Comments by "Zach B" (@zachb1706) on "Spacex cancels Moon Mission: How America lost the Moon!" video.

  1. SpaceX is the world’s best cargo and human launch provider. What are you on about?
    47
  2.  @iUseVegas Neom isn’t even his project, I don’t see the relevance.
    14
  3. It also had a development budget over $40 billion and cost $1.5 billion to launch
    10
  4.  @Refertech101  well no, Neom is impossible regardless of timeline whilst Starship is just going to be a few years behind schedule (rather common in the Space industry)
    7
  5. It was a complete success. But you’re right if you mean Starship development isn’t finished IFT4 showed reuse as they plan (landing of ship and booster) was possible. So I’m very optimistic. IFT5 apparently will test a full landing so let’s see
    5
  6.  @RanEncounter  it showed that they could land the ship and booster, the hardest part of the whole thing.
    5
  7.  @TheLumberjack1987  Starship is under development, we don’t know how it will perform yet. But going off SpaceX’s success with Falcon 9, no one has made a more reliable rocket than that.
    5
  8.  @ConsciousExpression  Russia launched like 12 times last year, SpaceX launched 96 times.
    5
  9.  @RyviusRan  well we’ll start with Falcon 9: - Claimed they’d never land one - After they landed one claimed they would never reuse it - After they reused it claimed reuse was pointless because the Shuttle was more expensive than similar rockets - Moved on after he realised he was wrong as now every launch provider is attempting reusability
    4
  10. Apollo was expensive. At its peak NASA was spending $60 billion a year on it, it took up their entire budget. Artemis on the other hand is meant to take up a fraction of NASA’s budget which is much smaller than it was in the days of Apollo (adjusting for inflation). All this whilst having a much larger scope. Apollo’s approach was safe and expensive
    4
  11. 50 people launched to space without issue. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket ever
    3
  12. 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
  13. $250 billion
    2
  14. 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
  15. Lol
    2
  16. They reached an orbit of (234,-50) which roughly equals a 92km circular orbit But that was the plan. It was purposely kept suborbital
    2
  17.  @Azamat421 not wrong at all. Thunderf00t has barely any idea about the industry. His last livestream was an embarrassment, he got so much wrong.
    2
  18. It’s pretty obvious that he’s autistic from his maneurisms. But also a lot of his children are also autistic, which is a sign
    2
  19.  @TheLumberjack1987  btw the only thing canceled was a private flight around the moon. SpaceX is still the primary customer of Artemis
    2
  20.  @TheLumberjack1987  😂 okay then
    2
  21. Apollo sent a tiny little lander that could barely fit 2 people to the surface, and left most of it on the moon’s surface. Starship on the other hand is absolutely massive, and won’t leave anything behind. All that is added weight, which means refuelling is needed.
    2
  22.  @durshurrikun150  Russia isn’t even a contender, I don’t know why you keep bringing them up.
    2
  23.  @infernaldaedra  the shuttle was a death trap. An insanely expensive death trap, adding up all costs it came to $1.5 billion per launch. It was a complete disaster that set NASA back decades.
    2
  24. Because that’s not how the world works. All of the engineers and technicians that worked on the Saturn V are gone, all of the factories are gone, many technologies used are obsolete, many of the designs lost. You can’t just rebuild Saturn V, you need to redesign it. SLS is just that. And just like Saturn V it is insanely expensive.
    1
  25. No it’s not.
    1
  26.  @YouShouldThink4Yourself  the moon mission (Artemis) isn’t canceled.
    1
  27. Why?
    1
  28. And landed it
    1
  29.  @hackmedia7755 SpaceX has been giving results though.
    1
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34.  @toomanyaccounts  They changed the thermal system from internal water-cooling system to tiles to save weight. Is that your big burn?
    1
  35. It wasn’t even a partial success, every goal was met.
    1
  36. 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
  37.  @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
  38. Shake oil salesmen are also not usually leaders in their respective industries…
    1
  39. He’s right about SLS. It is outdated (the first stage is pretty much the shuttle’s) and expensive (it cost $24 billion to develop and $2 billion to launch) It has some unique capabilities but for its cost it was a complete waste of money
    1
  40. That’s pretty much what SLS is. $14 billion dollars over budget and 6 years behind schedule and we have a rocket which is so expensive to launch all of its missions have been shifted to other rockets
    1
  41. HLS will have legs.
    1
  42.  @Yomotomen Flight 4 showed that control was fine. In fact it was able to complete a full landing manoeuvre even with significant heat damage. The heat shield and engines are the main issues. They’re completely redoing the thermal solution for the next flight, and the new Raptor 3 engine is nearing production.
    1
  43. This is the sort of people who watch your videos Thunderf00t. Nice community you have here
    1
  44. The hint is there is no scam. SpaceX is a great company which has accelerated the US’s space capabilities.
    1
  45. NASA designs spacecraft to be safe? Lets ask the crews of Challenger and Columbia if they agree
    1
  46.  @RyviusRan  now that live stream: T+00:00:35 Phil claims "oh thats all f*cked up" in response to the color of the exhaust vapors which are no different to previous flights T+00:00:52 He realizes the raptor out (that has been shutdown since ignition). He then claims it will not be able to make orbit with 32 engines. T+00:02:10 He claims that Starship will not have enough energy to make orbit because oxygen is lower than methane (something they purposely do for safety) T+00:02:25 He interprets a nominal pitch-over maneuver as "wobbly" T+00:02:45 At stage separation Phil claims that "they are screwed on the recovery of the booster" T+00:03:1 He again claims they don’t have enough oxygen T+00:04:17 Confused about the hot staging ring jettison, mistakes it for the reaction control thrusters for some reason. This is despite it being written in the flight plan and reiterated multiple times by SpaceX T+00:04:40 Claims booster is "f*cked", again due to oxygen levels T+00:07:00 Claims the booster has hit the ocean, moments before it correctly completes a soft touchdown He then rambles for an hour about how venting gas is bad (it’s a normal part of the flight procedure), upon other things. Then when the feed comes back and the ship makes a soft touchdown he incorrectly thinks the engines didn’t relight.
    1
  47.  @danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307  what?
    1
  48. Sounds a bit on the nose
    1
  49.  @kain6996 he literally said their timelines are optimistic.
    1
  50.  @TheLumberjack1987  it’s like 40 words, is that too much for you to focus on?
    1
  51. ROFL you musk haters are another breed
    1
  52.  @leshommesdupilly  I hope you used ChatGPT because if you wrote this yourself that’s quite sad
    1
  53. Yeah we definitely should’ve kept with the Constellation program. Its estimated budget at the time was $400 billion (adjusted for inflation) and it would have ballooned out for sure.
    1
  54.  @JoeOvercoat  SpaceX is currently the best launch company in the world. Not realising that shows your ignorance
    1
  55.  @speedrunner9907  SLS is the world’s best money burner. SpaceX is actually really bad at it, they’ve cut prices so low that traditional launch providers like ULA are nearing bankruptcy
    1
  56.  @illarionbykov7401  Russia hasn’t been a contender since the fall of the USSR. Today they barely make double digits in launch numbers, and their new rockets are still in development as they have been for 30 years
    1
  57.  @illarionbykov7401  the Dnepr and Strela are repurposed ICBMs. Is that how low we’re sinking to claim Russia is at all a competitor in this space race despite launching 1/15th the rockets that the US does?
    1
  58.  @illarionbykov7401  btw the rocket I was referencing was the Angara A5, which took almost 30 years from starting development in 1997 to launching its first payload just a month ago.
    1
  59.  @ConsciousExpression  Falcon 9 is the world’s most reliable rocket, with a 99.5% success rate and over 300 successful missions in a row. And SpaceX is on track this year to launch 90% of the world’s mass to orbit But it’s not just that SpaceX is great, which they are. Russia just sucks. China is a real competitor, landing things on the moon, building new space stations. Russia isn’t even trying.
    1