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

  1. What?
    1
  2. Yeah, we could’ve given Russia $3 billion dollars and done what? Why do we need Soyuz’s?
    1
  3. No it’s not.
    1
  4.  @YouShouldThink4Yourself  the moon mission (Artemis) isn’t canceled.
    1
  5. The last flight was a success. It launched and got to orbit.
    1
  6.  @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
  7.  @Raptorace225  NASA called it a success…
    1
  8. 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
  9.  @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
  10. Gasoline has a MUCH higher safe temperature range. Any small leak of hydrogen can be set off by a small spark.
    1
  11. jmitterii2 another problem is efficiency. Making H2 uses more energy than you get back, it’s just changing where you use the petroleum.
    1
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 0.3% of the US budget as a whole not the US military budget
    1
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18.  @DeepDeepSpace estimates say that 15 expendable missions with Starship would be cheaper than SLS. Way cheaper in fact, and that’s without reusability.
    1
  19. Why?
    1
  20. Ha
    1
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. “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
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36. Jaden Pelate google.
    1
  37. 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
  38. Jaden Pelate which video
    1
  39. ⁠​⁠ @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
  40. ⁠ @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
  41. It’s easy to make Musk videos and the algorithm loves them
    1
  42. 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
  43. Do you think Toyota would shoot an incendiary round when trying to show safety?
    1
  44. 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
  45. Yeah he quickly changed that title 😂. It’s sorta funny really, every launch the goalposts shift as the skeptics slowly devolve into insanity.
    1
  46.  @jshowao  what do I have to cope about? I just watched the most insane rocket launch of my life.
    1
  47.  @ayushkadel1168 the $3 billion is for the Lunar lander SpaceX is developing. Starship’s development is mostly privately funded
    1
  48.  @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
  49. 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
  50. 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