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

  1.  @thorin1045  1. “Not fully from scratch”. No young’s right, it’s not fully from scratch. In fact it’s not from scratch at all. It’s still a Full-Flow Closed-Cycle Methalox engine. It still has many of its components V2. Some are removed, some are changed. It’s an upgrade. 2. No again it’s not a complete redo because you already have the design down pat. Making the fuel tanks a bit bigger (if that’s even necessary) isn’t a massive overhaul. 3. What does this have to do with anything? The design doesn’t need to be locked in yet.
    1
  2. They were initially going to have an internal heat dissipation system but swapped to tiles because they are far lighter. Starship being steel still provides a lot more resistance to heating meaning the tiles don’t need to be as thick. They can also break off in places and the rocket can survive.
    1
  3. But no that’s not the reason. The tiles don’t weigh enough to change the payload mass that much. The reason is Raptor 3 has been behind schedule, which is what’s going to enable them to reach their 100 ton goal.
    1
  4. 1 Falcon 9 launch equals the emissions of 100 cars driving for a year. Which is significantly more, but not much considering how few launches there are vs how many cars there are
    1
  5.  @Irobert1115HD SLS was 6 years behind schedule and $12 billion over budget. And it literally couldn’t launch today if it wanted because it damaged its launch pad and it still hasn’t been fixed. And it is too expensive so NASA has moved all of its missions to other rockets and it is facing full cancellation.
    1
  6.  @Irobert1115HD SpaceX’s entire R&D spending over its lifetime comes to about half of SLS’s development budget. So for the price of half of the SLS, SpaceX has developed Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Starship, StarLink, Dragon 1 and Crew Dragon Which got better value for their money?
    1
  7. Apollo was a rush to the moon. There was no worry about budgets, safety, future sustainability. Artemis is bigger, better and cheaper that Apollo in every way, that’s the goal atleast.
    1
  8.  @piotrd.4850  hardly cheaper? NASA spent ~$290 billion on Apollo before they put the first people on the moon with Apollo 11. Today it’s expected they’ll spend ~$90 billion by Artemis 3. If you go part by part you’ll see this same reduction as well. SpaceX is being paid $2.9 billion to design, build and launch a lander (well 2 if we count the rest). They’re charging $1.1 billion for Artemis 4. If we just assume that $1.1 bullion be the cost for all future landers then after 6 (the number of times Apollo landed), NASA will have paid $8.4 billion. The Apollo Lander program cost $27 billion.
    1
  9. Russia doesn’t use Soyuz because it wants to, it’s just that they couldn’t afford to build its replacement. It’s coming though, they’ve been working on its replacement for the last 15 years and it’ll be ready in 6 years or so if it stays on schedule (which it definitely won’t, this us RosCosmos we’re talking about)
    1
  10. Claim? 8 years of successful Falcon 9 launches in a row isn’t a claim it’s reality
    1
  11. The average EV is about 130% heavier than a petrol vehicle, owing to its lithium battery.
    1
  12. lol what
    1
  13.  @dmwalker24 at the moment, but eventually they’ll get this rocket to the reliability of Falcon 9
    1
  14. He’s already made a video on nuclear cars.
    1
  15.  @nunofoo8620  A closed ecosystem isn’t needed for a sustainable colony on Mars, Mars already has the resources to sustain life.
    1
  16.  @mdjey2  anything useful? Like water and CO2 which is abundant? Like iron (literally the reason the planet is red) and other metals which are abundant throughout? Sustainability is definitely achievable. And it doesn’t have to be done right away, the first humans will have ample resources to support themselves sent in advance.
    1
  17. Total car sales last year were about 75 million. There’s plenty of demand but the biggest issue is Chinese automakers who will always win on cost. Tesla is trying to combat that by providing a better quality product
    1
  18. So you’re starting from scratch. But we don’t just want to go back how like did in Apollo, we want it to be cheaper, more capable, support more astronauts for longer, and carry a larger payload with it.
    1
  19. Oh come on, NASA is insanely fraudulent. They made the SLS for god sake, $25 billion in taxpayer dollars for something that’s so expensive they have canceled nearly every mission with it.
    1
  20. Elon is the only person keeping the US up to the pace of China in EVs and Space. He goes down and you have pretty much kissed both of those industries away
    1
  21.  @toomanyaccounts  They changed the thermal system from internal water-cooling system to tiles to save weight. Is that your big burn?
    1
  22. Because that’s NASA’s philosophy. Even if they wanted to test they can’t because a failure would lead to massive repercussions throughout. SpaceX has the liberty to fail. They knew IFT1 wasn’t going to succeed, that wasn’t the plan. It was to test their systems, gather data, and price to NASA that they have met a number of milestones. They have to test. They don’t have 12 years and $24 billion of taxpayer dollars to blow.
    1
  23. It wasn’t even a partial success, every goal was met.
    1
  24. They’re doing much more than what the NASA engineers did in the 60s. Not only will it be way safer, way more capable, way cheaper, it also needs to be fully rapidly reusable which is incredibly hard. Not to take away what NASA did, because they had to contend with the technology of the time. But it’s a whole new can of worms
    1
  25. What a good use of money, really should invest in more projects like that.
    1
  26. Yeah lol. The Apollo Lander alone cost taxpayers $25 billion in today’s money to develop. SpaceX is doing it for 1/10th the price
    1
  27.  @LesterBrunt  hold onto your horses, they’re still developing it. It took 6 years of full development to develop the Lunar Module and it had actually been planned by Grumman for over a decade before. Starship is in a similar boat, it has only been in full development for 3 years. And again, is coming in at a tenth the price whilst being more capable.
    1
  28.  @LesterBrunt  I can because it’s a fixed cost contract. They only get paid if they meet certain milestones. This is unlike a NASA project which can balloon out to as much as Congress will allow
    1
  29.  @LesterBrunt  oh, that’s never going to happen. What’s your point?
    1
  30.  @LesterBrunt  Musk isn’t walking any money to the bank. SpaceX has put a whole lot more than NASA has into Starship. It’s currently a big hole in the SpaceX budget because that’s what you need to do to develop a rocket like this. If it doesn’t succeed they lose a lot of money. There’s no skipping to the bank, it’s a slow walk to the liquidator.
    1
  31. Any rocket will only be able to launch every 2 years. That’s fine, you’ll just need to figure out how to live on Mars for 2 years between launches
    1
  32.  @I_dont_need_a_handle  radiation already has a solution. Living underground or piling Mars’s dirt ontop of your base would allow you to live indefinitely. I’m not saying it’s easy, I’m saying it’s doable. You’ll see people on Mars in a couple decades
    1
  33.  @dustyhurd424 because launching payloads has been so expensive in the past, satellites had to be over designed. That’s why payloads were so much more expensive than launch. Now that launch is cheap it’s opening up a whole new market, satellites that are insanely cheap and launched on mass.
    1
  34.  @roberthorwat6747  fuel is cheap
    1
  35.  @dustyhurd424  the analysis I saw was from the Shuttle, which was a terrible vehicle. Falcon 9 isn’t shuttle, it’s far more suited to reuse. But don’t take my word for it, take the word of every launch company in the industry. Everyone is now working on a reusable rocket. Rocket Lab, Blue Origin, Firefly, ULA, Relativity Space, all are working on reuse.
    1
  36.  @dustyhurd424  Kessler Syndrome is blown so out of proportion. Even the original author of the paper regrets writing it. We’ll never be trapped on Earth, even in the most extreme scenarios . It only affects satellites that have to orbit Earth constantly. And really only satellites in high orbits are vulnerable, at LEO like most constellations will be, satellites decay in months to years.
    1
  37.  @dustyhurd424  Kessler Syndrome is blown so out of proportion. Even the original author of the paper regrets writing it. We won’t be stuck on Earth, even in the most extreme scenarios. It only affects satellites that have to orbit Earth constantly. And really only satellites in high orbits are vulnerable, at LEO like most constellations will be, satellites decay in months to years.
    1
  38.  @dustyhurd424  I tried to give a better explanation but YouTube kept deleting so I gave you that. I’ll try again:
    1
  39.  @dustyhurd424  Kessler doesn’t impact space travel because even in the most extreme scenarios the particles are so sparse you won’t get hit.
    1
  40.  @dustyhurd424  and it doesn’t effect LEO because all objects in LEO decay within months to years and fall back into Earth.
    1
  41. Go look at how Dragon meets up with the ISS
    1
  42. “Some” They’re the biggest launch provider in the world. They launch 90% of Earth’s mass to orbit.
    1
  43. And that’s just what NASA paid, they pay extra to help develop the thing. SpaceX charged $55 million a seat for Axiom-1 to 3
    1
  44. Shake oil salesmen are also not usually leaders in their respective industries…
    1
  45. There is a few teething problems, but the result is an extremely capable launch vehicle and lunar lander at a fraction of the price that NASA could do it
    1
  46. ⁠ @SmokeTheHolyChalice > why are we not questioning that the women She wasn’t responsible. Her report was based on ratings by a larger committee that thoroughly scrutinised each submission. SpaceX had by far the best submission, and came in at half the price
    1
  47.  @SmokeTheHolyChalice  Writing in the first person is standard for these sorts of documents. Go read the Source Selection Statement for the Space Suits as an example. It doesn’t mean the author made the decision on their own, they have to go through many consultations to come to that conclusion.
    1
  48. The money? You realise the development of Starship is 10x cheaper than the SLS?
    1
  49.  @WokeandProud  because it’s in development?
    1
  50.  @WokeandProud  SLS has cost taxpayers $24 billion so far and has launched once. SpaceX is developing Starship at a fraction of the cost and it will be more capable. Why? Because its agile philosophy that purposely makes mistakes means that can quickly test changes and gather data. I guess they could have cancelled the last 3 launches, the engineers knew they weren’t going to work. But what does that get you, now you have to solve the same problems without that data.
    1