Comments by "The Esseboy" (@TheEsseboy) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. Gas needs oxygen to burn...there is no oxygen in those...it would just make very hot gas, nothing dangerous. Besides, they are not drilling for gas, so they are drilling in totally different regions than gas rich places...
    1
  2. A: Nitrogen/Argon purge gas through a internal extraction pipe B: No, it is rotating for the same reason drills are, to make a round hole, the drilled hole and the final hole is the same diameter. C: 1 MW, not much different compared to a normal drill rig.
    1
  3. Such an awesome ceewl cer, such wide tyjers
    1
  4. Starship is already delayed by 4 years...and they have no working plan of fixing their current issues with poor engine reliability.
    1
  5. Earth is not even flat, what a goober.
    1
  6. Ehhh, there is literally no evidence for extraterrestrial beings on earth...touch grass bro
    1
  7. Not really, it was one of the only turbo-supercharged planes in WW2, using exhaust gases as power for supercharging, making it easier to maintain boost pressure at high altitudes. The water/methanol injection acted as cooling, not as extra oxygen, but the cooling in turn allowed higher boost pressures and higher air density being pushed into the engine, so yes, it has some characteristics of nitrous. This was however not unique, both German and Japanese planes used this ik the war. It was unique because of combining turbo-supercharging, radial-aircooled engine, water/methanol in a single engine fighter with a study frame.
    1
  8. Except Starship is a failure and will probably never be able to fly reliably enough for a crewed mission.
    1
  9. Well, that would require powerlines of a size never seen before. Oil can be transported with losses in the single digit %ages, the same cannot be said for long distance electricity transmission.
    1
  10. ​ @TheBogdanator The craters are billions of years old...they were created by impacts from all the debris when the solar system formed....not from recent impacts...
    1
  11. No one but car nuts noticed what model or make that was...it is the combination of middle age, divorced and driving one that is pathetic...chill. Svara
    1
  12. Debris would obscure the light quickly...a borehole is not a clean enviroment.
    1
  13.  @graemepennell  It is, but the wrong kind, better off using solar panels to power the Gyrotron instead.
    1
  14.  @graemepennell  Transmitting that light down a hole to a depth of 9-20 km would loose almost all the light, and even then it would struggle to vaporize the rock, you would probably need 1-10 GW of light to do it, and only about 20% of the time there would be enough sun light to power it.
    1
  15.  @NathanaelHowland  They literally had to invent all the stuff for it...ofc it was expensive...but still, they landed six times at a cost of 23 billion per year, impressive for doing so many firsts, and with only 3 failures. Starship will cost about 2 billion per launch, they need 12-24 launches to refuel Artemis in orbit, do the math...unless Space X figures out how to reuse the Raptor engines, stop the upper stage from melting and quickly reuse the bodies...they are going to lose the contract quick...they are already 5 years behind schedule.
    1
  16. Say that to the Anti-vaxxers, forced birthers, Anti-LGBTQIA+, Billionair simps, genocide lovers and so on. Politics is all around us, and people who ignore it are destined to be ruled by evil people.
    1
  17.  @ElizabethBone-nz3rl  Where did they state that?
    1
  18.  @AnonymousFreakYT  Yea that is clearly bogus, it would be true IF the cost was the same or not much higher per weight transported, which it clearly isn't!
    1
  19. No one but car nuts noticed what model or make that was...it is the combination of middle age, divorced and driving one that is pathetic...chill.
    1
  20.  @zachb1706  You missed the aspect when they can crash into other low orbit satellites or junk, and start a chain reaction, which will send debris into a higher orbit as collisions send som debris flying fast essentially boosting it's orbit.
    1
  21.  @weekiely1233  It's 4 years late to be on Mars...at this pace it will be another 4 before they even reach the moon.
    1
  22.  @Amsterdampardoc1  Reliability of the Engines, fuel tanks, RCS thrusters. Not to mention they haven't even started testing any crewable versions yet.
    1
  23.  @weekiely1233  He is the CEO...ofc it matters...it's not like he is a random Twitter user. Ofc, but did they promise to launch and tell everyone how it will be all sunshine and transphobic rainbows? No...they said the planned to be ready by then....not that they WILL be ready.... Starship exploded 3 times in a year...which is not impressive at all at any scale. Starship will not launch a payload in reusable mode sucessfully let alone a human in at least 2-3 years, and for humans, I don't see how they could without hundreds of sucessfull flights or a total redesign of all systems.
    1
  24.  @weekiely1233 Being optimistic and lying is not the same think...like when he saiad they could NOW do full self driving safer than humans...when they clearly could not. Like when he said that the Rapotr engines where reliable enough NOW, when they clearly where not even based on engine static testing data that where publicly availible... Elon doesnt just say thinks are optimistic, he straight up lies.
    1
  25.  @weekiely1233  Except, it has never driven fully by itself yet...and had many deadly collisions that a normal driver would avoid. It is not called optimism, it is called lying when you tell someone you can do something you have internal data that clearly says you CANNOT do it. It does prove that he is lying, he made a statement that contradicts his own internal data...that is called lying.
    1
  26.  @weekiely1233  In December 2015, Musk predicted that "complete autonomy" would be implemented by 2018 At the end of 2016, Tesla expected to demonstrate full autonomy by the end of 2017 April 2017, Musk predicted that in around two years, drivers would be able to sleep in their vehicle while it drives itself. In 2018 Tesla revised the date to demonstrate full autonomy to be by the end of 2019. In January 2020, Musk claimed the FSD software would be "feature complete" by the end of 2020, adding that feature complete "doesn't mean that features are working well". In early 2021, Musk stated that Tesla would provide SAE Level 5 autonomy by the end of 2021 And he also said on stage to the public, that if you didn't buy aTEsla you where stupid, because you will be able to earn money with it by letting IT act as an taxi and earn money for you while you work or have time off. He wasn't just optimistic, he was and is still pushing his promises forward a year or two at a time, still promising sunshine and transphobic rainbows. Elon is a fraud, always have been, always delivering the bare minimum while promising to be better in everyway compared to everyone else....and blaiming everyone else for his own lies and fraudulent claims.
    1
  27. Gas pockets rarely contain oxygen, so no, it would not explode.
    1
  28. Ehh, even if you mined 10% of the moons mass, it would not change its orbit one bit... And here we have the prime example of dunning-kruger effect 😂 There is no cycle to geniuses...how many we have is a function of Living standards and how many humans there is.
    1
  29.  @Opusss  Using hydrogen for rocket flight is a whole different ball game, they need to reach mach 20-29 and reach altitudes of 200-1000+ km. Weight weight and weight is the issue there, for aircraft it is much less of an issue.
    1
  30.  @Opusss  Not really, as when you use heavier tanks risks of leaks are less likely.
    1
  31. Ehm, you know those craters are billions of years old...they are from the formation of the solar system....or have you seen many being created on the moon recently?
    1
  32. No one but car nuts noticed what model or make that was...it is the combination of middle age, divorced and driving one that is pathetic...chill.
    1