Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. It was actually the General asking for a flying 30mm rotary cannon.
    326
  2. azmanabdula, because it’s a terrible idea. Hydrogen is a nuisance to store and if even less efficient at storing energy than batteries. Real Engineering even has a video about the problems.
    148
  3. Canadian forces were under the umbrella of the British.
    137
  4. The dampener dampens lateral movement be it earthquake or wind. Also, it looks damn cool.
    73
  5. And you’re going to add a huge cost, probably even worse than batteries.
    56
  6. Standardization and building them en mass. If we can do for nuclear power what Ford did for cars, this wouldn’t be a question.
    24
  7.  @Minuz1  how about we add in clean up costs from normal operations of natural gas plants. Also, the clean up Fukushima is inflated because of stuff like holding hundreds of thousands of gallons of water for a decade because of a teacup’s worth of tritium. That’s barely enough tritium to kill a person if they drank all of it at once.
    22
  8. Not really, they’re just using techniques invented by others, and there are reasons we dont use those techniques.
    19
  9. But only by a couple thousand.
    16
  10.  @paulziech6702  that’s a lie. We have hundreds to thousands of years worth of fuel sitting around in spent fuel rods, and there are alternative fuels that have thousands of years worth of fuel.
    12
  11. Certfied Ass Eater, why should leave? I just stated a fact. China didn’t invent prefabrication and there are reasons we don’t use prefabricated buildings en mass. That doesn’t mean what the Chinese company did wasn’t impressive, but understand why it’s impressive.
    11
  12. The SLAM was a design for a nuclear powered cruise missile
    9
  13. Timothy Stamm, no, Mars’s atmosphere is 1% as thick as Earth’s, so even much faster wind speeds cary a fraction of the of force.
    7
  14. The 76 was just as capable as the 17 pounder had better ergonomics.
    6
  15. Starhopper’s top fell over in 50mph (80kmp) winds. Saying that SpaceX isn’t running this so well because of a minor setback is a little disingenuous.
    6
  16. Looks like you’re badly informed.
    5
  17. You don’t just send a tank. You send the whole unit.
    4
  18. The least evil is nuclear to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from seawater, and we can use the infrastructure we already have, saving trillions.
    4
  19. Or we could do the faster and more practical thing and use nuclear.
    4
  20. No, mass dampeners have to be able to move because the dampener moves instead of the building.
    3
  21.  @RealEngineering  the compressor was combination of turbo and super charger. The Greg’s planes and automobiles channel here on YouTube has a series in-depth videos on the P-47 including the supercharger. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg
    3
  22. All electric motors have magnets, and this has plenty of those.
    3
  23. All two miles until it breaks down where the Sherman will then drive rings around it.
    3
  24. Orbital rings are better. They don’t require wonder materials, so they’re much cheaper and easier to build. They also have other benefits like connecting different places on Earth.
    3
  25. The short answer is Congress, thus the nickname of senate launch system.
    3
  26. A lot of people will die, which is why we need nuclear instead of the schemes
    3
  27. Nuclear powered ships definitely are.
    3
  28. It's not that great. A lot of the internal space is eaten up by elevators. Elevators are such a big problem that buildings much taller than the Burj Khalifa will mostly be elevators.
    2
  29. The electricity demands alone makes that idea impossible.
    2
  30. We need to deploy the technology we have. Gen. 4 nuclear reactors are just what we need, but the anti-nuclear nuts have spent 50 years holding it up.
    2
  31. I was just talking about sleeping. People have been living in high latitudes for thousands of years with 6 months of light and darkness.
    2
  32. Solar on the moon is idiotic, especially for industrial purposes. Nuclear is the only power source that will work.
    2
  33. matty, that’s a myth. The Germans had a lot of problems with reliability. In fact, they lost more Tigers to break down than enemy action because they were too heavy and over engineered.
    2
  34. No, nuclear is our long term solution.
    2
  35. The 76 was more than capable of destroying any German tank with the right ammo.
    2
  36. At the time it was called a turbo-super charger. He got kinda confused because of the difference in nomenclature
    2
  37. Zoning is important, but we could move to a system more like Japan.
    2
  38. It was a good gun. It was just a little under powered against heavy tanks, but against much more medium tanks and structures it’s a fine gun.
    2
  39. Dawson Toulouse, tank destroys were part of the artillery branch, and they were commonly used in a direct line of fire artillery piece against infantry and structures. You’re probably thinking of the indirect fire role.
    2
  40. The idea that we could just replace coal with solar and wind using enough batteries is just not true. Other than that, very informative video.
    2
  41. If we’re building reactors like that, renewables would only have marginal place in our system.
    2
  42.  @bike-cave-man2527  there aren’t enough batteries in the world to do that, and solar kills 6 times as many people per unit of energy produced.
    2
  43.  @bike-cave-man2527  how about you provide evidence of your claim that there’s enough battery material and manufacturing capacity to do what you’re planning. After all, you’re the one making the positive claim, which means you’re the one responsible for providing the evidence.
    2
  44. Here’s a brilliant idea, we just build nuclear instead. If we’re going to engineer of tax system, we need to fallow principles of engineering. The first rule of engineering is Keep It Simple Stupid. This tax system is anything but simple
    2
  45. The only reason we don’t have a place to put the spent fuel is the people who irrationally hate nuclear to the point they don’t even want to have a place to store spent fuel.
    2
  46. At the time it was called a turbo-super charger. The channel Greg’s Planes and Automobiles has a very in depth series on the P-47, including all of this.
    2
  47. It’s not possible ever. The amount of resources needed exceed the known reserves of numerous resources, not rare ones but common ones like copper.
    2
  48. The most costly, resource intensive, and unreliable way of doing things. Sounds exactly like the way forward.
    2
  49. Leave it California to do things the stupid, hard way, which will probably fail.
    2
  50. No, we don’t. We need a clean power source that is capable of out competing the dirty ones without having to tax them, and we have one, nuclear.
    2
  51. He’s Irish.
    2
  52. Tankers had casualty rate of 3%, infantry 18%. The Sherman had plenty of armor and firepower for at least 9 out of 10 situations. Also, the Sherman didn’t burn any more than any other tank.
    2
  53. We’ve already brought back some mass from the moon, and nothing has changed. The real question is how much mass would be needed to cause the problems you’re talking about, and the answer is about 10% the mass of the moon, which is trillions of tons.
    2
  54. gurnug, you’re including post war production of the T34. At the end of WW2 the Soviets had built something like 53-55 thousand T34s.
    2
  55. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    2
  56. Timothy Stamm, the Martian is a very accurate book/movie, but the strom was narrative device to kick the stroy off with. Andy Weir has said so himself. Also, small fast moving objects are going to punch through an object. If you want to move something, it best to use a large (relative) slow moving object to push it.
    2
  57. At least 30,000 of those T-34s were built after WW2. The Soviets didn’t stop building them until the 50s.
    2
  58. Several failed on the pad. That one was just particularly bad.
    2
  59. No, they just get it from their shadow empire
    2
  60. No, look up Thunderf00t’s videos on it.
    2
  61. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    2
  62. Power civilization with literally the strongest force in the universe!
    2
  63. At the time it was called a turbo-supercharger
    2
  64. It’s easier than the Arctic and Antarctic.
    1
  65. Moron, I’m only talking being able to sleep, like you were.
    1
  66. Yes, you are. You go on about things I was not replying too even after I told you that.
    1
  67. You’re the one started by talking about sleep then responded by saying sleeping is easier, at least as far as the day might cycle, than the Arctic and Antarctic. However, you being a moron don’t seem to understand the pronoun “it” is a stand-in for sleep.
    1
  68. Some people are also talking about using carbon allotropes.
    1
  69. Radiation isn’t nearly the danger people claim. No one has actually studied the effects of low gravity. We’ve studied micro-gravity, but not low gravity. We’ve launched several nuclear reactors into space, and there are a few new designs that need testing in space. We’ve confirmed water on the moon, not just hydrogen. As for your comment about Mars, Mars has even more water and gravity with less radiation, so by those standards it’s even easier.
    1
  70. They’re also one time use.
    1
  71. Step 3, ignore all the previous bs and build nuclear.
    1
  72. Solid fuel reactors are incredibly inefficient at burning the fuel. With more efficient gen. 4 reactors we can extend the uranium fuel we have and even use the spent fuel because it’s 97% unused uranium. Those alone will get us thousands of years. Then there’s the thorium cycle. Thorium is orders of magnitude more common than U-335.
    1
  73. Those are just lies.
    1
  74. Back then they were called turbo-super chargers.
    1
  75. Not really. The P-47 was designed to be fast, so it was built around a huge engine
    1
  76. On the moon there’s not really a need to lift heavy loads. Most mining on the moon is going to be scooping up regolith.
    1
  77. Thanks for being an exemplar of indoctrination into a doomsday cult.
    1
  78. They just leveled a farmer’s field and put down some metal grates. It’s impressive, but it was designed for fast instillation even just behind front lines. The US did the same thing all across the Pacific.
    1
  79. It’s possible but not economically viable.
    1
  80. The depth of detail. What kind of atlas tells you the size of sand grains?
    1
  81. We also have sources that avoid those problems.
    1
  82. The Germans knew the allies were planning an invasion to retake France, but they only had guesses as to when and where.
    1
  83. It’s remarkable how people think being in an armored box that moves and shoots back is a dangerous place to be on the battle field.
    1
  84. Humans need water. That doesn’t mean you wont poison yourself by drinking too much water. Too much of anything with throw the balance of a system off.
    1
  85. It’s an air defense system, supposedly the best in the world.
    1
  86. That’s a false dichotomy. There’s another option, nuclear, which is actually reliable and cheaper the renewables without the problems of fossil fuels.
    1
  87. The Sherman was very much a match for the Pz mk 3 and 4, which were the most common German tanks even late in the war. Also, the idea that tanks will just shrug off fire from any sized shell only real came about with Western MBTs being so successful against T72s.
    1
  88. I was thinking about the North Africa campaign as well. Given the context, I probably should have been more careful, but the point still stands that the Sherman was a match for the most common German tanks. It’s only against heavy tanks, which are designed with armor and firepower in mind above everything else, that Sherman had real problems. My point was that most tanks weren’t designed to defend against the heaviest guns the enemy had, and so criticizing the Sherman for not doing it is wrong.
    1
  89. First, he said on of the best. Second, 262, because it was the first operational jet fighter, had a lot of problems.
    1
  90. California is governed by feelings, so with the long standing fear mongering, nuclear never had a chance.
    1
  91. There’s a lot of raw materials on the moon, which are much easier to move to the rest of the solar system than if we tried sending them from Earth.
    1
  92. We would have to remove trillions of tons to cause that.
    1
  93. At the time they called it a turbo-supercharger
    1
  94. If you apply that same logic any other power source, and you get nearly 100% failure rate.
    1
  95. If we had the answers to those questions, we would already be colonizing space.
    1
  96. If people had everything you want to know, people can quantify the risks and costs after which they can make a business plan around.
    1
  97. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  98. Wind and solar don’t solve the first problem because of their huge dependence on natural gas.
    1
  99. The moon has no atmosphere and less than 1/2 the gravity of Mars.
    1
  100. 1) we have to make a working fusion reactor 2) it has to then be cheap and light enough to put into a rocket 3) it would still require propellant, just not fuel
    1
  101. Dawson Toulouse, panthers just weren’t common. Having a few upgunned Shermans worked with the few big cats that they ran across. Tank destroyers were supposed to be a reactionary force for counter attacking breakthroughs. In reality they were used more as artillery. However, neither role was offensive attacks against tanks. Medium tanks were infantry support tanks.
    1
  102. Lord Lima Bean, I said what was untrue. I’m guessing what you mean what makes it untrue. Well that’s a number of things. The first is what happens when you run out of battery storage? What happens when people are forced out of using electricity when they can’t afford the costs? What’s going to happen to the billions of solar panels and millions wind turbines when they need replacement?
    1
  103. John Turner, turning seawater in synthetic fuel is great idea, but I would be better just to use nuclear power to make it because it just saves the headaches of dealing with solar or wind.
    1
  104. Even if ever car was electric, they we barely make a dent in the amount that needs stored.
    1
  105. The US didn’t have the infrastructure to move heavy tanks by sea at the start of the war, main a lack of cranes with the needed lifting ability, and barely had any railcars, which were scattered all around the country, that could move a heavy tank. It wasn’t easy for the Ge, but they didn’t need a completely overhaul they’re system.
    1
  106. tazepat001, you have to store it to sell it and power vehicles. You can’t just have a hose connected to every car pumping hydrogen into them constantly as it’s being made and used.
    1
  107.  @andreiarama8745  so, you only use water when it rains for cooking, washing, drinking, etc. because it’s free, right?
    1
  108. RTGs have a very low power output. 100 Watts of electricity is fine for a prob, but just isn’t enough for maned missions.
    1
  109. That and the smallest tank unit is 5 tanks.
    1
  110. And creates bigger problems.
    1
  111. Such as the ecological damage done to the rive system, lack of damable rivers.
    1
  112. You’re right there’s always going to be some kind environmental impact, and we should use the least damaging source, which is one of the problems of pumped hydro electricity. Nuclear has a much smaller footprint than any other power source.
    1
  113. One of the least is not the least, and when we have the option to use the least, we should use that over more damaging options. Furthermore, we have thousands of years worth of fuel already dug up if we use the right types of reactors. I wish we had gen. IV reactors, but for the time being, PWRs are the best power source we have. At best solar and others should be supplementary.
    1
  114. We would have to remove more mass from the moon that we have mind in all of human history.
    1
  115. Hydrogen has too many problems.
    1
  116. The people who support nuclear are often engineers and scientists in relevant fields. Renewables are mostly supported by activists and know-nothings. You’re clearly a know-nothing.
    1
  117. Pumped hydro is cheap, but only works some places. Have you ever been to Kansas? I have, and they don’t have many hills, let alone mountains. Even where I live, there are a lot of steep hills, but they’re not large enough for a reservoir. There’s also water availability problems in dry climates. Telling people they’re just going to have to freeze to death isn’t going to go over well.
    1
  118. Germany has gone all in on renewables.
    1
  119. Good thing the new reactor designs don’t require human intervention
    1
  120.  @clarkkent9080  no, molten salt, liquid metal, helium cooled, and gen. 3+ light water reactors, are all passively safe and will not have a loss of coolant or anything else
    1
  121.  @clarkkent9080  when did I argue that nuclear needs passive safety to be safe? Yes, the US regulatory environment has made building nuclear plants hard and expensive. What does that have to do with safety? There other companies like X-energy. They just don’t get a lot of attention because their goal is to build reactors for industrial heat.
    1
  122.  @clarkkent9080  My dad has over 20 years of experience as a commercial building inspector, and so I know about shit people try pulling. However, that doesn’t turn what in South Korea is a 5 year project into a 20 year project. That takes multi year lawsuits and regulations were construction is basically stopped for months to years.
    1
  123. The Soviets had a very different idea of reliability.
    1
  124. Those are kill counts. Fighters still do that.
    1
  125. Soviet and now Russian ammo still likes to explode when the tank is hit.
    1
  126. You need to remember not having enough train cars to move thousands of heavy tanks or the cranes to load them onto ships.
    1
  127. I guess you’re brain has been eaten by the bird in your pic.
    1
  128. If anything, that make the problem worse.
    1
  129. At the time they were called turbo-superchargers.
    1
  130. Planting trees is extremely simplistic. Most trees are CO2 neutral to negative. They also can increase desertification and melting of permafrost
    1
  131.  @spaceman081447  lack of distinction and inability to adapt to the particular site.
    1
  132. RTGs don’t produce a lot of power, but an actual reactor would work.
    1
  133. Yeah, nuclear completely dominates in those.
    1
  134. There are 7 billion human and the population is growing. We can do multiple things at once. Also, the point of going to a dead planet is to bring it to life.
    1
  135.  @merlinthemagician3388  fuck off with that it’s impossible attitude. Those who say things are impossible are often proven wrong shortly after. Also, the point of expanding out is so that the Earth isn’t only place with life.
    1
  136. Sponsons suck, and the main gun is an anti-tank gun.
    1
  137. China thought the same thing, and they fucked themselves over because of it.
    1
  138. Most of the developments in nuclear are happening in the US and Canada.
    1
  139. People have been saying that for a long time, and it doesn’t matter if the cost is too high for people to buy the electricity.
    1
  140. French tanks had more armor, but the crew lay out was total shit.
    1
  141. Turbo-supercharger
    1
  142. Please, don’t. We don’t need more little YouTubes running around.
    1
  143. The terminology back them was different, and even then, the system wasn’t quite what we would understand as a turbocharger today.
    1
  144. You sure you want to be saying that?
    1
  145. 1) only coal and natural gas are cheaper 2) 5-10 years isn’t that long, and renewables have such short lifespans that once you’re “finished” building them out, you have start over. So renewables effectively have an infinite construction time. 3) the shutdown the reactors because there wasn’t enough water to run the turbines. The reactors had plenty of water to cool them. Moreover, not enough water is only a problem for water cooled reactors. There are dozens of different designs that use other coolants. 4) compare all the oil drilling and metal refining for that turbine then multiply by how many are need to equal a NPP. It’s not good. 5,6,&7) 1/10 the waste of solar. 8) solar panels and wind turbines are just dumped in land fills where they leach toxic chemicals in the ground water. 9) in Europe they’re building massive underwater cables between countries so they can share electricity from renewables. 10) the only even remotely effective way of generating electricity from renewables is in large solar and wind farms. Wind turbines are also getting bigger. The German government is subsidizing renewables more than any other.
    1
  146. Republicans tend to support this more than the Democrats. Also, Democrats are the ones who support NAMBLA.
    1
  147. The terminology was different back then. It used to be called a turbosupercharger. It also worked a little differently from the turbochargers you’re thinking of.
    1
  148. Yes, companies in the US, Canada, and Europe, and the Chinese have a government backed program.
    1
  149. @Seb C molten salt is less corrosive than water.
    1
  150. It’s a turbo-supercharger. The nomenclature at the time was a different
    1
  151. The Soviets only built about 55 thousand T34s during the war. The difference is that the Soviets kept building them into the 1950s.
    1
  152. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  153. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  154. He’s Irish.
    1
  155. There’s lots of work to be done, but it’s going very quickly.
    1
  156. It didn’t have any real problems in the flight envelope it was designed for, and all planes have problems outside of the envelope they’re designed for.
    1
  157. The Web telescope cost so much because it’s complex and the construction was badly managed.
    1
  158. Wind and solar don’t work, and their unreliability causes massive price increases to the whole system. Nuclear, when built in a regulatory system that isn’t actively hostile, doesn’t suffer massive delays.
    1
  159. Sullying a lifeless rock? Do you understand what the words you’re using mean?
    1
  160. Spent fuel isn’t anything near that toxic. You’ve been watching too much Greenpeace propaganda.
    1
  161. French and British tanks had some major deficiencies. The only thing reason the Germans had a problem with them was German tanks weren’t armed well enough.
    1
  162. You’re government band the only thing that can get us off of fossil fuels, nuclear decades ago, so no amount of effort is going to be enough.
    1
  163. The “too cheap to meter” was made up by marketers, not engineers.
    1
  164. The Beaufighter might be more underrated.
    1
  165. I always find people who argue that the Germans could have done it hilariously ill informed.
    1
  166. The fatality rate for infantry was 18% the fatality rate for tankers was 3% in the US army. I personally would care all that much if the other guy has a bigger meaner armored box if I have the choice of no armored box and armored box. The US designed their armored box so they could get as many made and kept running as possible.
    1
  167. That’s not terraforming. By definition every climate on Earth is earth-like.
    1
  168. Solar is a terrible idea on the moon, so it doesn’t really matter.
    1
  169. The best solution is to get rid of the problem all together, and just use nuclear power.
    1
  170.  @thomaspriewasser6660  why would you need fuel? An electric climber on a tether to the ground is by far the easiest and most efficient way of getting to the ring. The ring itself is likely to be proving the power with solar panels. Also, you underestimate the difficulty of operating a hypersonic plane or the discomfort of a 20 hour flight.
    1
  171. WW2 was a war of numbers. There were 1,500 Tigers built. There were 50,000 Shermans built. The Sherman was also designed to not have a mechanical problems for 2,000 miles, and when there was a problem, it was quick and easy to fix. All the German tanks were over engineered, which caused they a lot maintenance and repairs when they needed every tank they could produce.
    1
  172. The only viable option, particularly with the 2 week long day night cycle.
    1
  173. There are a lot of stupid and unnecessary build regulations, but there are some very important safety regulations, many of which are written in blood.
    1
  174. You can only reduce demand by about 20% before it starts making people poorer
    1
  175. Ken Smith, we’re talking about a lot more than just houses. Car factories, server farms, etc., that make and run the cars, smartphones, game consoles, etc, we use can use a small city’s worth electricity, and they all do the best at optimizing their efficiency to stay competitive. There’s a huge amount of electricity being used in the background people don’t see, and no matter how efficient, living a modern 1st world lifestyle requires huge amounts of energy.
    1
  176. It was designed for air combat, and ground attack planes were common for the larger air forces.
    1
  177. gurnug, the US stop building Shermans a couple months after the war was over, while the Soviets kept building T34s until 1958. Those aren’t comparable.
    1
  178. Drop the unreliable renewables and just use the nuclear 24/7/365.
    1
  179. If it’s spent fuel, 97% unused uranium, from PWR/BWR, we store it until something like IFR or MSR can burn it. The waste from MSRs and other advanced reactors, we remove the useful isotopes then encase what’s in concrete and drop it in a hole for a couple hundred years until it’s inert.
    1
  180. If you’re asking if the fuel system is pressurized, yes, all liquid fueled rockets have pressurized systems. If you’re asking about a cabin area, no, the superheavy is the booster, so it won’t have people in it.
    1
  181. Pressurization isn’t critical to structural integrity.
    1
  182. The terminology of the time was trubo-super charger.
    1
  183.  @4literv6  nuclear is blocked at every turn, while renewables have complete government support, and yet, renewables are only equal to 50 year old reactors. If we actually supported nuclear, it would blow everything out of the water.
    1
  184. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  185.  @clarkkent9080  if any other power source had to go through even half of what nuclear does, they would be more expensive then nuclear. Also, that’s only in the west. South Korea has built multiple plants for a fraction of the cost.
    1
  186.  @clarkkent9080  you’re half right. Delays are the main reason for cost overruns, but it has nothing to do with building to high standards. Nuclear in the US has massive regulatory and legal challenges
    1
  187. He was trying to make the nomenclature less confusing, but probably cause more in the process
    1
  188. Wind doesn’t kill anyone when it fails because it’s already done killing people while the minerals are being minded and the turbines are being installed. Also, look how many people were killed by Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
    1
  189. Capitalist democracies and communism are fundamentally apposed to each other. Also, the Soviets did a lot more spying on the West than the other way around.
    1
  190. Batteries are about their limit. They’re already at energy densities comparable to high explosives.
    1
  191. Nuclear as a technology fits your criteria better than anything else. The problem nuclear has is purely political.
    1
  192. Only about 20% of the time were Shermans fighting other tanks, and only a fraction of that was fighting the big cats that needed the 17 pounder.
    1
  193. The light from the fires is being refracted through the water.
    1
  194. Said every socialists before their country’s economy imploded.
    1
  195. Passively safe designs. Battery storage is the most expensive energy source on earth
    1
  196.  @grantdawson767  thanks for taking care of that for me.
    1
  197. That’s why SpaceX are planning to go beyond LEO.
    1
  198. After the first couple test models have been through testing, SpaceX are planning on sending missions to the moon, Mars, and possibly further out into the solar system.
    1
  199. Or we can just dig the batteries nature has already made that do all of that.
    1
  200. The future isn’t making storage, but using the natural storage of nuclear fuel.
    1
  201.  @lawrencewright2816  and they were under british command.
    1
  202. Ben M, anti-tank guns killed the most tanks.
    1
  203. Some Thing, with seawater extraction of uranium, it actually is. However, more importantly, nuclear is sustainable, unlike everything else.
    1
  204. The most energy intensive part of the making steel is heating the crucibles of steel, and that happens 24/7/365.
    1
  205. You live in a fantasy world
    1
  206. You’re conflating nuclear reactors with nuclear weapons. Sure there’s obviously overlap, but that’s like saying conflating fertilizer manufacturing with bomb making.
    1
  207. You have to have both. It’s just that the US and Soviet Union favored different mixes because of their particular needs.
    1
  208. Oil requires life, a lot of it, and geological activity. Even if Mars has small pockets of life, there’s not nearly enough, and Mars has been geologically dead for a very long time.
    1
  209. Jinx Jones, took and IQ test as a kid. I got 130, so even if a lost a few over the years I’m well above average. However, everything I said is based on common knowledge.
    1
  210. If you’re producing more benefit then you’re consuming, you should be able to make a profit, and nuclear does make a profit.
    1
  211. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  212. No, they’re not cheaper. Moreover, they’re limited to particular places with major drawbacks
    1
  213.  @zen1647  a renewable lobbyist group’s hypothetical doesn’t out do the empirical evidence of the electricity prices in Germany and France. Germany has sky high prices from their solar and wind. France has some of the lowest in Europe with most of their electricity coming from nuclear.
    1
  214. Back then they were called turbo-superchargers.
    1
  215. Every decision they made required more time and maintenance than they could afford.
    1
  216. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  217. At the time they were called turbo-superchargers.
    1
  218. Sure, you can, but don’t except it to travel very far.
    1
  219. The Sherman was very much meant to fight other tanks. Also, Tigers weren’t common enough to really to justify the logistics and training problems with the 76.
    1
  220. Gwinny Larayette, training crews on a whole other gun was the problem.
    1
  221. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  222. The moon probably won’t ever rebel because of how close the moon is. Mars, now that’s a different story.
    1
  223. Stainless steel was a common material for rockets back in the 50/60s. It’s properties are well known and advantages in important ways.
    1
  224. No, but the guys who designed the old Atlas rockets and Starship are.
    1
  225. Hey, I’m not the only one to mention Greg.
    1
  226.  @laertesl4324  there’s nothing to apologize for. It was in a reply, but more importantly, I was celebrating the fact another fan of Greg’s channel is here.
    1
  227. It also takes time to install new cranes. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got the best tanks in the world if the fight is over by the time you get there.
    1
  228. The 76 was made out of stronger steel, so it could withstand a larger charge with a higher barrel pressure.
    1
  229. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  230. There’s a reason the A-10’s official name is Thunderbolt II.
    1