C, and no wouldn’t be much safer
    2
  37. It’s not that bad. They get 60 days severance to find a new job.
    2
  38.  @n.f.9317  welcome to the tech industry
    2
  39. Lmao what? SpaceX is the only reason the US has any astronauts in space right now
    2
  40. Jason Viper how?
    2
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44.  @Nomolyx1 😂
    2
  45.  @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
  46. Or SLS, or Orion, or New Glenn, or Ariane 6, or…
    2
  47. 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
  48.  @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
  49. 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
  50.  @hozz that is actually a pretty good indicator…
    2