Comments by "The Esseboy" (@TheEsseboy) on "Thunderf00t"
channel.
-
9
-
9
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well, so you like people who have been charged not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, not six times, not seven times, not eight times, not nine times, not ten times, not eleven times, not twelve times, not thirteen times, not fourteen times, not fifteen times, not 16 times, not 17 times, not 18 times, not 19 times, not 20 times, not 21 times, not 22 times, not 23 times, not 24 times, not 25 times, not 26 times, not 27 times, not 28 times, not 29 times, not 30 times but 31 TIMES for fellonies...
You would love to have criminals run the streets? Heck, just open the doors to all prisons while we are at it? Right? And stop with the courts, just shut them down?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ The difference between a person with a damaging and destructive world view is this, their aim is to gain more power than is good for society, they aim to empower a certain group of people far beyond what is reasonable...and they do not care if they hurt others.
What I have done is not the subject of this conversation...as all humans I lie, nothing I am proud of and certainly not a tool of mine to gain success and power...that is when it become dangerous.
I identify as a social democratic person, I think we should aim to reduce the suffering of as many people we can in short, I believe in equal rights and personal rights, strong work rights for employees and a strong social safety system in regards to income, job security, healthcare, parental care, child care and care for the elderly. We should also focus on reducing our racist, xeonophobic and ignorant tendencies by integrating people who work on this into corporations, institutions and government agencies.
Sure you can call more people twisted, but your definition of twisted is probably completly different than mine. I am not surprised in the slightest.
Please paint a picture for me so to speak, it would be interesting if you could explain how you see the world in detail. Hope you have time to answer. Take care :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AWAVAVA I would be surprised if they reach 100 tons in reusable mode, realistically I think they will have to settle for 60-80 tons if they can't get their current heat shield layout to work, might even be as low as 50 tons to LEO. They clearly have severely underestimated the insulation and tiles needed for re-entry, the upper stage is HUGE, we are talking several tons just to insulate the parts that have zero insulation (like the spaceshuttle had, the white insulation on top of the craft), then many more tons of tiles as they probably need to be thicker and or cover more area.
Then we have reusability, as it stands it seems like the engines run way too hot being crowded like that under the booster, so more insulation might be needed to have a higher rate of reuse.
All in all, it looks like they will have to enlarge it to reach their design goal of 200 tons to orbit in reusable mode, 100 tons might be achievable IF they are fortunate enough to only need to redesign the insulation and not add much much more of it....which I doubt as so much of it got glowing hot.
1
-
@AWAVAVA SLS is human rated, and it's componenets are proven to be reliable. Launch cost is 2.6 billion, mostly due to them NOT being allowed to develop new systems and where FORCED to use old systems, engines and boosters...
As you increase the weight of anything that is NOT fuel, you have to bring about 50 to 100 times that weight in fuel to bring it to space...meaning, if you add 1 ton of tiles to the upper stage, you need 50-100 tons of fuel to compensate! If we compare it to the most similar rocket and adjust it because it uses solid rockets in combination with hydrogen oxygen engines (Space shuttle), we are looking at a 1.5-1.8 % launch efficiency (Cargo mass to orbit of total launch weight), Hence, if you increase the mass of the upper stage by 1 ton, you need 55-66 tons of fuel to compensate, and in my mind they need AT LEAST 2 tons more heat tiles and 3-5 tons of insulation else where on the upper stage, meaning they will need 275-462 tons more fuel to reach orbit. The add 60 tons of cargo and we are looking at 3,300 to 4,000 tons more fuel for the cargo, 100 tons is 5,500 to 6,600 tons...200 tons is 11,000 to 13,200 tons!
This is why you don't make a reusable second stage UNLESS you need to bring satellites down from orbit...which is why they made the space shuttle, that and the curiosity about it. For a heavy launch rocket it is utterly dumb, unless you wanna increase launch costs by 30-50% (if not more as you need larger launch pads, infrastructure etc.)
1
-
1
-
@AWAVAVA I was refering to the inherent problems of making a fully reusable rocket, it leads to a lower payload to orbit in comparison to launch mass...meaning you need much heavier rocket for the given payload to space...you cannot get around this unless you find a much lighter way of heat shielding the last stage of the rocket, as it needs to survive full re-entry speeds!
No, I am not giving you a trust me bro source, there is ample amounts of articles, books and lectures on this topic you can look up yourself, it is not a novel issue, this is why most of the rocket industry have settled on partially or single use rockets, the benefits of reusability doesn't outweigh the fact you need a 30-50% larger rocket...and going from a 5,000 ton rocket to a 6,500 - 7,500 ton rocket is not small, it requires totaally different launch pad infrastructure!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1