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

  1. Colin Overkamp no
    1
  2. He has never spoken well, but I think he has noticeably worsened
    1
  3. 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
  4. And landed it
    1
  5. Not to the point of being uninhabitable, as said in the program
    1
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. It was a camera placed on the rover. It wasn’t Apollo 11, I think it was 15 or something.
    1
  9. Ever watched boats go over the horizon? You’d see it curves
    1
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. lol 😂
    1
  13. 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
  14. But accurately shooting a thing “into orbit” is harder than it sounds
    1
  15. Pretty much every proposal required refuelling of some sort.
    1
  16. You lack imagination
    1
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. And then on top of that we want to make it cheaper (Apollo was incredibly expensive), safer, more capable, etc.
    1
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Yeah pretty much. Artemis isn’t just redoing Apollo, it has a much greater scope.
    1
  27. lol
    1
  28. He can’t be nice because he used to be an engineer for the DoD?
    1
  29. It’s actually way harder to catch it,
    1
  30.  @brentonherbert7775  because it saves a lot of weight and cost on each ship and booster
    1
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33.  @hackmedia7755 SpaceX has been giving results though.
    1
  34. 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
  35. *15k
    1
  36. Nuclear is the future
    1
  37. And the other 13 also contain musk rants.
    1
  38. 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
  39. What about Musk’s track record of 50 people to orbit and back aboard Crew Dragon?
    1
  40. 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
  41. *300th very soon. They’re at 295 or something
    1
  42.  @thomasbecker9676  https://youtu.be/A0FZIwabctw?si=CiXG0Dv37vK6VjQT
    1
  43. Why didn’t who use compressed air + CO2?
    1
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Isn’t it like -125 degrees Celsius? The amount of energy needed to keep the crew alive would be enormous
    1
  47. No, he hates his stupid ideas.
    1
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50.  @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