Comments by "The Esseboy" (@TheEsseboy) on "Scott Manley" channel.

  1.  @psmirage8584  I don't think so, but he paid other people who can to do it for him.
    6
  2. Just put a huge Xeon container up with it and a good ion thruster :) There are experminetal 5 Newton thrusters, and it is possible to achieve several years of lifetime. So a service interval of 3-4 years maybe?
    4
  3. This was without payload and minimum reetry speed...still almost burned up and booster suffered two engine failures. Elon has failed with Hyperloop, booring company, Tesla Semi, Tesla self driving, New Tesla Roadster, Cybertruck, Starship still melts and cannot carry a payload while still having engine failures. What has he achieved again? Oh yea, he also destroyed Twitter, is bancrupting Tesla etc.
    2
  4. That's what you get for storing fuel in uncovered steel tanks at the launch platform 😂 The layout is amateur to say the least.
    2
  5. Remember, this was without any payload and at minimum reentry speed. They have a lot to prove before it will be safe for humans, let alone reusability.
    1
  6.  @orionbarnes1733  Which is not reusable, not safe to do and would most probably have killed anyone inside with all that heat going inside it...
    1
  7.  @pastashack3517  Okay bot number 3517
    1
  8. Why is Twitter the main channel besides Youtube you have for other social medias? I smell a Musky contract.
    1
  9. Hardly, it first needs to prove the booster and upper stage is reusable! As it is they cost several billions of dollars PER LAUNCH!! No one wants to pay that.
    1
  10.  @nicolasgrippo  Source? 39 raptor engines alone costs 1-2 billion dollars...but they hide it as they never give out production costs...
    1
  11.  @nicolasgrippo  SpaceX is not publicly listed, so they can cook the numbers all they want...the only ones who truly know their expenses is the IRS.
    1
  12.  @Jan12700  They lost communications from 15-35.... Because adding a payload would mean the booster would not have enough fuel to boost the upper stage into orbit, as it is it barely had enough to land with it's malfunctioning engines. If it had a payload it wouldn't have survived...because they cannot even open the doors to let it out in space.
    1
  13.  @Jan12700  Suuuuure, telemetry is on a different antenna....they lost the cameras due to Starlink failing dude.....
    1
  14.  @Jan12700  Do you know how Saturn V and the Space shuttle made it on first attempt?
    1
  15.  @unownyoutuber9049  Saturn was only 1 year behind schedule when it launched it's first crewed flight. The Space Shuttle was 3 years behind. Starship is now 6 years and counting behind schedule.
    1
  16. Still failing at the fourth atempt? Nahh, Apollo did not explode on the first launch you know.
    1
  17.  @unownyoutuber9049  It was literally doing many firsts back then...and mind you it was close to 60 years ago.
    1
  18. Your mic is clipping badly here, try to turn down the gain :)
    1
  19. The uncontrollable leaks also didn't help
    1
  20. But is it any closer to being safe? Not really, mind you it will have to do at least 10 100% flawless flights before any human will fly on it. And now it seems to be a flip of a coin if it explodes before reaching orbit.
    1
  21.  @FoogleBoogle  If it has a success rate of 0% in transporting anything safely to orbit, (remember, the upper stage was NOT fitted with 100-150 tons of cargo or dummy weights)... No, this was another failure, and SpaceX marketing is pulling out all stops as usual to try and sell the pig in a bag to the people.
    1
  22.  @AJCCycling  It is 5-6 years behind schedule, they are loosing parts worth hundreds of millions each failed flight... It's only a plaster on a gaping flesh wound that they said there will be high risk...it is still a bad development decision, business decision and wasteful. The images getting safely to earth is hardly what I meant by being safe for humans...
    1
  23. That flap is half a tennis court size. And no, it should be going to Mars by now...not still almost exploding.
    1
  24. The booster is supposed to land at the launch pad, but they know it is too unreliable and would probably destroy the lauchpad if they tried.
    1
  25.  @michaelshada262  Just that it leaked and used too much fuel to get the upper stage into orbit....and they lost another 39 engines valued 1-2 billion dollars.
    1
  26. No, it only shows with luck and NO payload or fuel reserves with minimal flight time it will, add 100 tons of payload and it won't survive.
    1
  27. It's only 200 tons, 9 meters in diameter and whooping 71 meters long, so would look more like a sodacan getting crushed. Probably odd looking for sure. If you scale it to soda can size it would be hitting the ocean at a pedestrian 2 km/h.
    1
  28. Ehm, did you miss the part where large areas of the upper stage melted? This is not having proven it will work, it is not reusable! And worst of all it is more expensive than other lauch vehicles.
    1
  29.  @simongeard4824  So they skipped a bunch of tests because they barely got it suborbital, how are they going to get 100 tons to space with barely enough fuel when they run empty?
    1
  30. I feel like this was waaaay to kind to SpaceX, still haven't got the leaks from the tanks/engines under control. Still RCS problems on the upper stage. Basically the only achievement was telemetry, first stage partial return burn and improved video feeds.
    1
  31. I think Elon is foaming more around the mouth to sit on Twitter all day circle jerking with his fan boys.
    1
  32. When will they reuse the booster and second stage? When will they deliver a payload to space and return without melting? When will they practice the fuel transfer they've been contracted to do with the Artemis program? Tick tock Space X...tick tock...
    1
  33.  @jean-marcgruninger9019  Saturn V took 1 year and zero explosions to get to Space with crew....Space Shuttle succeded on first attempt!
    1
  34.  @jean-marcgruninger9019  Are you five years old?
    1
  35.  @Jan12700  Tell me you are an Elon Musk NPC simp without telling me.
    1
  36. Still lost the booster, still no RCS control on the upper stage, door malfunction and much more. Remember how rockets made in the US used to go on first test launch? Straight to space and returned safely.
    1
  37.  @tysondog-original  Name one recent made in the US rocket which failed 3 times in a row with full scale testing.
    1
  38.  @pindot787  Apollo 4, the first full scale launch did not explode, lost no engines and completed all goals. Did you forget history? We are on the 3rd full scale test flight...both the first and second stage failed catastrophically again... SpaceX is trying to save money, but ends up wasting hundreds of engines, wrecking several "reusable" stages, destroying the launch complex over and over... At this pace, Starship will be human rated by 2034...
    1
  39.  @pindot787  It wasn't designed or planned to return. And Starship lost control in space... burned up on re-entry. While the crew capsule returned safely. Starship also didn't manoeuvre in space, had an uncontrolled leak in both the first stage and second stage, lost RCS control etc. Comparing the first Saturn V flight to Starships first flight, which is apples to apples...thats another story.
    1
  40.  @tysondog-original  So 60 years ago. Wow, and remember, back then rockets where ACTUALLY new technology, and they didn't have fancy computers to run their telemetry, control etc, they where extremely basic. Now SpaceX has access to computer simulations, live cameras and sensors etc... Starship is also mind you about 5-6 years behind what E.R.M promised. It is the same story as with the Hyperloop, Booring company, Tesla Semi, Cyber truck, full self driving, Twitter etc. Musk is a hype person, a liar, greedy and very naive person.
    1
  41.  @tysondog-original  Except they have not proven they can reuse the rockets to the extent of getting even close to space shuttle costs (which had reusable boosters and upper stage...) Starship needs larger engines for the first stage to improve reliability and therefor risks of leaks. It needs a fuel system that doesn't stave the engines all the time, it needs an upper stage that actually doesn't leak due to the hot staging, engine malfunctions etc... Many have tried to be innovative etc...don't paint SpaceX as unique in that sense...what IS unique is their waste of money, time and many failures. The dream of Starship costing 1 million dollars to launch is impossible, with that many engines at least one or more will fail every flight, we have the data on their engine static tests, they are not nearly reliable enough even at sea level standing perfectly still....and one engine is far more than 1 million dollars. 💸 taxpayer money being pissed away due to rushed tests, lack of understanding of FUNDAMENTAL rocketry design we mastered five decades ago....this is another N1 rocket. Maybe it will work at some point due to modern computer control, but with that many engines....it is a flipp of a coin wether you live or die...wether the cargo burns or explodes, wether Elon is present to tell people to clap while it is exploding....
    1
  42.  @tysondog-original  Oh, I forgot starship exploded 3 times already, we can discuss that when starship have sucessfully completed a full mission. Apollo: 1, Starship: -3
    1
  43.  @pindot787  Which they did not do, as the Starship got damaged probably due to the hot staging, was not stable in orbit and could not even fore it's engines to correct course. It doesn't matter what they said before, what matters is 117 raptor engines lost so far...and yet to be proven reliable at launching, hot staging, orbital burns etc. What they really learned from this flight is they will need another cash 💰 injection by the taxpayers, the engines are a tiny bit more reliable, but still not reliable for hotstaging, orbit or return. Starship will be a costly one, and mind you, development will be part of the cost to launch in the future...you cannot just hide it and call it a success.
    1
  44.  @tysondog-original  The difference is quite tiny on the grada scheme of things, what is MASSIVE is how low reliability SpaceX has after 2 failed flights, a 10+ ton heavier empty weight and an Elon Musk who didn't even attend out of shame.
    1
  45.  @tysondog-original  Because there frankly isn't a huge market for rockets that costs several hundreds of millions per launch. And satellites are getting smaller and lighter. Russia doesn't have the funds, China is still gaining knowledge and creating a base of knowledgeable engineers and scientist, and still do not have unlimited amounts of funds. Europe doesn't see the benefit of giant rockets when you can make do with medium sized ones that actually work. You still keep dodging the issue, 3 full scale launches, 3 catastrophic failures.
    1
  46.  @pindot787  SpaceX was given 3 billion dollars...NASA is 100% funded by taxpayers... The upper stage had an uncontrolled leak after hot-staging. The simulated fuel transfer has not been confirmed with data or other evidence. The doors never opened fully, and where not able to close. Elon emerald Musk promised starship would be 100% reusable for 100 flights before needing replacement parts...
    1
  47.  @tysondog-original  Sure, but when Including all the labour, launch faclities, propellant and exploded Starships, we are probably looking att billions per lauch of Starship in near time. I am against all private space programs that are not accountable for their actions, lie about scheduels and proclaim failures as victories...expecially when they get kick backs from the government. Ofc, Jeff Bezos is another Billionaire like the rest, but at least he has not been openly racist, buys social media to try and create more die-hard fans and to spread more hype and rightwing nonsense. When we look at the list of how Starship is doing and how far they are behind scheduel, it is not pretty...especially as Elon Emerald mine son Musk lied arrogantly about being able to fly to Mars by 2020.... Starship: -5-6 years behind scheduel for a flying none exploding reusable launch platform -Engines still not last even one flight, let alone the promised 100 flights. -Upperstage still leaking, loosing RCS control and cannot open the door fully, or close it. -No data on fuel transfer -Upperstage couldn't initiate return burn -10-15 tons heavier empty weight for stage one, still loosing engines on hotstaging, still creating leaks on hotstaging -Damages lauch facility every lauch, needs to be added to launch costs. - Tiles missing on upper stage, meaning even if everything else where to function, would probably burn up on reentry.
    1
  48. So it is reusable? No engines failed? They delivered payload to orbit? Fuel transfer between two space craft? When are they launching regualrly reused rockets?
    1
  49.  @joshuachan6317  Suuure, I think doing a couple extra simulations and calculations would have saved them the 5-10 billions they now spent learning that 39 engines is too much when the best one lasted 900 seconds in total of test firings before it failed....they need to be able to fire them for an hour to not risk loosing multiple engines. They only showed that this system is far faaar away from working yet.
    1
  50. They will probably barely get the RCS to work and the upper stage will melt on re-entry. And I am doubtful they will be able to have control of the first stage as they still struggle to relight the engines. SpaceX loves burning government dollars 💰💵
    1