Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Thunderf00t" channel.

  1. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Just some perspective on Crew Dragon and SORRY that this is long. First I absolutely agree that there's massive issues with Elon Musk and how he does business that's perfectly obvious. There's also no doubt the Gwynne Shotwell has said some dumb things which Thunderf00t and others have pointed out. I am also of the same opinion that both Starlink and Starship are doomed to fail (see below). If we are going to fairly judge Falcon9/Crew Dragon then it needs to be compared against its actual competition. You pointed out that a Falcon9 launch costs $67 Million. I have seen Crew Dragon costed at $70 Million. Crew Dragon delivers 4 people to the ISS on each flight making it a cost of $17.5 million per astronaut to the ISS. The last seat an American had on Soyuz has been reported at $80 Million for 1 person. The Space Shuttle cost $350-450 Million per launch and despite its ability to carry up to 8 people it only ever delivered 3 to the ISS for a crew rotation but the others on a flight did stuff while there so its harder to cost but its safe to say it cost over $80 Million for each astronaut who stayed and did a stint on the ISS. However the Space shuttle could also deliver at the same time 16 tons of cargo to the ISS and that's basically 4-5 times Cargo Dragon. So when you consider the Space shuttle on each flight did the equivalent of 5-6 Falcon 9s its in the same ball park as Falcon 9. Here's the ugly comparison - Boeing Starliner the Boeing Max-8 of space flight. The Boeing Starliner which has had more than $550 Million in US Government money ($92M in 2011 and another $460M in 2012) for development is yet to fly successfully. According to Wikipedia Boeing has incurred costs between 2020 and 2022 of $883M and considering its cost plus contracting the US tax payer will eventually cop those costs. So for more than $1.3 Trillion (with a 't') the Boeing Starliner has flown twice for 1 failed mission and 1 partly failed mission. Basically Crew Dragon is NOT a major step forward or a revolutionary rocket. It is however an improvement on what NASA had especially following the demise of the Space Shuttle. Importantly compared to its main opposition (Starliner) it "looks" pretty magical but that's because Starliner really sucks. Crew Dragon is a step backwards so that NASA can go forwards. Thunderf00t has been around enough engineering project and research work to know that at times you simply have to step backwards because you've run into a wall. Going back to the SPACE SHUTTLE and heads up I did a comprehensive review of its history several years ago as part of the lessons learned section of a proposal. Its basic dry weight is 75 tons. So before you even give it people and cargo you have to lift 75t around 200km and then accelerate it to around 25,000 kmh. Those numbers get bigger going to the Space Station which is why its LEO payload is listed as 30t and its payload to the ISS is listed at 16t. So that 75t is a massive cost but it was sort of offset by reusability, but even that had issues. On top of those fuel costs the Space Shuttle required a lot more manpower to service it than first planned. Its one of the main reasons manned space flight stalled. All the things needed to go further and do things like build a lunar base needed people working on the technologies needed. Not only did the Space Shuttle consume money it also consumed the time people needed to do other things. THAT'S what made the Space Shuttle a failure. Technically it was an amazing achievement but for manned space flight it cost us 30-40 years. STARLINK It will fail just like the Iridium satellite phone system failed. Its a solution to a problem that does not exist. This is what kills many (what people think are) great ideas. If you are in a remote location it might provide a service but for anyone with an easy link to broad band then what does it offer? Plus the optic fibres that broad band is based on don't need to be replaced every few years in the same way the Starlink satellites drop out of orbit. Plus if you want to upgrade your broad band system Bob the Builder's mate Eric the Electro-tech can drive to the network hub and swap out the nodes. 🤷‍♂🤷‍♂ STARSHIP Not long after the Soviet Union collapsed the Russians released a trove of information on their lunar program based around the N-1 rocket. Go have a look at the arrangement of the motors in the N-1's first stage. YES Starship has a similar arrangement and when you know what the issues with the N-1 were, which I have known for over 20 years having read reviews on the N-1 back in the 1990s. The big problem the N-1 had was if they had a motor failure in the outer ring they needed to shut down the motor directly opposite or the off centre load would make the rocket uncontrollable. The Soviets had a system to do that automatically but it failed to work properly and the N-1 did a very similar thing to what we saw with Starship. Starship not only has the same inherent issue of the N-1 their control system for handling engine failures has the same issues the Russians had in the 1970s. Clearly that first flight showed it does NOT have the control range to handle the sorts of failures it had. But that's nothing. STARSHIP LAUNCH SITE. I have spent most of my engineering career in industrial control systems which has included safety systems. I had the second highest qualification available in that area at one stage. SO I AM FORMALLY TRAINED in assessing sites and systems for hazard identification, risk assessments and risk mitigation strategies. That launch site should never have been approved. for use. 1) The launch pad had no thrust diverter and when you consider the mass flow out of those engines (~26 tons per second at over 3.2km/s) and its just slamming into a flat surface. Look up the Wikipedia page for the N-1 and look at the size of the 3 exhaust tunnels. No one should have been surprised that the launch platform failed and chunks of concrete were ripped up and tossed 100s of meters. 2) Right beside the launch pad are the rocket fuel and oxygen storage tanks. If you look at the photos it had a small deflection barrier less than 1/2 the height of those tanks. That barrier means they expected rocket exhaust gases to head towards those tanks and they were left seriously exposed. On basic safety grounds that site should never have been allowed to be used for such a launch and quite possibly ANY LAUNCH. For anyone who wants to hold Gwynne Shotwell to account this is your opportunity. As the Chief Operating Officer and a highly qualified engineer she should KNOW BETTER should be held personally accountable. I have a pilots license and that's the sort of thing that gets airlines grounded and in some cases LOSE THEIR OPERATING LICENSE. SORRY to all this is as long as it is. I mostly agree with Thunerf00t and others like Common Sense Skeptic but I also think that a few things need better context. Especially that applies to comparing Crew Dragon to its competition which in the case of Boeing Starliner its a lot better than some people think, but I'd agree with anyone who says its neither revolutionary nor an ideal solution BUT IT DOES WORK.
    280
  2. I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. NOTHING Elon has ever said about self driving cars made any sense. If you ever get the chance to talk to experts in what we call vision systems which are the camera systems we use to recognize parts or do inspections, then those people will explain just how hard that stuff is. You need things like controlled lighting and aspects of target objects that are readily identifiable. Go and watch the TED talk on when they tried to teach AI how to recognise fish to see how easy it is to screw that up. Once you realise what it takes to get a camera to flawlessly recognize what's in front of it under any lighting or background compared to what the average human can do then NOTHING about self driving cars makes sense because just getting them to do the basic task of identifying what's going on about the car is impossible with current technology.
    62
  3. I did aerospace at U. Illinois. I literally had to stop the video and walk out of the room just before the 5 minute mark. On one hand I really like Elon Musk a lot. He's managed to break the stranglehold the big aerospace club (Boeing, Lockheed, Rockwell, etc.) had on NASA budgeting. It still remains to be seen if he's done right by everyone or if he's just muscled his way into the club. On the other hand is persistent garbage PR is idiotically bad for future space exploration and likely to end in disaster. Its fine to push the boundaries a bit and motivate people but deceiving with delusions and fantasy IS NOT.
    48
  4.  @Darrylizer1  It was the fact he claimed it as an original idea that triggered me. As an engineer I knew it wasn't a new idea, but then who can argue with a billionaire's PR machine?
    38
  5. As an engineer (aerospace) its utterly infuriating to see yet another con job. This idea is straight out of Star Wars. Remember what Luke's uncle Owen did for a living - moisture farmer.
    32
  6. Aerospace engineer here: You are 100% correct. I actually work in industrial control systems and automation which includes the safety systems. Anyone who's ever done maintenance knows that if you ignore the data you have failures. In the late 90s I had a boss who had race cars. I once asked one of the mechanics WHY the pulled the cars apart after going to the track. He told me they are looking for signs of things failing. They'd pull the entire gearbox out and dismantle it and crack test everything, because if a gearbox fails in a race car it costs so much and is potentially so dangerous that its not worth the risk AND RISK is really the major issue. One of the major issues in the world right now is we have an elite with extraordinary power and money who are willing to risk the entire planet because in their brains its acceptable and because these people are so sure of themselves that any other opinion does NOT MATTER. Just look at how people like Stockton Rush, Elon Musk and others respond to contrary opinions. Just this week a bunch of people walked out of OpenAI because they said Sam Altman has lost hos mind and wont listen to anyone.
    31
  7. This is the sort of video I love people like Thunderf00t doing. Thunderf00t's a Chemical Engineer and I'm an Aerospace Engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. So much of what's in the media is infuriating. I used to install and program robots like the type he shows at 19:05, although not that brand. When Thunderf00t says they are used for _"tedious dangerous and monotonous jobs" he's 100% right. I've been informally studying economics for a few years and (like journalists) those clowns are always claiming that robots and automation costs jobs. Its a trope they endlessly spew out and its WRONG. Most people will not do things which are "tedious dangerous and monotonous" so we end up having to use robots and automation. But do you think any of the economists, journalists or other clowns will admit they don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about? Its infuriating how many people listen to clowns like Elon Musk, take them for geniuses and regurgitate their nonsense again and again and again.
    31
  8. Yeah as a Gen-Xr getting laugh at the Millennials who go suckered into this nonsense is the best LMAO moment I have had in a while and a great way to start 2024.
    30
  9. I wouldn't call this a busted video because he keeps pointing out where the Veritasium video was right. Its more like he's a more comprehensive explanation of what's going on with electrostatics and various fluids.
    29
  10. If a glass of beer can kill a few 100 braincells then this guy is about 1/2 a glass form becoming a Flat Earther. I am an engineer. I find this sort of stuff incredibly frustrating because we end up having to WASTE TIME explaining why its BS instead of discussing solutions that can actually do some good. I have worked with electric motor controls for 30+ years and the idea of using regenerative braking to power CO2 removal is so idiotic its barely believable someone would publish something this stupid.
    25
  11. WHICH CHANNEL are you talking about, he's actually pointing out at least 4 that I recognize. 3 of them Matt Ferrell, Alex Guberman (E for Electric) and Ricky (Two Bit da Vinci) are this new classification of social media type called "science communicators." In the past most science communicators where science people - physicists, chemists engineers, etc. These days a lot of them have NO SCIETIFIC qualifications or training. Its basically a fancy way of saying journalist who reports on technology. It does NOT mean they have ANY science background and for some it shows. Occasionally you'll see a person with genuine tech credentials stuffing up. The 4th guy shown here is Sandy Munro (the old guy just before 2 minutes) who actually is a real car guy and does know his stuff regarding cars and manufacturing them. I'd expect he's going to be making a retraction on this once he finds out its a dodgy technology. This vid actually highlights how bad most of the Science Communicators are. Even thunderf00t made a couple of mistakes here. 1: Early on he talks about there is no hydrogen in the atmosphere THAT'S NOT TRUE. There is free hydrogen in the atmosphere there's just not much of it. 2: Where thuderf00t talks about greenhouse gases at the end he's talking as if CO2 is the only green house gas which ITS NOT. Methane which is the main component of biogas like that found in sewers and waste treatment plants is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. In fact gram for gram its far more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Thunderf00t should know that. 3: On the positively charged subject. Yes Hydrogen gas (H2) is not positively charged. Yes free Hydrogen atoms (H2) are not positively charged. BUT hydrogen ATOMS stripped of their electron ARE positively charged. Thunderf00t should have also jumped on that because to create ionized hydrogen plasma takes energy and these guys are claiming there is no energy required. Where thunderf00t has this totally correct is the energy density, but even on that there is a point he missed. The only way these guys could claim they are getting the energy density is if they were capturing and storing the hydrogen as Metallic Hydrogen. If these people are claiming or even suggesting they are creating metallic hydrogen then that's even crazier than all the other claims put together.
    22
  12. Actually Derek Muller (Veratasium) has a BA in Applied Science from Queens University in Ontario. So unlike many Science Communicators he actually does at least have a technical qualification. I wouldn't call this a busted video because he keeps pointing out where the Veritasium video was right. Its more like he's a more comprehensive explanation of what's going on with electrostatics and various fluids.
    21
  13. I did aerospace engineering and I love your sentiments but unfortunately Thunderfoot is pretty much on with the costs. I love Elon's enthusiasm but what I hate are his ridiculous estimates and I am sorry to say they are ridiculous. On the super plus side of Elon is that he's broken Boeings strangle hold on NASA funding. One thing that's rarely discussed is the change in business model that happened AFTER Apollo. Prior to that pretty much all of the development programs delivered. The X-Plane programs delivered plane after plane. But during the 70s they just stopped ever delivering. Go check how many x-planes never flew in the 70s compared to the earlier programs. A rare exception was the X-29 forward sweep. What Boeing and others had worked out was that NOT completing NASA funded programs was more profitable than completing them. All they needed was to do enough to get the funding for next development project. One of my class mates ended up at NASA and is still there and years ago she told me about how the funding is decided. She also told me the 2 biggest problems they had with manned flight beyond LEO were life support and propulsion. Nearly 20 years later that hasn't changed. One of the great problems with a moon base or a Mars base is that we have dozens of technologies only part developed. Yes there's been lots of research and development but none of its actually ready. And some of those issues are huge. To keep humans alive they need water, food and breathable air. When Trump called for 4 men on the moon for 2 weeks what very few pointed out the enormous difference that was. The Apollo LM was capable of 75 hours life support for 2 guys - that's 150 man hours. 4 men for 2 weeks -> 4 x 24 x 14 = 1344 so its basically 9 or 10x the previous mission. And they have to fly all those materials to the moon and land them. Last I heard they skimmed it back to 3 guys on the moon for 10 days which means the lander only needs life support for 720 hours (3 x 24 x 10). That's way more practical as its basically half as much everything - oxygen, food & water. Just imagine Elon's 1000 people to Mars. That's 1000 people and all their food, water & oxygen for 6 months of flight and several more after they land while they get the systems on Mars up and running. If you can shorten the flight time by any amount its a big deal in terms of how much you have to launch. Yeah its all possible but we need billions and billions spent on the life support & propulsion. Maybe Elon or Jeff really has solved one of these problems if they have they aren't telling anyone.🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    18
  14. Finally - looking down the list somebody else got it. I'm an engineer (aerospace) and it just infuriates me that here's another con-job exploiting the ignorance of main stream media. Theranos should have been obvious that it was ripped off from the film Gattaca. This is equally a rip off of Star Wars and a few other films. It really is infuriating how ignorant mainstream media is these days. And after they convince the general public about this crap we have to spend days, weeks, months, years explaining this stuff again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.............
    18
  15. There actually are people doing those sorts of projects out in desert locations. The problem is they are all underfunded. The problem is Elon has gotten insanely lucky with his timing a couple of times. Getting into PayPal right when that sort of system was needed. Getting into Tesla when all of the hard development work had already been done. Picking up some disgruntled but super talented aerospace engineers to start SpaceX and then NOT interfering with them as the developed Falcon.ng Starship is going to break him. He got lucky and sold off his Hyperloop business to a pack of gullible clowns, but he has no one to sell off Starship too. Who's going to buy it? After all he's spent he still hasn't had one fly into space yet, let alone go to the Moon or Mars. He's very rapidly approaching the point where instead of helping further space flight and exploration to where he's wrecking it by wasting time and money.
    17
  16. I'm an aerospace engineer who's worked in automation for 30+ years and it F*CKING AGGRAVATES me that people are still misrepresenting robots and what they actually do. Anyone can just go and look up Fanuc, Kuka, Motoman, ABB, Staubli and other robotic companies and see what robots actually look like and what they actually do. First off robots (real industrial robots) are nothing like the BS crap that Hollywood makes out. One of the very things Hollywood got close was the original Terminator when it was described as having no feelings, no morals just a program. Second robots are damn heavy seriously heavy. They need mass or they're unstable and shake too much which can make them hard to do accurate work. The more spindly robots you see doing 3d printing get rigidity by the types of mechanisms they use. Third go watch the Canadarm its moves slowly so they can avoid inertia and accuracy issues. Those are less problematic in a factory on earth because we can bolt robots down to solid slabs of concrete. In space inertia and momentum are issues not so easily solved. Like many engineers I am truly over these snake oil salesmen. There are some really serious tasks right here on Earth that if we don't deal with SOON we are in deep shite. Forget climate for a moment almost every Western Developed Nation has serious infrastructure issues that if they aren't dealt with we risk major economic collapses. We don't need clowns wasting money and time on fantasy flights. I'd love it if we started a new major space station YESTERDAY, but I also realise that we have more important priorities.
    15
  17. You've hit the most important thing too many engineers forget on too many projects. WHAT IS ITS PRIMARY TASK and HOW DOES IT NEED TO DO THAT TASK. A truck needs to RELIABLY HAUL CARGO. By far the most successful engineering project in history was the Apollo program. Disclosure - Yes I am an aerospace engineer, so I am a bit biased. But If you look at its basic task "Put a man on the moon and return him safely to the Earth." It was that simple and after the Apollo 1 tragedy they got back to that task of SAFELY RETURN. You can't safely return if you die on the launch pad! They ended up going to the moon 9 times and landing 6 times and did it in less than 10 years from the start. Go look at most of Musk's fantasies. He's always off task. The things his companies do get right they get right because he's fortunate enough to have a few people who DO KEEP THINGS ON TASK.
    14
  18. How about all those early astronomers who looked through their telescopes and saw "canals" on Mars??? In a documentary (back in the 80s or 90s) I remember seeing a psychologist do an experiment on it once they took groups of high school arts class students and asked them to draw an object they had put at a distance beyond what most people could clearly distinguish details. The object was simply a circle on a flat surface with some random blobs inside the circle. No matter how many times they did it the majority of people would include lines connecting the blobs. There is something weird about the human visual cortex that when it can't distinguish details on a distant object it will add details in an effort to recognise what it might be. Psychologists have known about this stuff for decades.
    14
  19.  @SimplestUsername  yeah I'd agree on your Tesla assessment so long as you realise the real development had already been done. His real contribution was the marketing, which I have to acknowledge is brilliant. He's one of those rare people who can say almost anything and convince people its magic. He's like the prince charming type who can walk up to any girl and tell her she looks fat in that dress and she just giggles back at him. Elon's similar in that he can stand in front of a crowd tell them obvious BS and they just go yeah. Look at the share price of Tesla. I saw an analyst compare it to other car companies earlier this year and its completely ridiculous. But then its like a few other tech shares that have insane values despite no dividends being paid. People are not investing in returns they are investing in concepts and we all know how that went with Theranos.
    12
  20. Actually Sebastian Todor claims he studied physics in Munich and has a PhD. A person with that name is certainly listed there and they did produce a number of research publications. So if he is the same person how can he not understand what EVERY engineer learns either in physics class or thermodynamics usually in the first year of a 4 year degree. I think thunderf00t's a bit of a smart ass at times but I get his frustration. As someone with a degree in aerospace I find it incredibly frustrating dealing with the garbage that's put into the blogosphere and social media landscape by so called "technology communicators" and "futurists".
    11
  21.  @Darrylizer1  Dude - what a great line. "Marketing talks and truth walks!" Hope you don't mind if I use it. You should put that on t-shirts.
    11
  22. Aerospace engineer with a PPL. Yeah same here. I think all this proves that the film "Idiocracy" wasn't a spoof its a documentary.
    10
  23. Its a awesome quote, but next time put in the link -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes#Early_life It only takes seconds, leaves no doubts and in the world we live in right now we need facts more than anything else.
    10
  24.  @freespam9236  As I just pointed out to another person making the same claim about British Columbia if we are gong to take a couple of Trillion tons of CO2 out of the Atmosphere we need to be thinking about planting 100s of BILLIONS of trees not 10s of Millions. We need something like every human on the planet planting 1,000 trees. That's 8 Trillion trees and if about 1 in ten reaches adult size then we'd have 800 Billion adult trees each taking a couple of tons of CO2 out of the air and capturing it as wood fibre. Millions of trees wont do the job and a few Billion wont either. We need to be thinking in terms of 100s of BILLIONS to do the job.
    9
  25. Circa 2010 professor Robert McChesney (U. Illinois) was in Australia (where I am). I saw the second 2/3 of a lecture he gave on Australian TV about the state of the media. He was prominent in the 2004 documentary "Outfoxed" about Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism. He spoke about a huge swap in the ratio of journalists and public relations (PR) that happened between the 1950s and early 2000s through commercialisation. The numbers of PR massively increased while the number of journalists collapsed and the ratio flipped from 5 :1 to 1:5. Journalists who used to gather information through research (investigations & interviews) went to people who just gathered what the PR people gave them and pump out the stories. Fact checking became a waste of time compared to the demands for pumping out the next story. People like Matt Ferrell and many others are just channels for PR people to push what their bosses want pumped into the airwaves. This is exactly the sort of stuff people like Robert McChesney were trying to warn the world about when they made "Outfoxed."
    9
  26. Yeah I'm an aerospace engineer and this shite is getting sadder and sadder as time goes by. I was doing my degree when Challenger happened and when the debacle that was Space Station Freedom went on. Most people don't know that the original budget was $20 Billion. When that was considered too much it was redesigned and the number came back at $30 Billion. When that was considered too much it was redesigned and the number came back at $40 Billion. Then we got the ISS for about $120Billion. I bet you have similar stories and as usual we have to put up with clowns like these causing all sorts of distractions.
    9
  27. As an engineer with over 30+ years in automation that definition (if it even exists) has nothing to do with what what industry does. I have worked with Kuka, Fanuc and Adept robotics and I have NEVER SEEN or HEARD ANYONE in general industry talk about a definition of "intelligent robots requiring at least 5-axis." But then this is one of the things people who ACTUALLY DO OR who HAVE worked in INDUSTRIAL ROBOTICS hate about all the bullshite artists who make claims about various technologies like "humanoid robots" and "automation" and what it will do in future. Most of its not even remotely close to wild speculation and is closer to flat earth claims than science. A lot of technology stories we see or hear in the media are PR exercises trying to raise money. I can tell you its very frustrating to be an engineer these days. There are some way more important things than Elon's robot and driverless car fantasies. First of the rank is new power stations closely followed by clean water and waster water systems. Its not simply a matter of an energy transition its mostly NOBODY has kept upgrading their energy and water systems to match population growth these past 30-40 years. The expenditures in those areas are in the TRILLIONS. That's TRILLIONS with a 'T' and an 'S' on the end because its more than 1, in fact its in the double digit and maybe triple digit range. It all depends in how the next version of modern capitalist economics handles the task.
    9
  28.  @tolep  Your right but it goes to family behavior at the American Elitist level. She got into Stanford and that's not easy. Stanford is regarded in a few places as the West Coast Ivy. It incredibly elitist in its way. Ans going further American elitism is really starting to take its toll. America was started (at least on paper) as a place where there was no elitist cadre running everything, despite that fact from its outset it was run by an elitist cadre. I picked up the other day on a thread about the Federalist Society and someone advise to do a bit of background of who they are and what they push. Basically its a group from Yale and Harvard who believe that only they can adjudicate on the Constitution and they have to protect America from the rest of the scum. Elizabeth Holmes is just another Ivanka Trump type from a privileged background who thought the rules and common sense didn't apply to her.
    9
  29. I am an aerospace engineer and that's one of the better comments in this menagerie of social media shitfuckery. I'm mostly a fan of thunderf00t and what he exposes but I don't like his cheap shots at Gwynne Shotwell. He's always linking her to Elon's fantasies which isn't exactly fair. Yes she works for a clown, but thunderf00t needs to separate Falcon (& Crew Dragon) from Elon's fantasies of Starship & Mars. What he should be comparing Falcon & Crew Dragon to is Boeing's Starliner, which isn't easy because it hasn't flown a single successful mission and we don't know the costs. Thunderf00t mentions the Falcon & Crew Dragon at $60-70 million and that's a damn sight better than the space shuttle's $450million, which it was costing at the end. I've seen costs as high as $90 million for a single seat on Soyuz, but also closer to $20 million (for Denis Tito in 2001). So 4 Astronauts to the ISS for $70million is getting back to and under the 2001 Soyuz costs. THAT'S an IMPROVEMENT. Plus if you look at what she actually says there's nothing wrong technically with it. Reusable wont be that great until the usability is closer to a jet plane. I don't think it will ever get there with current materials and technology because your comparing something that goes into orbit, does 7km/s and then flies back down at Mach 20 reaching temperatures of several 1000 deg.C and the other just doesn't do that. IS tunderf00t 100% right on Gateway, John Blincow and Elon Musk? YEAH - ABSOLUTELY. IS he misrepresenting Gwynne Shotwell and what has been achieved with Falcon & Crew Dragon? Yeah, because he's linking that program to Elon & Starship instead of comparing it to Boeing Starliner or Soyuz.
    8
  30.  @Letsgosurfing-cc3ly  I'd agree for some things "just have a think does" but mostly he reports what he can cite. He rarely promotes things as definitive solutions or game changers and I emphasize promotes as in hype like happened with this. He's not perfect but clearly better than average, but then its a fairly low average.
    8
  31. This idea is straight out of Star Wars. Remember what Luke's uncle Owen did for a living - moisture farmer.
    8
  32. ​ @jameskelly3502  Great point, YOU ARE RIGHT and I checked it out and there's an explanation. Here's the second paragraph of that press release. "This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-10, Crew-11, Crew-12, Crew-13, and Crew-14 flights. The value of this modification for all five missions and related mission services is $1,436,438,446. The amount includes ground, launch, in-orbit, and return and recovery operations, cargo transportation for each mission, and a lifeboat capability while docked to the International Space Station. The period of performance runs through 2030 and brings the total CCtCap contract value with SpaceX to $4,927,306,350." SHOR EXPLANATION When people are talking about the US$70Million that's the LAUNCH. What you are talking about is the ENTIRE PROJECT with all the other stuff added in. As you can see there's a difference and quite often it can be a massive difference. Those 5 Crew Dragon missions average just under US$300million which means that on top of the $70M for the launch there's almost another $230M for each flight. This is not simply a NASA problem. Its actually a major problem with projects EVERYWHERE. For Example: Right now in Australia (as I'll explain) we have the AUKUS submarine project. The current Block 5 Virginia subs have a cost AUD$5 Billion each. The project cost for the 8 subs is AU$33-46 Billion each. From what information that's available there's AU$20-32 Billion for each sub that is currently unaccounted for. LONGER EXPLANATION and again I am Sorry to all if this if this is long. With almost every wonderful announcement the devil is in the details and the magic words in that announcement are indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity and related mission services. BACKGROUND I'm Australian but did my degree in America. It was in the late 80s during Reagan's Star Wars Program. Most of the department was on DARPA funding as were most of the postgrads. We all sort of new it was BS but we liked the funding and a lot of people got their MS & PhDs. I came back to Australia afterwards which wasn't good timing and I ended up in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. In 2002 I met Apollo 17's Harrison Schmitt and he mentioned Helium-3, which meant we might be going back to the moon for mining. So I thought I'd go off to the Australian Mining sector and get some experience building mines so I could then do the same on the Moon. Yeah I know that didn't work out, but what I got was an education in large multi-billion dollar contracting jobs and how contractors milk them for all they are worth. I also learned how to build complex systems in remote places and I know NASAs plans for a lunar base are crap because of these very issues of "other stuff." Its not only in engineering and in fact the worst cases In Australia are in government department consulting. Go and check out the PwC scandal. ISSUES WITH ENGINEERING and COST PLUSS CONTRACTS 1 mine site I worked on was the BHP Ravensthorpe Nickel project. Now you'd think BHP the largest mining company in the world would know how to get a mine built - WRONG. That job was budgeted at AU$1.5 Billion and ended up costing over AU$3.5 Billion and then they found out that someone had skimped on the drilling program and the ore body was nowhere near what they had expected in either quality or quantity. WHERE it really blew out was the cost plus contracting. We had an electrician just not show for work one day on that project. He turned up at dinner time in the mess wearing another companies shirt and proudly announced he was getting an extra AU$10 and hour. Working 60+ hours a week, which you do on site that adds up to a lot of money. Within days other electricians were being snapped up in similar ways and the pay rate went from about AU$35/hr to AU$65/hr in about a week as people bounced from company to company. For those who have never worked on cost plus contracting it goes like this. You have expenses (labor & stuff) and you hand them in and if the contract is cost plus 20% (which is common) then for every $1 of expense you get $1.20 in cash back. The reason why cost plus happens is that for large projects that go for several years you just cant plan everything. They can be made to work but the managers running them have to know what they are doing. This is why we see so many government and private sector projects blow out on their costs. So when those electricians went from AU$35/hr to AU$65/hr their actual employers went from charging about $60/hr to over $100/hr. Here's where that adds up. If you have a 100 people and they suddenly cost an extra $10 that gets passed onto the company and they return (at 20%) $12 for which means your profit margin just went up $200 per hour. So with something like SpaceX every time NASA makes an adjustment to a mission it means extra profit to SpaceX and its in their interests as a commercial company to max out those expenses. Here in Australia we have a litany of projects both in the government and in the private sector that have blown out with some projects going billions over budget. The worst private sector project I heard of was the Gorgon Gas project which blew out by $15 Billion. You'd think Chevron would know their job and know how to manage a project BUT THEY DIDN'T. The Australian Navy is not only buying submarines but new frigates and that project recently jumped from AUD$30 Billion to AUD$45 Billion. These things happen from contract variations and that word "variation" is the sound of cash being printed to a cost+ contractor. MORE EXAMPLES Back in the day before the ISS came into being there was the Space Station Freedom project. Me and Classmates all believed that was what we'd be building before heading back to the Moon. The 1st budget was USD$20 Billon and VP George Bush told them that was too expensive and to redesign it. The 2nd budget was USD$30 Billon and VP George Bush told them stop being ridiculous. The 3rd budget was USD$40 Billion and VP George Bush scrapped it, but not before a lot of money got spent doing those design studies. In the end the ISS cost America $120 Billion to build and I think the current estimate puts it over $220 Billion so far when you add in the operations AND NOBODY has ever explained where its all gone. The F35 program cost over a $Trillion in development AND NOBODY has ever explained where its all gone. Here in Oz other than submarines and frigates we also have a patrol boat project underway. The previous class cost under AUD$30 Million each and these new ones are AUD$300 Million each - more than 10x the cost to do the same job AND NOBODY can explain the costs. As part of Australia's AUKUS submarine project there was a AU$4.3 Billion dollar upgrade to facilities at the base near Perth. Knowing what they are basically doing I checked with a couple of people I know and that project shouldn't cost more than AU$1 Billion. Just 2 days ago they announced new plans and its now budgeted at AU$8 Billion with NO EXPLANTION what this extra AU$3.7 Billion is for let alone what most of the AU$4.3 was for. BACK TO FALCON 9/CREW DRAGON We know the cost of each Falcon 9 Crew Dragon launch is $70 Million but what you have shown is a fundamental problem in all these sorts of contracts. There's a lot more than just the basic costs than can be itemised and a lot of it we know nothing about. So you are right there's a lot more, but when we are comparing apples to apples we have to compare what we can. The reason we talk about the at $70 Million is because we know its real and we can compare it to other things. We know the Shuttle flights cost US$350-450 million each, but that doesn't include the development and operational costs. We know the Soyuz seats at the end cost US$80 million each but we don't know what other costs with training (including language training) were incurred. Hope that all explains it.
    8
  33. I started with a degree in aerospace but have worked in automation, robotics and control systems for more than 30 years and most of the last 20 in Australia's mining industry. So I do understand the points you make about tunneling. Elon relies on 3 things in particular and this goes across all his technologies. 1) the medias absolute drive to be first to report anything no matter how much BS and PR is involved; and 2) the staggering ignorance the general public to ANYTHING involving technology; and 3) the desperation of so many people to think somebody is going to just wave a magic technology wand and fix humanities issues. The second one is the thing that infuriates most people in technology (engineers, physicists, etc.). There's a number of almost insane beliefs in modern societies. 1) I live in a modern society that's based on technology therefore I am a technological person. WRONG. 2) I can use a particular technology like computers and therefore I understand technology. WRONG. 3) I saw, heard or read about a technology and therefore don't need to go to college for 4 years or have any real world training or get any real world experience with that technology to be an expert on that technology. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and WRONG. There's almost a mass delusion of a form close to Dunning-Kruger syndrome. We generally associate DK with idiotic ideas like flat earth but it actually is more applicable to how the general population regards technology.
    8
  34. ENGINEER HERE: This video that Thunderf00t is busting is so egregious the entire ASAPScience channel should be BANNED from YouTube for peddling misinformation. As an engineer I find this sort of stuff incredibly frustrating because we end up having to WASTE TIME explaining why its BS instead of discussing solutions that can actually do some good. I have worked with electric motor controls for 30+ years and the idea of using regenerative braking to power CO2 removal is so idiotic its barely believable someone would publish something this stupid.
    7
  35. Imagine how they feel about the claims "Tesla has just won the robot contest!" I am an engineer who has worked in industrial robotics and I think the humanoid robot claims are horribly overrated. I actually think a lot of what companies like Boston Dynamics is garbage. We don't need electronic dogs and we don't need to replace people. We do need some of the things those robots do but they are NOT the panacea that gets hyped up in the media.
    7
  36.  @grantadamson3478  Its was actually the classmate who's at NASA you should thank. About 20 years ago I was the one being mouthy and very "Elon like," and she rammed some hard truths back down my throat. What I am really frustrated with the se days is the very same problems THEN are still the same problems we have NOW. Half the problem is that we take so much of what nature does in terms of life support. No matter how you want to consider it - if we want manned spaceflight beyond LEO the life support is an absolute. Only 24 men have been beyond LEO and they did it in equipment that was incredibly limited. Its just kept them alive and just got there and only just got back. One reason why they stopped was they were afraid of losing a crew. By 1972 they really had pushed their luck with 1960s technology. One analogy I like to use for the moon is a remote mine site here on Earth. I actually met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) in 2002 and he told me we were headed back tot he moon to mine it for He3. So I went off into the Australian mining industry for some hard on the ground experience with remote mining. The actual number of similarities between the Australian Outback and the Moon are more than you'd think. For starters the first thing is a long range survey (Satellite & aerial) kind of like they did with the Ranger & Mariner probes. Then they do an on the ground survey with a couple of geologists and an SUV. They go out with all their food, water & supplies check the place out and come home with a few samples. The only go for a few days or weeks. Then they send out drilling crews for deeper exploration. The big difference at that point is the amount of equipment and men and supplies and for the first time accommodation, water storage, toilets, showers, communications and power generation. They don't simply go for a few days - they go for weeks. Some stay out there for months. If they find a suitable site with suitable resources then they go with huge amounts of gear. They send in a cast of 1000s to build a mine, the processing plant, the trucks, diggers, more accommodation, more water, more sewerage, more of everything. All that infrastructure takes time effort and construction people and construction equipment. Apollo was just like those couple of geologists doing the on the ground survey who bring back samples from site. The Apollo LM was like a space SUV, but for the next phase we need trucks not SUVs. I can build a mine site here only using SUVs but it would take 1000s of trips. What we need next is the space equivalent of a Kenworth and I don't know if Elon's new rocket is a Kenworth or just a bigger SUV. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    6
  37. I'm an aerospace engineer and I does make a few mistakes, but overall slapping down these fraudsters is fantastic. So you know I disagree with thundef00t and a couple of others on a few technical points. The Tesla is actually a damn good car, but Elon had zip to do with its development (he lucked into that). Plus breaking the recalcitrant behavior of the established manufacturers on electric cars is something special. The Falcon Series of rockets (NOT the starship) is an outstanding achievement (but Elon had zip to do with that). Especially when its put up against what the rest of that industry has done. SpaceX can put 4 people in space for less money ($70 million for 4 seats) than the last few seats NASA paid for on Soyuz ($90 million for 1 seat). Plus it at least works, Boeing's Starliner is yet to have a proven safe flight let alone a manned flight. BUT NONE OF THAT EXCUSES ELON'S BULLSHIT And none of it excuses the BULLSHIT of his fanbots.
    6
  38. I'm an aerospace engineer and did my degree during the Reagan "Star Wars" era. Its hard to describe the way money was being spent other than bonkers. In my final year when we did a couple of high level classes that also had post grad students in them a couple of those guys were SW funded. As they were postgrads they also had to do term papers and presentations. One class I did was space craft dynamics (damn seriously hard stuff) but the post grad guys did some amazing stuff. One guy was doing the dynamics of rail guns (this was 86/87) and another focusing mirror systems for laser batteries. It was fairly obvious that most of it was bonkers but the money was being delivered by dump truck. But then the Soviets crashed in 88/89 and the whole show vanished. At one point my academic advisor called it "damn peace" because all of his funding had vanished. What people had failed to realise was Reagan spent about 20 years of research funding in about 4 years. But it did scare Moscow enough that they also went on a spending spree and it was what ended up bankrupting them which effectively ended the cold war.
    6
  39. That effect is even more profound with sea water because the salt affects the resin matrix. Its why they thought for a long time that carbon fibre for yachts, boats & ships was impractical. It wasn't until the New Zealanders won the America's Cup with a carbon fibre boat that anyone realised it can be done but that it takes real skill AND ATTENTION TO DETAILS to do it. Its why the guys who build carbon fibre sailing vessels are so careful to make sure its sealed properly. I'm yet to see or hear any of those guys comment on how they do Carbon Fibre or how they get it done in a way that works. BUT lets not forget they aren't going 4km down.
    6
  40. This idea is straight out of Star Wars. Remember what Luke's uncle Owen did for a living - moisture farmer.
    6
  41.  @DibIrken  Narcissistic Sociopaths don't care they just take what they want. The narcissistic part drives their greed and the sociopathic part doesn't care.
    6
  42. That's a good point. Nobody was actually questioning this technology and its claims. I'm an aerospace engineer and I didn't pick it as a SCAM but it was fairly obvious something was wrong. I usually avoid these so called "science communicators" because they get so many basic things WRONG. In the past most science communicators were actual physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. Even when they were journalists they were journalists who usually took the time to get their facts right. Neil DGT recently commented that these days the "news industry" is so geared to being first to report something they don't check anything. Its in the first few minutes of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S58vlJwhwDw Just in the aerospace area I see so many BADLY researched stories produced. Half the problem is there are so many companies trying to promote their ideas and get funding. That's such a competitive space and its a space where there are so many people scamming investors.
    5
  43.  @trashkumaneko4539  The Germans (as part of ESA) are actually working on it. They are doing an isolated lab in the Antarctic at the moment. But the top top guy on complex bio-systems is a guy named Jonathon Trent. He's done a few TEDx talks and other more complex lectures on YT. He recently left NASA after 20years and started promoting what he calls "Up-Cycling" as something different to recycling. From his NASA work he was involve din bio-processes where they converted human waste back into usable materials (food, air, etc.) In simplest terms humans generally downcycle in that they take raw materials and through various process produce waste. Upcycling is where you take biological processes to "Up-Cycle" waste back into raw materials. Its the other side of the biological cycles that mother earth does for us every day. Composting (what gardeners do) is a simple from of an up-cycle process in that takes waste and with bacteria and worms shifts it back up the scale into raw plant food. Photosynthesis is an up-cycle process in that it takes our waste C02 and converts it back into raw O2 for us to breath. Basically, moon and Mars bases can't happen without the sort of work he was doing. What he is into now is doing some of that work and using it to drive food and energy production here in our societies. Instead of simply dumping all our waste into old quarries he wants to fuel society with it. What they worked out is for Moon & Mars bases the shit out of your ass is one of the most valuable resources those bases will have if its used properly. The human gut is great for turning raw material into actively biological raw material that other processes can then use.
    5
  44.  @ericgulseth74  You have it dead right. He's got a pack of clowns following him the EXACT same way Trumpsters follow Trump and the EXACT same way North Koreans follow Kim. Anybody who dares question a single word of the leader is an abomination that must be put down. Meanwhile they all chant freedom and understanding!!! They are called cults of personality or cults of celebrity. Its all the same thing, mobs of people too lazy to think for themselves. About the only thing we have to do is give them a name. Thunderf00t calls them Muskrats. I call them Muskbots. In general I call all such people fanbots because they behave like Dr. Who's Daleks anything they don't like or they think is inferior must be exterminated.
    5
  45. Off course he does when there's millions of people cheering him on. Thunderf00t's a Chemical Engineer and I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. So much of what's in the media is infuriating. I used to install and program robots like type he shows at 19:05, although not that brand. When Thunderf00t says they are used for _"tedious dangerous and monotonous jobs" he's 100% right. I've been informally studying economics for a few years and those clowns are always claiming that robots and automation costs jobs. Its a trope they endlessly spew out and its WRONG. Most people will not do things which are "tedious dangerous and monotonous" so we end up having to use robots and automation. But do you think any of the economists, journalists or other clowns will admit they don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about? Its infuriating how many people listen to clowns like Elon Musk, take them for geniuses and regurgitate their nonsense again and again and again.
    5
  46. Go watch Common Sense Skeptic's channel, he adds in math to rip Elon.
    5
  47. That's a great point. As an engineer I hate these people because they confuse the crap out of the general public with what we can and can't do. You've pointed out a major issue with these for vehicles. Even when there are good technologies they often confuse people about what those technologies can and can't do. In this video above there's a reference to the liquid metal battery. That's a technology that's been developed by MIT Professor Donald Sadoway. He's cofounded the company Ambri to manufacture them. That's a technology that has great potential for FIXED (not mobile) energy storage. As in things like community batteries. So its shame that clowns like Matt Farrell are confusing people with garbage because some of its NOT garbage but most people can;t tell what is and isn't garbage.
    5
  48.  @markusschellenberg4684  It stuns me nobody is pointing to that obvious point. Whatever the motor is, that's what defines the rate it can soak up power and also the limit it can deliver power. With pumped hydro you can have a small pump or collection of pumps it does not have to be the same size as the turbine. Personally I think the grid scale tech that's about to take off is hydrogen. We know how to generate it from water. We know how to pump gas down a pipe. Companies like Rolls Royce solved all the issues with hydrogen fuelled turbines years ago. The only reason its not taken off is because there hasn't been a market. Guess what there now is a market and NONE of the battery technology can deliver sustained gigawatt delivery. The batteries are awesome for short term power smoothing, because they can react so fast, but they suck for sustained delivery because they just can't hold enough. We built what was the biggest battery in the world near Adelaide. But if Adelaide's main power station completely tripped out that battery can supply that demand for maybe 2 hours. I once heard that if all the power went off in California they have about 27minutes of battery time. Hydrogen can do days. Pumped hydro can also do days but that's provided you have the right geography. Plus you can build hydrogen power stations on existing sites because the grid connection already exists.
    4
  49.  @trashkumaneko4539  The actual key to manned space flight is the life support. Its called manned spaceflight not corpse spaceflight because you want them alive and humans produce waste - waste air, waste water & waste solids. Nothing is better at scrubbing air, cleaning water and providing food as the existing natural environmental solar powered processes. I know I sound a bit like a Greenie, but spaceship earth is what we need to learn to maintain. Because in doing that we can learn how to construct systems suitable for other places. I work in automation and one of the main methods is called integration. It where you take existing solutions and equipment and "integrate" them into a new solution. We need to start doing this with our natural environment. We need to integrate existing systems into our environment. There are people doing this but not enough.
    4
  50.  @Adrobiel  That's a great comment. You're 100% right there's no harm in having students throw up ideas and work through them even if they work out that it won't work. You're 100% right that when people try and promote it through the media to RAISE MONEY its WRONG and the fact that we have to waste time explaining it only makes it worse.
    4
  51.  @darkpraxis  Your right there are differences between the N-1 and Starship BUT AND THIS IS THE POINT they both have similar engine configurations with large numbers of smaller engines AND NEITHER (SO FAR) have proven they can handle engine failures in the outer ring. Look at Saturn 5, Artemis, N-1 and Starship which systems are similar and which are different and which (SO FAR) have worked. Its hard to say on the concrete reinforcement. I'm not a civil engineer and that's not my field but the photos clearly show there's rebar in the launch platform. That fact it was dead flat meaning it got the full force is the basic problem. The fact there is a small deflector in front of the fuel storage tanks is even more telling in their recklessness. Its like having the fuel fight from the film Zoolander. As I said I have a pilots license and have experience in hazard IDs & risk assessments for plant like that and its pretty damn obvious they IGNORED a lot of things and DO NOT deserve an FAA license to operate.
    4
  52. I'm an aerospace engineer and this is painful and infuriating. We have so many REAL ISSUES and there are these absolute BULLSHlT artists who just waste everyone's time. Nobody should have to answer or explain this obvious crap.
    4
  53. ENGINEER HERE: This video that Thunderf00t is busting is so egregious the entire ASAPScience channel should be BANNED from YouTube for peddling misinformation. As an engineer I find this sort of stuff incredibly frustrating because we end up having to WASTE TIME explaining why its BS instead of discussing solutions that can actually do some good. I have worked with electric motor controls for 30+ years and the idea of using regenerative braking to power CO2 removal is so idiotic its barely believable someone would publish something this stupid.
    4
  54.  @EnglishLaw  It depends what claims your making about electric cars. For people claiming they will solve climate change - yeah BS unless you generate the power they use cleanly. BUT as part of an overall solution they are vital as an important component. For people claiming that Elon was going to give the world self driving cars - yeah total BS and was always total BS. FYI - I'm an engineer and Elon's lucked out a couple of times with getting into decent technology developed by sensible people and he's made a dogs breakfast of them every time.
    4
  55. Napoleon, “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
    4
  56. Patrick also did a video on Elon Musk "The inventor of everything!" and his twitter takeover.
    4
  57. ​ @bok..  That's a good assessment and the problems start with just how badly the basics of math and science are taught. and most importantly how they relate to our everyday lives. One basic thing I try to get people to realise is the number of items they interact with every day that are either engineered or include engineering is in the 99.99% bracket. In any modern society there's almost NOTHING in your life that wasn't engineered or involved engineering at some point. Anything that's metal or plastic or went through a factory is easy to see as engineered, but also your food & clothing involves engineering at the process and delivery levels. Then people need to simply realise that engineering is the PRACTICAL application of math and science. I wish that was better explained but unfortunately we have social media clowns and underfunded education systems.
    4
  58.  @mgc7199  Yeah but not only are engineers (I'm one) oblivious to that concept so are economists. In fact the main reason an engineers installs a robot is because an economist has made the decision to replace the human. I can tell you for a fact I have had people say to my face "You engineers cost people their jobs" and in many cases they are not wrong. I used to work in manufacturing making automated machinery often with robots. And every industrial robot is doing a job that a human could be doing. The fact however is that most of the jobs robots do humans wont do or wont do for very long. In most cases they are either dangerous or incredibly repetitive or both. In robotics there's a few sayings with a similar theme. "Robots don't get RSI, don't have union reps and best of all don't have lawyers." "Robots don't need doctors or rehab." "Management doesn't need to deal with HR when they buy a robot." I can actually talk for hours on the subject of automation, where its good, where its bad and where the general public are badly misinformed.
    4
  59. HEY THUNDERFOOT YOU MADE A MISTAKE. I work in Industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Those 2 robots you show at 37:30 have been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. The company I left in 2001 was the (then) Kuka and Adept agent in Australia and we knew what our competitors could do. The robot on the left of your shot is a standard 6 axis anthropomorphic arm and those have been around for decades. The robot on the right is a 4-axis "Spider Robot" (just put "4-axis spider robot into google"). I know that BEFORE the year 2000 ABB had one of those available. The thing that you are NOT highlighting in that part of the video is that the spider robot is locating the items its picking off the conveyor using vision guided robotics. Notice how all those parts are randomly arranged and the spider is arranging them in organised groups so the other robot can place them on the next conveyor. There is a camera upstream of the robot looking down on the conveyor which has an encoder on it. The vision system identifies the location and orientation of each part and with the encoder on the conveyor translates that to the Spider which can then pick it up and orientate it and put it back down in the right place so the other robot can pick up the groups of 4 parts. I know how that stuff works because I had that technology demonstrated to me by an Adept Engineer when I visited their Cincinnati Office in 1998 or 99. They weren't using a Spider robot at that time. They were using a small high speed SCARA robot. So I know for a fact that technology has been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. So SORRY Thunderboy but your 15 years is wrong its at least 25. Fyi - I actually did aerospace and if you would like I'd be happy to show you how truly stupid they are being with the Artemis program. Its worse than most people realise. The closest I have seen anyone expose the real depth of the issue is Destin (another Aerospace) who has the YT channel "Smarter Every Day." For anyone interested put "smarter every day artemis" into the YT search and the top item should be titled "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" posted 4 Dec 2023.
    4
  60. There's actually a very simple way to look at this. Consider the size of the electric motors in the cranes. I do control systems and automation and they don't look much over 100kW. Even if they 200 or 250kW during discharge they are only discharging 50% of the time (at best) because they have to go up and get the next block. So even if you use really big motors your going to struggle to get anything more than a few hundred kilowatts out of this thing on discharge. How does that work with a solar farm of wind farm producing megawatts let alone on a grid where things are measured in gigawatts?
    3
  61. ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    3
  62.  @OolTube02  That's part of the confusing thing in what they are claiming. Where is it actually coming from. There isn't enough free hydrogen in the atmosphere. The main constituent of sewer gas like biogas is methane. The biggest part of this confusing mess is that the main suppliers of information aren't technically qualified in any way so they just miss things (in this case lots of things). They aren't asking pertinent questions like - where are you going to get this much hydrogen? To power the worlds cars you need a lot of hydrogen. It has to come from somewhere. What I like about thunderf00t's argument is the energy density. I actually missed that point when I first saw this presented. I was trying to figure out their chemistry, which didn't make a lot of sense. The energy density should be pretty easy for most people to grasp. Even if they don't exactly get it they can understand you can't put 5 gallons in a 1 gallon tank.
    3
  63.  @trashkumaneko4539  I now it sounds pedantic but the correct term is up-cycling. It took me a bit of time to distinguish it but once the difference you understand why its so important. Re-cycling is a very basic simple process of just converting finished product directly into raw material. There's no fundamental change in what the material actually is. Think about when they re-cycle cans, cars or plastic. The metal and plastic isn't being really changed it just being converted back into raw stock for manufacturing. On the other hand raw sewerage is raw sewerage. There's no machine that simply melts it back into food. BUT there are other biological processes that can be used to "convert" that waste into "different" compounds that can be used in other processes. You can't actually eat shit, but you can use bacteria to convert it into useable fertilizer and you can eat the food produced by the plants that use that fertilizer. If you use really clever bacteria you can also create other usable compounds for other processes. It's called Up-Cycling because your taking waste from the lowest level and converting back up to higher levels. Go watch the talks by Dr. Jonathon Trent, he's easily one of the smartest people on the planet.
    3
  64. ENGINEER HERE: Just adding to this. The basic C + O2 -> CO2 equation when we put in the weights is the problem. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12 and Oxygen 16 and that scales. So when you add up the weights you get 12(C) + 32(O2) -> 48(CO2) and that works for kilo's and tons as well as atomic weight. So for every ton of Carbon we burn IRRESPECTIVE of its as coal or any other Carbon compound we get 3-2/3 tons of Carbon Dioxide for every tone of coal consumed. So when the Chinese burn 3 Giga tons of Coal in their power stations it produces 11 Giga tons of CO2. Plus for most of the 90s and early 2000s the Chinese burnt as much coal in the ground as they did in power stations. Plus the Americans, Europeans and others burn just as much and its pretty easy to see where that 50 Giga tons a year comes from. And for the non-metric people 1 Giga is 1,000 times a million which is also called a billion but giga sounds better.. SO - Yeah Carbon capture is essentially a scam and wont even come close to what's needed in the time frame we need it done. We are now entering a phase of MANAGING our way through what's coming to the planet and the problem with that is the same people who have denied climate change are the same people who want to control that process as well.
    3
  65.  @theultimatereductionist7592  From an engineering perspective about 98% of the humanity shouldn't be allowed access to about 99% of modern technology. If you knew how much time we have to spend keeping you safe, warm, supplied with fresh water, while taking away the shit you produce you'd be a bit more grateful instead of being an arrogant clown. Feel free to get off the internet and stop using all the other technology we have provided you with. Thank You.
    3
  66. That's a great point which should have had everybody jumping on the claims from the first moment these guys started making claims. I think they confused (we'll go with confused for the moment) a lot of people with the military angle. Their claim was basically "This was banned because the US military wanted to keep it to themselves." That's a good technique if you trying to get people to wonder why? Its a believable line because any tech that gives the military an edge they don't generally allow out in the real world for others to copy or use.
    3
  67. As an aerospace engineer this totally craps me out and for a slightly different reason than most here might think. My gripe isn't so much that these things (like Hyperloop) are garbage its that they are preventing people from SpaceX and Tesla form appreciating the incredible achievements of others. There are some great people in these companies doing great work and getting no recognition or credit. At Space X the achievement of actually getting a rocket that can fly humans into space (Crew Dragon & Falcon 9) is extraordinary. If you compare it to Boeing's effort with Starliner and take into consideration the resources and experience Boeing has access too then it really is an extraordinary achievement. BUT THEN Elon comes along with the idiotic garbage of going to Mars on Starship. I don't understand how it can be the same company. On transport its the same. I spent many years in the Australian automotive sector and for Tesla to actually have the effect it has on the entire car industry is borderline miraculous. Yes there's some issues with the cars, but then every major manufacturer has had recalls. Tesla's a long way short of the VW diesel fake engine emissions fiasco. The fact Tesla is manufacturing and selling several 100 thousand cars each year is incredible and it has changed the world. Unless you have a actually been in the industry its hard to explain just how hard it is just getting a new model into production. One of the main companies I worked with was Hella and the effort it took just for a new headlight & taillight on an EXISTING car was a huge effort. So taking a completely new vehicle and getting it into mass production is an extraordinary achievement BUT THEN Elon comes along with a truck he claims will pull a load from 0 to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds. AND THEN Elon comes along with driver less cars, taxis and trucks. AND THEN Elon comes along with Hyperloop, a 118 year old idea (Robert Goddard 1904) and claims he thought it up. AND THEN Elon comes along AFTER Hyperloop is exposed and NO its not trains in tunnels its cars in tunnels. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️
    3
  68.  @andrewfranklin4429  Dude I am an engineer and have the 2nd highest qualification possible for safety engineering. I w as certified by TUV in functional safety after going through a formal course. Don't you dare lecture me on a subject you know nothing about. If you are so stupid to try and compare this to s subway then you run headlong into the reality it can't move the number of people to make it viable. idiots like you forget that as engineers we have to justify the expenditures on EVERY project. AND there's nothing in this that adds up. At every step of the way form the very first moment Elon opened his mouth and started crapping on about transport in tunnels HE HAS BEEN WRONG. Its not new. Robert Goddard 1904 (118 years ago) Its been through the engineering viability dozens of times over the decades since. IF IT WAS VIABLE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE DECADES AGO. As I have said many times now. I really do like the things Elon and his companies have actually achieved like Falcon and Tesla, but I damn well can't stand the garbage he spews out about things like Mars, Starship and Hyperloop.
    3
  69.  @trinidad17  I don't agree from the simple standpoint that, (as the person who started this thread points out) he's not shamelessly plugging garbage or hype or both. He's just not perfect - so what.
    3
  70.  @shiftyjesusfish  On top of a degree in aerospace, 30+ years in control systems and automation I am formally trained in Safety Related Systems. So I have a pretty good grasp of redundancy when it comes to safety. In fact if you want I can explain why the only thing the MCAS system was ever guaranteed to do was crash a plane. On top of that I have a pilots license with aerobatic endorsement. So yeah I've got a pretty good idea of what your talking about and YES YOU ARE RIGHT. You are so spot on that you're either qualified like me or have been around someone qualified like me or your unlike most people on social media and actually LISTENING to people qualified like me. After the Max-8 NOBODY anywhere is going to let this thing be used for commercial passenger travel around the world. Without a full program of flight testing where they DO EVERYTHING this thing will never be cleared for what they are suggesting. Who's going to pay for 100 or more certified test flights of this thing.
    3
  71. There is actually a part of this "thing" that is based on a sound engineering principle which is vacuum distillation. They use the lower boiling point in vacuum to boil liquids. Its used in some water desalination processes like multi-stage flash distillation (see below) which is sometimes referred to as vacuum vapor compression or vapour compression. The desalination plant I worked on for a mine site had 2 of those types of unit and the supplier called it mechanical vapour compression and yes that confused everyone. BUT it's a totally different process because its salt water. And those systems use part of the process to recycle the heat so they have quite a high thermal/energy efficiency. Their downside is they operate at 1 speed. Reverse osmosis can be adjusted vacuum systems can't. Thunderf00t is totally right this thing is busted. Like Waterseer (stolen from Star Wars) and Theranos (stolen from Gattaca) they are preying on people who here things like "space technology" and "space vacuum" and think this is some NASA derived tech. On the other hand if they marketed this thing as just a very compact clothes dryer for people with few things and not much room then it might have been a good product. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-stage_flash_distillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor-compression_desalination
    3
  72.  @timmy7201  You lucky bugger. In all my time since graduating I have never got to work on satellites. I have been off doing other things. I haven't had that exact problem but know what those sorts of problems are like. Every step forwards feels like your dragging a truck up hill. Most of the time your on the edge of going postal. Best I can suggest is have the whole team go and do something totally unrelated and totally trivial. Go bowling or something. One of you has the answer you just need something that gets your brains unfocused so that it can get out through the noise. I did a control system project on a sheet metal machine back in the 90s that had this insane problem we'd never seen before and couldn't work out WTF was going on. It wouldn't be there, then it would and it was NEVER the same. The solution hit me in the gym one afternoon. In the middle of a set of reps suddenly there it was - No joke. I was n the gym and pumping reps and bam I knew what was going on. Next morning I put in the code and bam problem solved. If its driving you nuts then get out and away from it or the noise in everyone's head will keep drowning out the solution.
    3
  73.  @EaglePicking  Yes that's a fair criticism that Phil doesn't do as many videos on OTHER people as he used to do. BUT THEN Elon is so overplaying his hand these days and its such a huge thing if Tesla goes under. I don't think it will, because I think other people will step in and dump Elon on his butt and then make what's left work. Most of all Tesla needs to be re-evaluated to what sort of company it actually is AND people like Scott Galloway have pointed that out several times. Tesla has so far traded as a "Technology Company" but its also an "Automotive Manufacturer" and those are 2 very different kinds of stock/shares. They trade differently, they operate differently and they attract different investors who have different strategies. Also SpaceX (being an aerospace company) is another thing all together.
    3
  74. As an aerospace engineer compared to the crap level being produced these days about space flight its so much better that its like comparing Will Smith in Shark Tale to a Jacques Cousteau. Some of the garbage being sold to the public these days is so pathetically far from reality that its possible to claim fraud on several organisations. Just ask any engineer how many times they have had to correct family and friends on reality, because somebody saw something on YouTube, TV or a movie?
    3
  75. Aerospace engineer here - and that's the sort of reply I wish we'd see more often. The best report on G0F I saw in the last 4 years was by DW (German). It still here on YT and titled "Gain-of-Function: Should supercharging viruses be banned?" They bring up what Ron Fouchier the Dutch scientist did with Avian Flu and it didn't take much to find out what he did AND HOW DAMN SCARY IT IS. Normally avian flu can't infect humans but the rare times it does its more lethal than Ebola killing over 60%. What was even crazier than making that variant of avian flu was that he wanted to publish how he did it. The Dutch government stepped in and said "NO". He took it to court and the court also said "NO" because like the Dutch government they knew there were people on this planet who'd use it. It was Fouchier's work that (in part) led to the moratorium on GoF, because NOBODY was really aware of what was being done in some of these labs. As an engineer I know quite well how very intelligent people can sometimes be utterly blind to the outside world and Fouchier is an example of that. It became well know that Shi Zhengli (the head virologist) in Wuhan was also like that. Plus Wuhan became the go to place where certain work could still be doen despite the moratorium. I'm amazed that after all that has happened we haven't had a proper public discussion on research funding and the oversight of research. I know there's stuff that's been going on in engineering research for decades that should either be shut down or NOT be funded because its either a waste of time and resources or that its too dangerous or that there's significant fraud going on.
    3
  76. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Just some perspective on Crew Dragon and SORRY that this is long. First I absolutely agree that there's massive issues with Elon Musk and how he does business that's perfectly obvious. There's also no doubt the Gwynne Shotwell has said some dumb things which Thunderf00t and others have pointed out. I am also of the same opinion that both Starlink and Starship are doomed to fail (see below). If we are going to fairly judge Falcon9/Crew Dragon then it needs to be compared against its actual competition. You pointed out that a Falcon9 launch costs $67 Million. I have seen Crew Dragon costed at $70 Million. Crew Dragon delivers 4 people to the ISS on each flight making it a cost of $17.5 million per astronaut to the ISS. The last seat an American had on Soyuz has been reported at $80 Million for 1 person. The Space Shuttle cost $350-450 Million per launch and despite its ability to carry up to 8 people it only ever delivered 3 to the ISS for a crew rotation but the others on a flight did stuff while there so its harder to cost but its safe to say it cost over $80 Million for each astronaut who stayed and did a stint on the ISS. However the Space shuttle could also deliver at the same time 16 tons of cargo to the ISS and that's basically 4-5 times Cargo Dragon. So when you consider the Space shuttle on each flight did the equivalent of 5-6 Falcon 9s its in the same ball park as Falcon 9. Here's the ugly comparison - Boeing Starliner the Boeing Max-8 of space flight. The Boeing Starliner which has had more than $550 Million in US Government money ($92M in 2011 and another $460M in 2012) for development is yet to fly successfully. According to Wikipedia Boeing has incurred costs between 2020 and 2022 of $883M and considering its cost plus contracting the US tax payer will eventually cop those costs. So for more than $1.3 Trillion (with a 't') the Boeing Starliner has flown twice for 1 failed mission and 1 partly failed mission. Basically Crew Dragon is NOT a major step forward or a revolutionary rocket. It is however an improvement on what NASA had especially following the demise of the Space Shuttle. Importantly compared to its main opposition (Starliner) it "looks" pretty magical but that's because Starliner really sucks. Crew Dragon is a step backwards so that NASA can go forwards. Thunderf00t has been around enough engineering project and research work to know that at times you simply have to step backwards because you've run into a wall. Going back to the SPACE SHUTTLE and heads up I did a comprehensive review of its history several years ago as part of the lessons learned section of a proposal. Its basic dry weight is 75 tons. So before you even give it people and cargo you have to lift 75t around 200km and then accelerate it to around 25,000 kmh. Those numbers get bigger going to the Space Station which is why its LEO payload is listed as 30t and its payload to the ISS is listed at 16t. So that 75t is a massive cost but it was sort of offset by reusability, but even that had issues. On top of those fuel costs the Space Shuttle required a lot more manpower to service it than first planned. Its one of the main reasons manned space flight stalled. All the things needed to go further and do things like build a lunar base needed people working on the technologies needed. Not only did the Space Shuttle consume money it also consumed the time people needed to do other things. THAT'S what made the Space Shuttle a failure. Technically it was an amazing achievement but for manned space flight it cost us 30-40 years. STARLINK It will fail just like the Iridium satellite phone system failed. Its a solution to a problem that does not exist. This is what kills many (what people think are) great ideas. If you are in a remote location it might provide a service but for anyone with an easy link to broad band then what does it offer? Plus the optic fibres that broad band is based on don't need to be replaced every few years in the same way the Starlink satellites drop out of orbit. Plus if you want to upgrade your broad band system Bob the Builder's mate Eric the Electro-tech can drive to the network hub and swap out the nodes. 🤷‍♂🤷‍♂ STARSHIP Not long after the Soviet Union collapsed the Russians released a trove of information on their lunar program based around the N-1 rocket. Go have a look at the arrangement of the motors in the N-1's first stage. YES Starship has a similar arrangement and when you know what the issues with the N-1 were, which I have known for over 20 years having read reviews on the N-1 back in the 1990s. The big problem the N-1 had was if they had a motor failure in the outer ring they needed to shut down the motor directly opposite or the off centre load would make the rocket uncontrollable. The Soviets had a system to do that automatically but it failed to work properly and the N-1 did a very similar thing to what we saw with Starship. Starship not only has the same inherent issue of the N-1 their control system for handling engine failures has the same issues the Russians had in the 1970s. Clearly that first flight showed it does NOT have the control range to handle the sorts of failures it had. But that's nothing. STARSHIP LAUNCH SITE. I have spent most of my engineering career in industrial control systems which has included safety systems. I had the second highest qualification available in that area at one stage. SO I AM FORMALLY TRAINED in assessing sites and systems for hazard identification, risk assessments and risk mitigation strategies. That launch site should never have been approved. for use. 1) The launch pad had no thrust diverter and when you consider the mass flow out of those engines (~26 tons per second at over 3.2km/s) and its just slamming into a flat surface. Look up the Wikipedia page for the N-1 and look at the size of the 3 exhaust tunnels. No one should have been surprised that the launch platform failed and chunks of concrete were ripped up and tossed 100s of meters. 2) Right beside the launch pad are the rocket fuel and oxygen storage tanks. If you look at the photos it had a small deflection barrier less than 1/2 the height of those tanks. That barrier means they expected rocket exhaust gases to head towards those tanks and they were left seriously exposed. On basic safety grounds that site should never have been allowed to be used for such a launch and quite possibly ANY LAUNCH. For anyone who wants to hold Gwynne Shotwell to account this is your opportunity. As the Chief Operating Officer and a highly qualified engineer she should KNOW BETTER should be held personally accountable. I have a pilots license and that's the sort of thing that gets airlines grounded and in some cases LOSE THEIR OPERATING LICENSE. SORRY to all this is as long as it is. I mostly agree with Thunerf00t and others like Common Sense Skeptic but I also think that a few things need better context. Especially that applies to comparing Crew Dragon to its competition which in the case of Boeing Starliner its a lot better than some people think, but I'd agree with anyone who says its neither revolutionary nor an ideal solution BUT IT DOES WORK.
    3
  77. The great quote in this is at 14:20 "this thing didn't even survive the most superficial scrutiny" I'm an aerospace engineer and the number of times I have had to answer similar questions and answer them more than once is baffling. Its simply staggering how many people think Hollywood is based on fact. Worse is how utterly ignorant our mainstream media are of technology. When I was in college they made me do some humanities so that I'd be more "well rounded." I'd like to start seeing every arts degree include a basic engineering course so that when all these clowns talk at least there's a chance the noise coming out from their mouths has a chance of being based on fact.
    3
  78.  @Lucien86  You misunderstood my reference comparing Stockton Rush to Elon Musk. It has NOTHING to do with things like Falcon or Falcon Heavy. It has to do with Elon the PERSON not handling people who disagree with him for which there's a mountain of evidence. You don't have to lecture me on Falcon I actually defend that part of Space X. There's a contingent of people who just love to bash Space X along with Elon and they hate it when I correct them. Falcon has been a staggering success. YES it is NOT the mind blowing leap forward in rockets that Elon harps on about. In fact most of what it does was done long before Elon or Space X ever existed. I regard the Space Shuttle as a successful failure. It was successful in that they made it work. It was a catastrophic failure in that 2 crashed and its costs were nothing like that promised. What SpaceX has done is take a step back, a step sideways and a step forward. So its no giant advancement but it is something that has allowed NASA to get back to having its own system. Also Gwynne Shotwell gets a lot of flack and occasionally its warranted when she parrots Elon. The basic reality is that her and her team have built a reliable and reusable rocket. They have then got it man rated and successfully sent people into space. What the SpaceX detractors seem to ignore is that without Crew Dragon NASA and the Western Partners in the ISS are at the mercy of the Russians and the Russians were upping the price. Also the Elon detractors who bash SpaceX never hold Boeing to the same scrutiny and their system deserves to be panned. Boeing got a lot more money than SpaceX to develop a crew system. They took a lot longer and so far there system has being Boeing Reliable which is now a meme. So understand I am a huge fan of Gwynne Shotwell and her team and the Falcon program. Yes they took a lot longer to get up to Crew Dragon compared to what NASA did in the 60s but then they had staggering resources during the 60s. People forget just how many people they threw at the Apollo program. I think it was around 400,000 and they weren't just who you could find and recruit they were the best of the best that America had. On the other hand I can't stand Elon Musk and his BS. He does have 2 talents that he's seriously underestimated on. 1) He knows how to get non-technical people to respond to an idea. As in he can sell an idea to an audience like he has with Starlink which is just another "who really needs, other than the people selling it, technology." 2) He can also identify technical people who can get a task done which he's shown at SpaceX. On that in particular he's seriously misunderstood. BUT when he forgets to get the right people or he ignores them like he did at Neuralink, Hyperloop and a few other places it becomes a disaster.
    2
  79.  @crabbcake  Can people like you WHO KNOW NOTHING just please stop making asinine comments. What do you even know about rocket engines other than they power rockets? 1st: What actual engine did Elon actually "create" that you think can be refueled on Mars? 2nd:Nobody has proven they can make rocket fuel on Mars, let alone refuel a rocket on Mars? In fact NOBODY had proven that we can even re-fuel a rocket in space. 3rd: What type of fuel are you even talking about because there's more than 1 kind of rocket fuel. About the only thing SpaceX did that was innovate was the switch to methane as the primary fuel. All SpaceX has really done is combine ideas and concepts and make them work. AND SO WE ARE CLEAR I think that's incredibly impressive because just taking all those technologies and combining them and making them work is incredibly hard. Just keep it in perspective.
    2
  80.  @Thunderf00t  I don't know if you saw my last comment on the other video, but I do control systems and one of my main projects between 2006 & 2011 was an industrial bio-conversion plant in Perth, Western Australia that processed Municipal Solid Waste (NSW). As a Brit I'll assume you know where Perth is. Sorry if this is a lengthy reply but if you want any further material I'll see what I can get you. Keep up the good work. I just hate technology scammers. I don't know if in your work you've had to deal with a control system engineers but I have to deal with all types of engineers and technologists - mechanical, chemical and in that case microbiologists. Early on I asked what made their process special so I got an personalized education in the microbiology of composting. My job wasn't to make the bacteria do its funky stuff it was to build a control system that included the tools to let the microbiologists make the bacteria do its funky stuff. So there are many details about the bacteria I never was privy to. It was just this stuff they called "water" except it was dark brown and smelt awful. I'd describe it as biologically active liquor. Their process was pretty novel in how fast it worked (21 days). In the natural environment composting can take anywhere from months to years depending on all sorts of factors - the microorganism types (worms, slugs, etc.), bacteria types (single cell bugs), temperature, moisture, oxygen levels, existing soil type, light or lack of light,.... etc. The list is quite lengthy. That's not that great for industrial processes where they want consistency. Most of the OTHER processes developed did things like heap up the compost into mounds out in paddocks and left to ferment in situ. That releases lots of stuff (CO2, CH4,.... etc.). Other places simply dumped it into an unused quarry or open cut mine and cap it with a giant rubber sheet and tap the gas as its produced. Other processes munch/mince it all up and put it into silos so they can tap off the combustibles like methane. If not watched those silos can get so hot they catch on fire. In these processes you do get more than methane. I know I had to engineer the electrical system to handle hydrogen. There wasn't much of it but there was enough to influence the electrical design because hydrogen ignites so easily. And yes many of the clowns promoting hydrogen have no idea. Mostly those systems that put compost into silos and leave it alone take 60-90 days (not hours) to decompose a batch into compost. The variation mainly comes from the time of year. Municipal waste has EVERYTHING we put in the wheely bins - food waste, cloth, plastics, metals, grass clippings, leaves,.... etc. So just giving people the impression that Lomi can provide "composted" material in 4 hours is pretty much garbage. The company I was working with had come up with a way to handle the seasonal changes and make the process extremely rapid by tailoring the bacterial decomp. They could do a batch of the organic fraction of municipal waste in 21 days complete cycle. Raw waste came in and was smashed in a giant tumbling garbage smasher. Almost a Lomi on Superman level steroids. After that the metals, sand, glass and plastics were removed and finally it was loaded into a vessel (about 4-5 stories high) where it was introduced to the bacteria. At that stage there was oxygen and the process was aerobic and produced CO2. After the vessel was full it was sealed and once the bacteria had finished consuming all the oxygen was when the real magic started. Certain bacteria are not like mammals, birds, etc. When the oxygen runs out they don't die they switch their metabolism. In a sealed container that process is gradual and we could watch it happen on the gas analyzer data. The bacteria would start consuming organics and oxygen producing C02 but as the oxygen ran out it would switch and start consuming organics and CO2 producing methane and a few other hydrocarbons. Eventually the bacteria would consume all it could. We'd see that on the gas analyzer as methane had stopped being produced. After that we reintroduced air and with it oxygen. Since this step was abrupt rather than gradual the sudden introduction of oxygen would kill the bacteria. After a few days of aeration all that was left was sterile very high quality compost. All Lomi is, is the first step in a process like that. Its just a smashing and grinding machine. *Laughably you can do the same thing with an old blender or nutri-bullet for a lot less than $500. Just blend up your scraps with some water and put it all in a cloth bag. Squeeze out the water and/or hang it somewhere to drain like they do for cheese making. Put the drained off water on you plants because it will have all sorts of organics. Then put the mashed up stuff in a composter and let nature do its stuff. That or spend $20-40 million and build a system like I worked on.
    2
  81. As an aerospace engineer compared to the crap level being produced these days about space flight its so much better that its like comparing Will Smith in Shark Tale to a Jacques Cousteau. Some of the garbage being sold to the public these days is so pathetically far from reality that its possible to claim fraud on several organisations. Just ask any engineer how many times they have had to correct family and friends on reality, because somebody saw something on YouTube, TV or a movie?
    2
  82.  @herrschaftg35  YES - I am well aware of the IEA data and have been following their reports for a few years now. That's NOT the point the point is the cost of the NEXT GENERATION of power stations NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE is going to be astronomical. PARTLY because material shortages are going to keep prices high. PARTLY because the corporations who build large scale stuff are completely out of control on standards, profits and tax. PARTLY because the giant wealth shift of the last 40 years has broken every economic system in the developed world. PARTLY because we have driven 80% of our populations into Universities instead of balancing our education across the skill base we need. WORST OF ALL - a whole bunch of nations are going to try and do this at the same time which will send specialist labor and material costs even higher. Do you get where I am going? There's a bunch of factors coalescing into a MEGA-SHlTSTORM because of 40+ years of "Greed is good" stupidity. I tell my fellow Australians that we don't have any of the people we'd need to build just 1 nuclear power station let alone the 8 or more we'd need and their answer is just like its been for cars, TVs and mobile phones - "We'll buy from overseas!" PROBLEM IS EVERYONE ELSE is also in the same situation and they need their people at home doing the work they need done. Simon Michaux who I mostly agree with until it gets to the subject of what to do next recently said and I AGRRE 100% with him on this point. He basically said: "Its not that we can't do the energy transition but we need a better plan."
    2
  83. As an aerospace engineer you've basically hit it 100%. This could have and should have been a great tool for the development of systems and knowledge on how to do this off world. The fact it didn't deliver anything usable as in it didn't answer the questions that need to be answered. The biggest question of all isn't how do we replicate the Earth but rather how do we replicate a "Bit of the Earth" that can work as a stable biological system that can in part sustain an off world base. They kept trying to be too complex and maybe that is an answer but it didn't answer: "What can we do that works?" If you think back to Apollo there were a lot of different mission profiles suggested and rocket designs proposed but in the end they went with something they could get to work. Its the advice I give to many younger engineers. Look through the requirements and specifications and sort out "what's necessary" from "what's glitz"? Ask yourself how many sports cars looked incredible and were failures because they had crap suspension, crap engines, crap transmissions,.....etc? I bet you've seen the same thing or something very similar in environmental science projects.
    2
  84.  @Skylancer727  You have very accurately summed up many of these so called "science educators." I started with a degree in aerospace and work in automation, robotics and control systems and like many STEM educated people have had enough of the fantasy promoters. We (as in the entire human race) have some really serious issues to solve in the next 10 or so years and none of us can get a seat at the table because there are so many clowns confusing the daylights out of every one. We spend more time explaining basic things rather than working on solutions.
    2
  85. THERE'S ONE GIANT PROBLEM with all of this. The Democrats (or should we call them the DUMOcrats) were so stupid they lost to "they're eating cats and dogs" boy. That's 2 out of the last 3 elections they have lost to a clown show. IF YOU WANT TO SEE STUPID - A bunch of Harris-Walz campaign staffers were interviewed on Pod Save America a few days ago. NOT ONE of them accepted any responsibility at all. FYI - I'm Australian and in 2019 the Australian Labor Party ran a similar Hilary Style campaign AND LOST. Later in 2019 British Labor did the same thing so I asked a Brit (one of Thunderf00ts countrymen) WTF was going on. They told me staffers from the Clinton Campaign advised BOTH British Labor and Australian Labor in 2019. THAT'S 4 Major Campaigns in 3 countries these people have lost in 8 years and sat there on Pod Save America and simply refused to accept any responsibility for anything. Trump didn't so much as win. The DUMOCRATS ran a campaign so hopeless that even Japanese Kamikaze pilots would not have joined it.
    2
  86.  @scottthewaterwarrior  WTF????? WTF does "But money!" mean.
    2
  87. Who else has started getting bombarded with add after add about this fantasy?
    2
  88.  @Skank_and_Gutterboy  Well summed up. There are people who believe stuff no matter how stupid for no other reason than they want to believe that stuff. And they always demand other people prove what they believe.
    2
  89.  @zwerko  Take that down. That's not funny and is as stupid as you could possibly be. If you use non-specific words like temple or altar you are not being specific to anything other than how stupid Elon's followers are. Doing what you did links Elon to a specific religion and that's stupid. If you don't like being spoken to as if you're a child then don't act like one.
    2
  90.  @davidsmith-ih2kk  Good point to raise. You're not the first and shouldn't be the last. The idiotic lack of safety should be rammed down the throats of the fool supporting this.
    2
  91.  @TechySeven  As others have said this is nothing like many of his other busted videos, which is why I don't think its really a busted video.
    2
  92.  @shiftyjesusfish  Also Elon's a charlatan for sure, but he's a different kind. Elizabeth Holmes and others never had anything it was all just a fantasy and many of them snatched their ideas from sci-fi. Elizabeth Holmes got her idea from Gattaca. The water from the air thing is from Star Wars - as in Uncle Owen's moisture farm. Elon's difference is that he has actually lucked onto a couple of things that were real and could be exploited. He lucked into Paypal. He never did any of the coding for it, but Elon was able to exploit it. He lucked into Tesla. He had nothing to do with the original development. I've been in one and they are fantastic and Elon has been able to exploit it. He lucked into SpaceX because he found a team that knew what they wanted to do and he didn't get in their road (or they just ignored him). Falcon is a great success, especially when you compare it to other systems. The last NASA flights on Soyuz cost $90M a seat. Falcon 9/Crew Dragon is $70M for 4 seats. Its been an incredible success and Elon has been able to exploit it. Your dead right Elon's a charlatan but he's very cleverly (or by luck) put himself in the place to claim other peoples work as his own or imply he was the driving force behind their work.
    2
  93.  @shiftyjesusfish  You've summed up his attitude pretty well. Go look you the channel "common sense skeptic" he pulls Elon's crap apart quite well. There's an extensive set of vids on the Solar City debacle. Somehow it seems Elon has slipped out of that one but who knows what the Tesla investors will do next. On rocket fuels, it really depends on which rocket fuel is being used. Liquid Oxygen (LOX) is one common common oxidiser but it can be mixed with refined Kerosene (RP-1) like it was with the Apollo Saturn V first stage or the with liquid Hydrogen as it was with the Space Shuttle or Methane like Elon's using. The space shuttle main engines just produced water vapour, it was just damn hot and moving really fast. the Methane engines produce mostly CO2 and H2O. RP-1 gets a little bit more weird as it has fractions that aren't healthy. Some of the solid propellants aren't so clean either, but overall if we try and point the finger at the rocket industry as spoiling the planet its like yelling at an ant while you ignore a herd of elephants. Don't worry about FKING up other planets. Either we learn how to look after this one or there won't be any of us left to go FK-UP anywhere else. We really don't have a lot of time to sort out how to live sustainably. Mother nature is just like a mistress. So long as you treat her right she will provide you with bounty, but if you don't she will wreck your life.
    2
  94.  @shiftyjesusfish  There's a little known subject in that some call "planetary mechanics." Its sort of the first step in any ideas about terraforming. Its about raw numbers regarding how much stuff you need. Your not worried about the dynamics of the planet as it rotates about the sun (or a star) its just about how much stuff you need. Mars has a surface area of 144,000,000 km If you consider it like very big ball with 144,000,000 cubes stuck on the outside year sure there's gaps but then some of those cubes will have mountains inside. In quite simple terms you can approximate that to 144,000,000 cubic kilometers of AIR if you want to make the surface of Mars habitable. That's just the most basic thing getting enough air. Atmospheric air at sea level is about 1.2kg per meter cubed at around 20C. So that 1 kilometer or air around Mars would weigh something like: 1.2 kg/m3 * 144,000,000 km3 * 1,000,000,000 m3/km3 = 172,800,000,000,000,000 kilograms of air. Or dropping some zeros 172,800,000 Mega tons of air. To put that in perspective the entire world production of iron ore is about 3,000 Megatons a year. So its an extraordinary amount of air and its not simply locked up in rocks or ice. Were talking about going comet hunting for suitable sources of Oxygen and Nitrogen. If your wondering why this might seem crazy you'll now know why we don't discuss these things much. It just confuses people, but the most basic thing to realise is that planets are bloody big objects.
    2
  95. I am an engineer and we live that precariously in almost EVERY business we work for. After 30+ years I have very little to recommend that anyone go into any form of engineering right now and yet in some ways its never looked more promising. The amount of infrastructure that needs upgrading (roads, bridges, power stations, power grids, water (both clean and waste), etc. is staggering. Forget the energy transition just go and look at how many rapidly ageing (as in how close they are to end of life) power stations there are across the developed world. That's the actual cause of the energy crisis under supply, but trying to get the economists who lead us to this point is damn difficult.
    2
  96.  Polar Per  Thanks, its called 30+ years of experience, which is rarely respected in any profession.
    2
  97. Aerospace Engineer - Your 100% right on the first point and sort of maybe on the second. Like Thunderf00t I had my time in Academia but actually walked away from my PhD Scholarship in disgust at the behavior of my supervisors. Mine just simply admitted to financial fraud to my face one day. I've spent the last 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation across a bunch of industries mostly manufacturing and mining. On one hand I absolutely agree that Elon Musk is a techno-charlatan BUT the reason he's got away with it is because he's actually done a couple of good things. I spent a chunk of my career building small production cells for the Australian automotive sector and I can tell that entire sector needed a super monster kick in the arse. In some ways its a brilliant industry and in others its easily one of the worst run industries on the planet. Mining is worse by the way. Sorry to all but, its an inescapable fact, that Tesla has shaken the automotive industry and given it the kick it needed. Love him or hate him it can't be denied, but that doesn't mean Elon is innocent either. All the stupid claims about FSD technology and other stuff was crap and garbage and he deserves all the scorn he gets for it. On the SpaceX front there's also a giant hit and miss. The Falcon rockets which Elon had effectively zero to do with have been a gigantic success. Its even more obvious when its compared to Boeing Starliner which so far has had 2 partially successful uncrewed test flights. Despite being originally scheduled for its first crewed flight in 2017 is yet to fly a person anywhere. Meanwhile Crew Dragon had 3 successful test flights followed by a manned test flight followed by 9 successful crewed missions a with 2 more crewed missions currently attached to the ISS. On the flip side just to show Elon is stupid. He's had little to do with Falcon & Crew Dragon, but been heavily involved with Starship and that's almost as bad as Boeing's Starliner. I wont go into it because its pages long. I'd say Elon has 2 things he very good at. 1) Identifying people who are technically very good at their job. Without that Tesla and SpaceX would have nothing. 2) Identifying what the non-technically trained general public will latch onto as the next super technology. In that respect he's like PT Barnum, the Warner Brothers, Walt Disney, Vince McMahon and many of the other entertainment industry leaders have been like - Elon knows what the general public will buy into.
    2
  98.  @superchuck3259  Yeah you are partly right, but the Russians developed that stuff well after Reagans Star Wars had ended. But a couple of things did come out of Star Wars like the Patriot anti-missile system. The Russian response is the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal which we've seen in Ukraine. The Russians are sort of lucky. They already had the Mig-31 which can not only fly very high (up to 70,000ft) but also very fast when its up that high (M2.8). How high they are for launch is unknown. Higher means less air density which means less drag. Altitude also helps getting up to those speeds as you are going downhill. Irrespective of everything at those speeds its bound to have serious ground & bunker penetration. Its pretty simple what the Russians did. Make seriously fast air to surface missile that's damn hard to respond to. Just don't be surprised there's stuff in the sales pitch that's not true.
    2
  99. I hear Yoda sent a message "Strong is Bullshit with this one it is."
    2
  100. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Playing a little bit of devils advocate and NOT defending the BULLSHlIT. Elon has done a couple of very good things BUT THEY DO NOT excuse all this nonsense and garbage that just wastes everyone's time. 1) TESLA has dragged the car industry off its collective butt and made them move on from ICE (Internal Combustion Engines). Having worked in the automotive industry they are an industry that is incredibly slow at innovation. That comes from how much it now costs to develop any new car. A previous client of mine was Hella the head and tail light manufacturer. Just the tooling for things like head lights can run into millions of dollars. Its why they quite often reuse one cars headlights or tail lights on another car. A famous example of that were the Toyota Corolla tail lights on the Lotus Esprit. So for ANYONE to get the main stream auto sector to shift is nothing to be belittled. THAT SAID - Elon has also MONSTROUSLY MISLEAD people over things like self driving cars and whether its even possible to make enough batteries to replace 1.5 Billion ICE cars with hybrid or electric or the 500 million ICE trucks in the world. 2) SPACEX has similarly dragged manned space flight out of the multi-decade failure of the Space Shuttle. YES the Space Shuttle might have been an amazing technical achievement but it was a long term disaster because of how much it sucked up in both in money and manhours. That's why going back to the Moon hasn't happened. The Space Shuttle consumed the money and instead of people doing lunar projects they were working on keeping the Space Shuttle flying. If you want to fairly compare Crew Dragon then compare it to Boeing's Starliner which was funded in parallel to Crew Dragon. DESPITE the same level of funding and development time Starliner is yet to fly a single crewed mission, while Crew Dragon currently has 4 active vehicles C206 Endeavor (4 flights), C207 Resilience (2 flights), C210 Endurance (3 flights) and 212 Freedom (2 flights). Despite the fact that Crew Dragon is not very innovative and can even be considered a technological step backwards from the Space Shuttle it also saved the manned space program from OBLIVION, which is more of an indictment on the entire program than it is a gold star for SpaceX. On the other SpaceX's Starship, that really is the joke that Thunderf00t and others describe. As for Elon's Mars proposals they're so bad they make the worst 1950's sci-fi films look like inspired documentaries. If Thunderf00t did wants to do a video with me on the whole "Can Mars be terraformed?" subject then I'm IN, because despite the fact I will defend a couple of Elon's successes I am farking tired of his nonsense. FYI - back in 1987 a NASA engineer gave me and my fellow classmates a special lecture on the project he'd just finished at NASA on terraforming. YES back in 1987 NASA had worked out how much bunk terraforming Mars was and I'd be happy to explain what he said.
    2
  101. Who else has started getting bombarded with add after add about this fantasy?
    2
  102. I'm an aerospace engineer and there's 2 points I like to remind people of just so the Muskrats don't go screaming and howling and claiming we are BLIND. And being fair there is a very mixed bag when we objectively look at Musk and his companies. 1) SpaceX did an amazing thing in breaking through the barriers to the space launch business that companies like Boeing dominated. We tend to forget that Boeing got more money to help develop Starliner which is yet to have a 100% successful flight. Crew Dragon in my view is a very good success. Its not ideal but it did get NASA back into flying its own astronauts from its own facilities back into space without having to fly via the Russians. HOWEVER that success does not and will never excuse Elon's stupidity over the Mars fantasy or idiocy on other space related things like Starship. YES my view of Starship is the complete opposite of Crew Dragon because Crew Dragon fulfilled an actual need while Starship does what other than pump Elon's ego? 2) Tesla did an amazing thing by becoming a successful EV manufacturer. I have worked in the Auto sector and getting that sector to change anything is staggeringly hard and yet Tesla go that entire industry to change. HOWEVER when you look at Elon's actual involvement in the development its been disastrous. There's a court case between Martin Eberhard one of the actual founders (with Marc Tarpenning) that's been covered by the YT channel Common Sense Skeptic. The really obvious thing is Cybertruck. That's not something Elon can blame on anyone else. The real tragedy in my view is that there's some fantastic engineers in both SpaceX and Tesla who have done some amazing work. Unfortunately its likely they will never get any credit because Elon will take that from them and once Elon does trash his empire the reputation of those people will also be trashed.
    2
  103.  @dogwalker666  Thanks I agree 100% with TF00t about Elon and his nonsense BUT I wished he'd show a little more perspective on the other people at both Tesla and SpaceX who have done good work. Not all of them deserve to be painted with Elon's brush. I know TF00t has had several goes at Gwynne Shotwell (SpaceX) and for sure she's said some dumb things. But she has also lead a team that has dramatically outperformed Boeing on getting Crew Dragon and other things working. The craziest aspect is that if Elon just got out of the road and let his people get their jobs done without interference then where would these 2 companies be? I think after he's wrecked both companies then there's going to be some of the greatest bargain investments in history because there's IP in both that's worth a lot.
    2
  104.  @Jedda73  Yeah, they'll be on next years Christmas wish list along with knives hand carved from tusks. the new thing for girls will include light wispy scarves, incredibly bright blue contacts and no makeup at all for the all new "rustic desert vibe".
    2
  105.  @OMGAnotherday  Fair comment up until you did the racist thing. Her first husband was Pakistani, her second is from San Diego. There's nothing in her immediate family that says Israel. So your comment is totally shit racist stupidity and you should delete it ASAP. FYI - I'm neither Israeli or Jewish. Its just a stupid racist comment.
    2
  106.  @durshurrikun150  If your referring to the Dems and what they were before WW2 and how the KKK was their making, then don't bother being a smart ass the world has an oversupply already. If your referring to the GOP who claim to defend democracy as they strip it form others then remind them that Lincoln was a Republican and he freed the slaves. If your referring to the Founding Fathers I never claimed they were perfect and nobody should ever claim they were perfect, but they did create a magnificent (but flawed) construct with the Bill of Rights. What certain people need reminding of is the Bill of Rights is not for white fundamentalist people only. What other people need reminding of is the Bill of Rights is NOT the property of minority groups with idiotic selfish narrow minded agendas.
    2
  107. For anyone who hasn't seen the TED interview its truly disgusting. TED & TEDx was (past tense) great and it allowed many very clever people to explain things to a wider audience, but these days its just a platform for fringe techno-fantasy charlatans and spruikers. The TED Musk interview was simply PR for Elon and for anyone who likes commenting DON'T on that page unless you like kicking nests of hornets.
    2
  108.  @herpderpherpd  Yeah BBT has its fair share of BS, but if you've ever been around University research which I have its not that far off the reality of how crazy it can be. I don't mean all the personal stuff I mean the stuff they did around the university. I means things like the internal jealousies, competitiveness, fights for tenure, fights for offices, fights for budget, etc. Some of that stuff I've seen first hand but without any of the humour. The bit right before they won the Nobel prize where the other guys had lied about their research that's way more common than people realise. One of the reasons I left the research field was because of the level of fraud both scientific and financial.
    2
  109.  @Gaeldx  Public Relations also known as corporate propaganda, spin or advertising, but more complex. PR departments make up ALL the stuff that is fed to the public via the media with the intent to create a narrative.
    2
  110.  @davemould4638  Sorry but NO - it had ZERO effect on NASA or NASA contracts. You've missed the point. None of the Indian companies were in the mix to compete with NASA contracts and therefore had nothing to do with anything at NASA.
    2
  111. I'm an engineer and some of the crap and garbage I hear coming via the media and advertising is so damn ugly. Its actually infuriating. I did my degree in aerospace but work in control systems and automation. Most of the claims I hear about AI in industry and how automation will change everything is just utter garbage. In so many ways engineers are to blame because we have allowed so many people to exaggerate for so long OR engineers have actively exaggerated certain technologies in an effort to gain attention or funding or both. Just last week I watched the head of Australia's CSIRO make an ass of himself on national TV over a question on AI and the journalist hosting the discussion panel make idi0tic claims about automation and driverless cars. Its maybe the worst aspect of allowing everyone to use technologies like computers and smartphones and GPS systems. They all think they are technically literate. Its almost a form of mass Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
    2
  112.  @MrRaulstrnad  Their is a thing that really annoys me about the technological ignorance among educated people. In universities around the world ALL engineers have to take some humanities classes/courses to make them "well rounded." I did Psych 101, Economics 101, a couple of classes in sociology and a couple in classical civilization. They are even useful in todays climate. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️ BUT not 1 university anywhere makes any arts degree student take or require as part of a curriculum a single engineering class AND YET they all live and work in a world built by engineers. Engineers built the roads, power stations, internet, water systems, factories and everything else. In Australia I know of only 1 item you can buy that doesn't involve engineering - GENUINE (not counterfeit) native Australian Art, because they go out themselves and gather the materials. People forget that if it involves machinery of any sort then it involves engineers and that includes food production. If it has any metal or plastic or paper/cardboard then its an engineered product.
    2
  113.  @mgc7199  I'm actually Australian and I used to argue with my brother that we had to keep a manufacturing industry. That needed more automation not less. On one hand that was to be competitive, but more to the point not everybody can be a programmer. The idea that some have expressed that you can just retrain factory workers to code is utter nonsense. What the economists never worked out (because they are all taught the same stupid nonsense) is that every factory worker is a value adder. We used to have a lot of talk about value adding in Australia until the service industry hawks grabbed the microphone and started yelling. They wanted everyone to become coders and stock traders and other "what they perceived" more useful professions. It was a totally delusional standpoint and we have paid a staggering cost for that delusion. its what we got for sending some of our people to places like Harvard, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.
    2
  114.  @Jonathan.D  Yeah its just another case of seeing it in sci-fi and then claiming its real. Single drop of blood - Gattaca Water from the air - Star Wars (Uncle Owen) Hyperloop - Space 1999, Logans Run Donut shaped space station with artificial gravity - 2001: A Space Odyssey Star Force - Star Wars, Buck Rogers, Battle Star Galactica, Moonraker (the James Bond sci-fi) and a few others.
    2
  115.  @Jonathan.D  Yeah all around. Except can we call it a scam when people are so stupid they think sci-fi is real? The best one I heard recently is that David Icke the British conspiracy theorist got his lizard people schtick from the original version of "V" On Elon Musk here's financial analyst Patrick Boyle. He's pretty smart, his analysis is very good but he's about as exciting as watching paint dry. This is his take on Elon Musk (note the title): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXxeyOVpnCU
    2
  116.  @Jonathan.D  Moors - who do you mean. I know historically who the Moors are Muslims in Spain, but I'm not certain who you are talking about.
    2
  117. That is such a great line and the full quote is even better "a scream of defiance against weaponized stupidity and the influences of ignorance." I'm an aerospace engineer and the staggering amount of ignorance in the media on reporting almost everything in technology is staggering. I'm Australian but did my degree in America in the late 80s during the Reagan Star Wars era. We worked out back then that the whole energy weapons zapping ballistic missiles was NEVER GOING TO WORK. The classic was that lasers bounce off shiny surfaces. Even if you can deliver the energy required you have vehicles moving at insane speeds and the task of being able to identify track predict and target accurately anything is incredibly hard. Yet just recently here in Australia the head of our "space force" announced they would be pursuing "soft kill" technologies for satellites and the media jumped on it like they have with the word "hypersonic." The ignorant mass of Australia egged on by the clickbait brigade in the media are preparing to spend several billion dollars on junk science that CANNOT EVER WORK. And that's just one of the idiotically stupid things we are up to. Every other developed nation is also doing similarly stupid things. Other than the media a major problem is the consulting industry who just drown the business world and governments under mountains of BS. Go look up British-Italian economist Mariana Mazzucato who's recently written a book called "the big con" about the consulting industry. There's a bunch of talks she's given here on YT about the subject of the consulting industry and how pervasive it is.
    2
  118.  @Lucien86  And you are spot on 100% about AI. Its going to be the next great etch disaster. Its basically a solution to a problem that does not exist and might not ever exist. I've heard ChatGPT is losing $700million a month. When I checked I could not find that reference but I found claims it costs $700k per day to run. However I did find a report that said OpenAI expected to lose $5 Billion this year. Plus Altman is asking for $10 Billion form investors. So who knows what's really going on. One thing I can say is they have a massive issue with power requirements and energy is one of my pet subjects. There was a proposed server farm in one of the Carolinas (I think) where they needed 1Gigawatt of power. that's the same as an AP1000 nuclear reactor and they cost $17 Billion and 10 years just to build. The world already has an energy shortage and these clowns want the rest of us to pay for power stations so they can feed us their AI. They're utterly nuts.
    1
  119.  @eelcohoogendoorn8044  All good points.
    1
  120. Are you talking about the people in Africa or the Tesla fans who think Elon is the Messiah?
    1
  121. Great video mate, but I wouldn't call this a busted video because he keeps pointing out where the Veritasium video was right. Its more like he's a more comprehensive explanation of what's going on with electrostatics and various fluids. I know your background is in chemistry mine is in engineering where I work in control systems and automation. There is a kind of flow meter that is very common for water treatment called a "Magnetic Flow Meter" usually referred to as a "mag flow". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_flow_meter I have been on a waster water project where ON PART of that project we could just not get them to work properly. It was on a mine site with some highly contaminated water. The process included chemical treatment, clarification, filtration and finally reverse osmosis. The RO was far from normal and was designed to almost de-mineralize the water. That caused a problem with the mag flow meters on the clean outlet side of the RO plant. They were fine everywhere else on the project but we could just not get them to work properly on the RO plant clean outlet where there was almost no contaminants. The thought was we just didn't have enough conductivity between the electrodes to make them work. Not certain if that helps or not. I suspect its not as straight forward as a lot of people think.
    1
  122. Yes on all accounts. I'm an aerospace engineer and I hate these people. They are the reason we took so long to get a space station, why its cost so much, why it took even longer to get a replacement for the space shuttle than it should have AND MOST OF ALL why we haven't been back to the moon for 50 years. We could have and probably should have had a moon base by now and maybe gone to Mars but these clowns keep interrupting with nonsense and garbage.
    1
  123. Yeah as an engineer who's been involved in manufacturing I can state quite comfortably that there's at least a million engineers who know more about manufacturing than Elon Musk. Just consider every other manufacturing sector that Elon Musk is NOT involved in then ask what would he know? Here's some basic manufacturing questions: 1) How do you make the cardboard of a milk carton waterproof? 2) What's the basic difference between moulding the plastic for the reflector in a headlight versus the front lens? 3) 2 of the main metals his teslas are made from are Copper and Aluminum what's the basic difference between how they are extracted from the ore? 4) Why do you need to anneal copper? 5) In a machine shop what's the basic difference between a lathe and a milling machine?
    1
  124. Answers below Just in case you thought I was being facetious. 1) There's a very thin film of plastic. What's odd about the process is that for a plastic process its done at much higher temperature than injection molding so that it sticks to the paper/cardboard. Normally polyethylene and polyethylene/polypropylene mixes are moulded at 160-180℃ while for paper coating its 300-320 2) Because reflectors have to deal with heat from the light bulbs they were traditionally made from thermoset plastics which look and feel a bit like bread dough. Its pushed into the die where it is HEATED then cooled. The shiny surface is created by first spraying the front side in a lacquer that's UV cured and then under vacuum has a layer of Aluminum about 50-200 atoms thick embedded in the lacquer. Its the lacquer that makes one side shiny and the other dull grey. 3) Copper like many metals is first extracted from the ore using acid leaching. Aluminum does not dissolve from the bauxite using acids and it is instead done with caustic at temperature and pressure. The process is known as the Bayer Process and yes it was by a member of the Bayer family now famous for pharmaceuticals. 4) Copper unlike most metals work hardens as you bend and flex it so it need to be softened through the opposite process to the quench hardening you see on the sword & knife channels. It differs from tempering. Annealing unlike tempering aims to make the metal as soft as practical while tempering aims to specifically keep some hardness while reducing brittleness. To see examples of these processes I recommend watching the sword & knife channels for hardening and tempering and the hobbyist channels making things like model steam engines for annealing. the channel Blondihacks is currently building a model steam engine made from copper. 5) I'd expect that any mechanical engineer knows the difference between a lathe and a mill. Look at what is rotating in the main spindle. A lathe has the part held to the spindle and rotates while the tool is moved in 2 or more axis to shape the part. A mill has the tool mounted in the spindle and it rotates while the part is held to the table and moved around in 2 or more axis to make the part. Where it gets confusing is that it is possible to use a mill as a lathe and a lathe as a mill.
    1
  125. ​ @DrWhom  Actually 2 out of 5 is incredibly good for most people. Which 2 by the way? And EM wouldn't know the ore one because Tesla is an end user. These are the sorts of things you only find out from being in those industries. FYI - I started with a degree in aerospace but landed in industrial control systems and automation in the manufacturing sector. That's where I know the manufacturing stuff from. In 2002 I met Apollo 17's Harrison Schmitt who told me to check out Helium-3 which is a potential nuclear fusion fuel and the only known industrial level source is the moon which is where I wanted to go. So I went off to get some experience in mining which was fortuitous because Australia was just starting a boom in new mines to feed the Chinese beast. Because I was interested in how you actually get raw materials out of the ground and get what you want I paid attention to everything I could. The main lesson I got from the mining game was infrastructure. A lot of our mines in Australia are in remote locations and you have to build EVERYTHING from scratch including all the basic services like power, water & sewerage AND THEN maintain it. So I've had an odd and varied career so far. Its actually the infrastructure thing that has me most concerned these days because without it our modern world just stops. Its why I hate the media and their endless over hyping everything. We just aren't getting any air time on things we actually need.
    1
  126.  @kevinmm20  It's been a while but I'd say until somebody does the work and actually explains it properly then nobody is absolutely right.
    1
  127.  @kevinmm20  Thunderf00t's pretty good but he's not perfect either. As said I'll wait for someone to do some hard science on it. I suspect this is one of those strange science problems where there are multiple effects making stuff happen. There's a few things like super conductors being universally repelled by electromagnets. The current explanation is eddy currents, but how can anyone actually prove it? If you 've ever met theoretical physicists you'd know they aren't normal.
    1
  128. No problem, Romania still has gymnasts and according to Top Gear (Clarkson, May and Hammond) one of the greatest stretches of road anywhere on the planet - The Transfăgărășan highway through the Carpathian Mountains. Those are 2 things you can always be proud of.
    1
  129.  @satunnainenkatselija4478  I'm not certain what field of research your in but I am an engineer and I've never seen any text book that bad. What Sebastian has done is totally confuse heat transfer with temperature change. To non-STEM people both equations look very similar as they both have a delta-T term and a thermal coefficient in them. One equations is about how much energy is moving from point A to point B. The other is about changes to physical properties. They are similar equations but very different in the answer. For a person with a PhD in physics to confuse the 2 IN A PUBLIC SPAT however is pretty pathetic.
    1
  130.  @TheChzoronzon  Yeah that one was a bit of yi ye yo ya yu creative license???????
    1
  131. I'm not certain what your background is but I work in control systems and automation. There is a kind of flow meter that is very common for water treatment called a "Magnetic Flow Meter" usually referred to as a "mag flow". I have been on a waster water project where on part of that project we could just not get them to work properly. It was on a mine site with some highly contaminated water. The process included chemical treatment, clarification, filtration and finally reverse osmosis. The RO was far from normal and was designed to almost de-mineralize the water. That caused a problem with the mag flow meters on the clean outlet side of the RO plant. There just wasn't enough minerals in the water to get enough conductivity for that kind of measurement to work. I wouldn't call this a busted video because he keeps pointing out where the Veritasium video was right. Its more like he's a more comprehensive explanation of what's going on with electrostatics and various fluids. I suspect its not as straight forward as a lot of people think.
    1
  132.  @jlmassir  There's plenty of explanations of how mag-flow meters work. It basically from induction caused by charged particles moving through the coils. But if there's no electrical flow between the electrodes you don't get the charged particles to do that induction. The electrical flow between the electrodes is also AC not DC. I know that because in the mag-flow parameters you can adjust the frequency, which is needed if the water has fewer impurities. It was one of the things we tried on that RO plant.
    1
  133. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Like many engineers I am TIRED of clowns promoting garbage to the public that we then have to explain and explain and explain why its not possible or it won't work. This crap and nonsense is going on constantly, with scammer after scammer promoting the next thing and wasting everyone's time and money. Just the other day I had some ignorant clown tell me that here in Australia we ALREADY HAVE a couple of Small Modular Reactors operating. Funny thing is NONE of the companies involved in SMRs are saying anything other than they HOPE to have them available by the mid 2030s. According to this clown somehow Australia has time warped in a couple of SMRs. As an aerospace engineer I hear all sorts of nonsense from terraforming Mars (which is simply a fantasy), to Jewish or Chinese Space lasers causing grass fires to hypersonic missiles that manoeuvre and dance around the sky AND ITS ALL BULLSHIT. What Thunder00t is doing with these basic calculations of HOW MUCH IS NEEDED is what I call planetary mechanics. Along with my classmates we were introduced to this by a NASA engineer who did a guest lecture one day. He'd just finished a project for NASA on what it would take to terraform Mars. Once NASA realised just how much stuff (like air) is needed to cover a planet they gave up on the idea of EVER terraforming Mars. But 35 years later there are millions of Elon Musk fans who think they will be going to Mars to terraform it. DID you notice for this proposal the team leader is an Architect? If Architects knew how much engineers HATE THEM. Other than a few of the very best architects who know what their designs do to the people who have to make them, the vast majority of architects are PROBLEM CREATORS. The worst part of their attitude is THEY KNOW they are creating problems for other people to deal with.
    1
  134.  @herrschaftg35  be careful so many make claims about the scientific method and then totally ignore what they learned in high school.
    1
  135. Good to see you've taken time out from watching Britain self destruct. We've all been wondering who'd push the U.K. over the Brexit Cliff and some of us are surprised we thought it would be the buffoons buffoon Boris. Instead we got Dolly the Sheep's cousin the clone of Margaret Thatcher.
    1
  136. Have a look at the rotating restaurant perched on the tail and look at the edge of it Have a look at the struts on the tail bracing the rotating restaurant - they're square. Have a look at all the stuff under the main wing connecting it to the lower wing. This is OBVIOUSLY somebodies joke just to see how many news services would bite. Thunderf00t should have started or finished with that.
    1
  137.  @ominous-omnipresent-they  Actually I am trying to convince a Boomer at the moment Elon is full of SHlT, but its slow going. BUT look at most of the Elon fanbase, they're millennials. Look at all the examples in this video and ask how many are millennials?
    1
  138.  @ominous-omnipresent-they  AND Yeah I forgot all the hillbillies in West Virginia but their millennials look that old from the inbreeding. 🤔🤔🤔
    1
  139. Agreed this maggots garbage was flagged to me by the YT algorithm last week. I watched some of it and checked the dates to see if it was older or something new and its something new. 2 things are staggering. 1) That he has the audacity to keep making the claims he does. 2) All of the M0R0Ns who cheer him on in the comments.
    1
  140. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS engineer here: This is WHY I KNOW FSD (full self driving) is a false and misleading concept at least for the moment. AND APOLOGIES IF THIS IS LONGISH. FYI - My degree was in aerospace but I have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. That has included working with many sensor systems including laser scanning systems. Although I don't work with vision systems I was introduced to the basics of vision systems in 1998 and am fully aware of many of the advancements in that area. The actual problem with FSD is the amount of information that needs to be processed. As human beings we just don't realise how much information our visual cortex processes every second and that's because most of it is processed by our peripheral system which is NOT part of our general conscious. Its all there in our periphery and we aren't focussing on it. Our peripheral system is extraordinary at clumping things together and dismissing irrelevant clumps while alerting our conscious system of potential threats or items of interest. For example we don't see a 100,000 leaves attached to 1,000s branches attached to a trunk connected to a root system we see a tree. We don't see several million yellowish hairs covering 4 legs a body, a tail, a head, big teeth and an even bigger set of fangs we see a lion. Out on the African savannah people don't see millions of blades of grass, 1,000s and 1,000s of antelope, wildebeests, birds, insects and other wild life. OUR BRAIN via our peripheral system filters out the noise and will latch onto that 1 lion out of all those millions and millions of items in our visual range and SCREAM "that's a threat." Similarly when driving a car down the average suburban street we see but don't focus on the millions of leaves - we see the trees and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see don't see all the nuts, bolts, sheets of glass, sheet metal, paint and rubber - we see parked cars and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see the bricks, boards, windows, window frames, paint - we see houses and dismiss them as NOT a threat. BUT WE DO SEE the bouncing ball coming down a driveway and our peripheral system SCREAMS that there's a dog or a child chasing after that ball OR we'll see a flash of something else and our peripheral system will alert our conscious brain to be aware of it. Like we'll suddenly notice one of the parked cars just moved. This is what our peripheral system does with incredible speed. It processes a staggering mass of data every second and compares it to previous seconds and then filters out all the noise. This is why certain players in team sports seem so amazing in how they can suddenly pass to another player in a way that asks "How did they see them?" The answer is they are people whose peripheral system just operates better than average and in some rare cases a lot better. NOW TRY AND CONSIDER HOW YOU MIGHT GET A COMPUTER TO DO THAT???? Remember no 2 trees are the same, and no 2 cars are ever parked the same, and no 2 houses are the same PLUS no 2 streets are the same anywhere on the planet. There's always something different. NOW CONSIDER that the perspective (as in the visual angles) on that scene is changing every second because your car is MOVING. You now have to process the next image and compare it to previous images to pick up that movement or notice that item that gets the wider scoping part of the system to flag an item of interest to the higher level decision making part of the system. Suddenly you will realise that the scope of the technological task to get a computer to do what the human peripheral system does is monstrous. Once you understand the scope of the task required to to do FSD you'll quickly realise that it MIGHT BE possible for some limited situations or MIGHT be possible once we get the visual scanning systems capable of sorting through all the noise to find those few items that need a higher level of evaluation we can't even begin the task BUT RIGHT NOW we don't have those systems because if they existed we hear all about it. We'd hear about the camera that's as good or better than a human eye and we'd hear about the processor that's as good as the human peripheral system AND NOBODY is even saying they have it under development or has made "the breakthrough". Lets also NOT forget that a bunch of car manufacturers GAVE UP on FSD about 5 years ago. Uber sold off its FSD once they, (like the car manufacturers) realised just what it would take to do the job. This is also why, with the exception of a few tiny companies desperately trying for attention (and money) have stopped trying to build self FLYING air taxis. Sorry if this was longish but I hope you get the gist of why it might be possible in future but NOT NOW.
    1
  141. ​ @Exkhaniber  Thanks and sorry its so long but I am doing a lot of that type of costing and assessing work right now. I few years ago I put forward a AU$720 Million proposal for an Australian Space Program based on air launching. It was all about keeping costs down and focussing on what we needed which for Australia is Earth Observation technology to support our Agriculture and Tourism sectors. In Oz (combined) those 2 sectors employ about 850,000 people and are worth AU$255 Billion a year. So they are sort of massive to our economy. Considering both are highly vulnerable to Climate change I thought I'd at least get some questions. I got zip and the RAAF (our air force) got AU$7 Billion, which includes some of the Star Wars stuff that we we worked out back in the late 80s can NEVER WORK. So all this spending stuff is on my plate at the moment.
    1
  142. Its about 2 digits too few and you keep letting it all burn down. Below this is the comment I addressed to Thunderf00t sorry but its longish ----------- ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    1
  143.  @sebastiankirbach1984  Of course it doesn't when you are only planting a few hundred million when you need to be planting several Trillion. How else do you think you'll remove 1.5 Trillion soon to become 2 Trillion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere?? Can any of you clowns do basic math??? Just planting a few million trees is like trying to empty an Olympic size swimming pool by sucking through a straw.
    1
  144. He's just another media content producer who doesn't give a damn about facts. His business model is clicks. YouTube had been very democratic in allowing bullshite producers a great place to operate. As an engineer I hate these people because they confuse the crap out of the general public with what we can and can't do. Even when there are good technologies they often confuse people about what those technologies can and can't do. In this video above there's a reference to the liquid metal battery. That's a technology that's been developed by MIT Professor Donald Sadoway. He's cofounded the company Ambri to manufacture them. That's a technology that has great potential for FIXED (not mobile) energy storage. As in things like community batteries. So its shame that clowns like Matt Farrell are confusing people with garbage because some of its NOT garbage but most people can;t tell what is and isn't garbage.
    1
  145. Aerospace engineer here: I've 30+ years working in industrial control & safety systems across a number of industries. I can state for a fact that MOST engineering standards, codes of practice, procedures and regulations are ALL WRITTEN IN BLOOD. (edit) Or should we say "*Written in somebody else's blood!*" There's basically an ongoing battle between engineers who want things to work properly and those wanting to take risks and in most cases take risks that other people will have to pay for if it goes bad. The actual truth is we are now dominated by an economic paradigm where unacceptable risk is now acceptable because as Milton Freidman said "Greed is good." Ask any engineer who wants to do things right and follow standards and they will tell you that 2 questions are fired back - "What's the business case for that?" and "Who's going to pay for that?"
    1
  146.  @Junkman  In other words he bullshitting just as t-foot describes.
    1
  147.  @scottthewaterwarrior  Milton Friedman - "There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." The problem is most people hear nothing after the word "increase it profits". But even then Friedman is utterly FOS because its mindless to think that any business can keep growing for ever. We live in a finite world. Friedman was one of history's most overrated clowns and look at the mess we now have.
    1
  148. Thank you for being honest about the techno-hype that is AI. I'm an aerospace engineer who works in control systems, automation and robotics. I'm so over the clowns in media who just take whatever PR they are handed and just open their mouths spew crap. When I did my degree I had to take humanities classes so that I became a "well rounded person." How come NOBODY doing an arts degree has to do even the most basic class in engineering so that they know what we do, what sorts of technicians we need to get it done, and what's science fiction and what's real?
    1
  149.  @Fetidaf  WTF are you trying to say? Go read what you wrote and see if it makes sense. WTF does "less than 5% less" mean?
    1
  150.  @Fetidaf  Where the fark are you pulling this stuff from? Cos if your using Elon Musk data then out of luck because not even people who work for Elon Musk believe Elon Musk's data. Gwynne Shotwell (CEO at SpaceX) refers to things like "Elon Time" whenever he says something will get done by a certain date.
    1
  151.  @Fetidaf  I all agree with that except for the general maintenance. Outside of the engine & drivetrain there's not difference between electric, diesel, gas, hydrogen, LPG there's no difference between vehicle types. That's one of the bullshit things regarding the push to electric vehicles. The cost of chassis, wheels, suspension, BRAKES, windscreens, door, lights,.. etc wont change. The Greenies also don't take into consideration the CO2 emissions regarding all those raw materials in a car or the production of components from those raw materials. And before you ask I used to build automated manufacturing cells for car parts in the supply chain. If we really want to go electrical then the main push has to be in CONVERTING existing vehicles NOT replacing them. We also need to be less concerned with trucks, power walls and mega batteries because we just don't have enough Lithium supply to do it all. We need to be looking at other batter technologies for stationary applications. Things like the Sadoway battery or the other batteries that don't use Lithium. In heavy vehicles like trucks and the giant dump trucks & diggers used in mining there's work underway in just changing the fuel over to hydrogen. Fortescue Metals in Australia is already testing that on dump trucks. Rolls Royce can supply stationary generators based based on existing diesel engines that use hydrogen as their fuel. It probably wont work for boats and ships because of the range they need. But I can see nuclear reactors taking over for the shipping industry.
    1
  152.  @Fetidaf  I don't why you think that the energy offset for a truck is a few 1000 miles. Its little understood outside the manufacturing industries but in general your average family car consumes more energy and creates more pollution being made than it does in 20-25 years of normal driving. I'll be honest the first time I heard that I called BS and the person telling me was actually a mechanic. He told me to FK-OFF and go look at how much goes into just making the raw steel, aluminum, plastic and glass. Its why I say if the Greenies knew their stuff they campaign against new cars. People forget that the car industry is the biggest manufacturing industry in the world by raw materials and energy, because its doesn't just include the cars it includes all the stuff needed to make the cars. There's entire industries like industrial robots that primarily exist for car manufacturing. I know I used to program them. Tesla's are full of metals that aren't found as much in other cars. There's a lot more copper and copper is incredibly energy intensive to refine it to where you can use it the way its used in a Tesla. And before you ask, I have spent most of the last 20 years on mine sites. I have worked in the iron, ore, cocking coal, copper, aluminum, uranium and gold industries to name a few. One of the first mines I worked on was a copper mine that produced 99.999% pure copper. After getting it out of the ore with sulphuric acid they eventually got it into a near pure copper solution from which they electroplated it onto stainless steel sheets. That electroplating system used a lot of power. Copper will be the next big issue in the energy transition. Like Lithium we don't produce enough. Its why people strip it out of old houses, factories and anywhere else they can.
    1
  153.  @blargh3428  There are letting Elon do a lot of things. Ruining the environment with rockets is pretty small compared to the rest of what he does. AND all of the rockets combined are NOTHING compared to the power industry.
    1
  154.  @vigilantmug5028  Great point - there are many countries with energy issues. A lot of people forget that as populations grow they also require more energy. For most of the last 20+ years few western countries kept building major base load power stations to provide a solid foundation to underpin their energy needs. I'm Australian and I have seen claims that 75% of our main base load power stations are past their design life. As an engineer that's partly questionable because you can re-life a power station with a major rebuild. That can only be done so many times. Our major issue is some of ours are so old there is nothing that can be done. and we aren't the only country
    1
  155.  @awesomeferret  You've just pointed out the hyper-elephant in the room that's trampling on human society right now - misinformation that people choose to accept as fact irrespective of how idiotic it might be. Its not simply a matter of people speaking garbage, that's been happening since the dawn of society. Its that we (for the first time in history) have a mechanism for distributing verbal garbage (social media) to every person on the planet who WANTS to believe any particular piece of garbage they like. There's a great line about how the village idiot used to be restricted to the village, but thanks to social media they village idiots across the globe can now gather together and spread their stupidity everywhere. Arguably the biggest problem is when people like what they hear they don't fact check anything and then mistakes and lies become facts.
    1
  156. I wouldn't call this a busted video because he keeps pointing out where the Veritasium video was right. Its more like he's a more comprehensive explanation of what's going on with electrostatics and various fluids.
    1
  157. That's a great point. He really does show what sort of person he is. There's a real shame to this. I am an Australian aerospace engineer and have worked in our automotive sector before its demise. What Elon did in shaking up 2 major industries and getting them to change is actually amazing. YEs all of the hard work was done by people he employed, but he simply could have acknowledged that and claimed he was the guy who brought it all together. INSTEAD he wanted all the credit and what the gaming thing shows is that underneath it all he's an attention seeking narcissist. With Tesla there's an interview with the 2 guys who actually founded it and they describe how from the moment he arrived he had to flip the company into "its all about Elon." Did Elon raise Tesla's profile and shake up the car industry? YES, but he was only part of it NOT all of it. With SpaceX did Elon tap into a group of frustrated engineers who knew they could build better rockets than Boeing and others? YES and he was damn lucky to have those engineers available. From an engineering perspective the Falcon Rockets and Crew Dragon have been an outstanding success and especially when judged against Boeing's Starliner. BUT THEN Elon had to have the "biggest rocket" forgetting whether its practical or needed. Yeah Starship and the chopstick catcher is spectacular BUT IS IT REALLY NEEDED or is it just an ego trip?
    1
  158. Follow up Stephen Petranek is just a writer his basic bio is easy to find on Wikipedia. He can make all these claims because he DOES NOT do any of the technology development. He doesn't have to do any of that boring maths stuff or reading an endless list of technical papers. If you go back far enough TED and TEDx used to have on some great people who were informing people. Now its just a bunch of clowns preaching garbage.
    1
  159. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS engineer here: This is WHY I KNOW FSD (full self driving) is a false and misleading concept at least for the moment. AND APOLOGIES IF THIS IS LONGISH. FYI - My degree was in aerospace but I have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. That has included working with many sensor systems including laser scanning systems. Although I don't work with vision systems I was introduced to the basics of vision systems in 1998 and am fully aware of many of the advancements in that area. The actual problem with FSD is the amount of information that needs to be processed. As human beings we just don't realise how much information our visual cortex processes every second and that's because most of it is processed by our peripheral system which is NOT part of our general conscious. Its all there in our periphery and we aren't focussing on it. Our peripheral system is extraordinary at clumping things together and dismissing irrelevant clumps while alerting our conscious system of potential threats or items of interest. For example we don't see a 100,000 leaves attached to 1,000s branches attached to a trunk connected to a root system we see a tree. We don't see several million yellowish hairs covering 4 legs a body, a tail, a head, big teeth and an even bigger set of fangs we see a lion. Out on the African savannah people don't see millions of blades of grass, 1,000s and 1,000s of antelope, wildebeests, birds, insects and other wild life. OUR BRAIN via our peripheral system filters out the noise and will latch onto that 1 lion out of all those millions and millions of items in our visual range and SCREAM "that's a threat." Similarly when driving a car down the average suburban street we see but don't focus on the millions of leaves - we see the trees and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see don't see all the nuts, bolts, sheets of glass, sheet metal, paint and rubber - we see parked cars and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see the bricks, boards, windows, window frames, paint - we see houses and dismiss them as NOT a threat. BUT WE DO SEE the bouncing ball coming down a driveway and our peripheral system SCREAMS that there's a dog or a child chasing after that ball OR we'll see a flash of something else and our peripheral system will alert our conscious brain to be aware of it. Like we'll suddenly notice one of the parked cars just moved. This is what our peripheral system does with incredible speed. It processes a staggering mass of data every second and compares it to previous seconds and then filters out all the noise. This is why certain players in team sports seem so amazing in how they can suddenly pass to another player in a way that asks "How did they see them?" The answer is they are people whose peripheral system just operates better than average and in some rare cases a lot better. NOW TRY AND CONSIDER HOW YOU MIGHT GET A COMPUTER TO DO THAT???? Remember no 2 trees are the same, and no 2 cars are ever parked the same, and no 2 houses are the same PLUS no 2 streets are the same anywhere on the planet. There's always something different. NOW CONSIDER that the perspective (as in the visual angles) on that scene is changing every second because your car is MOVING. You now have to process the next image and compare it to previous images to pick up that movement or notice that item that gets the wider scoping part of the system to flag an item of interest to the higher level decision making part of the system. Suddenly you will realise that the scope of the technological task to get a computer to do what the human peripheral system does is monstrous. Once you understand the scope of the task required to to do FSD you'll quickly realise that it MIGHT BE possible for some limited situations or MIGHT be possible once we get the visual scanning systems capable of sorting through all the noise to find those few items that need a higher level of evaluation we can't even begin the task BUT RIGHT NOW we don't have those systems because if they existed we hear all about it. We'd hear about the camera that's as good or better than a human eye and we'd hear about the processor that's as good as the human peripheral system AND NOBODY is even saying they have it under development or has made "the breakthrough". Lets also NOT forget that a bunch of car manufacturers GAVE UP on FSD about 5 years ago. Uber sold off its FSD once they, (like the car manufacturers) realised just what it would take to do the job. This is also why, with the exception of a few tiny companies desperately trying for attention (and money) have stopped trying to build self FLYING air taxis. Sorry if this was longish but I hope you get the gist of why it might be possible in future but NOT NOW.
    1
  160.  @justins8802  I don't know if its Schizophrenia but there is a staggering amount of arrogance, narcissism and delusion being presented. And my Dunning-Kruger meter just went thump against the stop at the far end of the red zone and then smoke started to come out.
    1
  161.  @lunruj  This crap is stressful for EVERYONE with a STEM background. We have real problems that need dealing with and time and time again we are stopped while one of these clowns wastes everyone's time.
    1
  162. That's maybe the best description I have seen of Elon Musk so far.
    1
  163.  @ruicorreia7882  Yeah, you're sort off, but there's some other things to consider. I'm an aerospace engineer who's worked in the automotive sector. Yeah I can't stand Elon at all but what he has done to BOTH the automotive and aerospace sectors is pretty impressive BUT ONLY IF ITS KEPT IN CONTEXT. Both automotive and aerospace can be incredibly belligerent, recalcitrant and outright pigheaded industries. With Tesla Elon didn't invent or develop squat but what he did do was get that industry to change and start making electric cars. With SpaceX, he didn't invent anything or do any of the development work himself and Gwynne Shotwell has said idiotically stupid things. However they got America's manned space program functioning again and considering how bad Boeing has performed with Starliner, SpaceX and Crew Dragon look amazing. BUT Starship 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂ really is the joke that thunderf00t and others claim.
    1
  164.  @Aashka_The_Mystic  You're right but then its so common for business leaders to claim what their employees have done as their own work that Elon's just doing what others do. If there is a difference is that most other people will at least give some credit to others. Elon never does that. Like when has Elon ever said how his Tesla team are doing great things in manufacturing? Yeah never. He just says how he knows more about manufacturing than anyone else alive.
    1
  165. He's NOT the first, he's just been stupid enough to be so public about it. If you want to get a handle on the Weaponizing of Philanthropy Jane Mayer wrote at length about how its done. Here's one of her book talks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFaSCOqumpM Sorry its a fairly long vid, but if you want to understand how Philanthropy can be weaponized its worth the time.
    1
  166. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Like many engineers I am TIRED of clowns promoting garbage to the public that we then have to explain and explain and explain why its not possible or it won't work. This crap and nonsense is going on constantly, with scammer after scammer promoting the next thing and wasting everyone's time and money. Just the other day I had some ignorant clown tell me that here in Australia we ALREADY HAVE a couple of Small Modular Reactors operating. Funny thing is NONE of the companies involved in SMRs are saying anything other than they HOPE to have them available by the mid 2030s. According to this clown somehow Australia has time warped in a couple of SMRs. As an aerospace engineer I hear all sorts of nonsense from terraforming Mars (which is simply a fantasy), to Jewish or Chinese Space lasers causing grass fires to hypersonic missiles that manoeuvre and dance around the sky AND ITS ALL BULLSHIT. What Thunder00t is doing with these basic calculations of HOW MUCH IS NEEDED is what I call planetary mechanics. Along with my classmates we were introduced to this by a NASA engineer who did a guest lecture one day. He'd just finished a project for NASA on what it would take to terraform Mars. Once NASA realised just how much stuff (like air) is needed to cover a planet they gave up on the idea of EVER terraforming Mars. But 35 years later there are millions of Elon Musk fans who think they will be going to Mars to terraform it. DID you notice for this proposal the team leader is an Architect? If Architects knew how much engineers HATE THEM. Other than a few of the very best architects who know what their designs do to the people who have to make them, the vast majority of architects are PROBLEM CREATORS. The worst part of their attitude is THEY KNOW they are creating problems for other people to deal with.
    1
  167.  @andrewfranklin4429  Just quit with the excuses. Elon and all his minions have been caught out by his PR and BS machine. You can make any claim you like about this nonsense and it can be ripped to shreds. Anyone who supports it is as stupid as the flat earth brigade. Stop listening to the PR and start thinking.
    1
  168.  @andrewfranklin4429  Well for starters YOU DID NOT POST any link to any report. Your first comment to me talked about NFPA 130 and at the bottom you said "Source: Fire protection report" So WTF is anyone supposed to comment on. If clowns like you weren't so full of stupid BS and claims we could actually get on and start solving some of the REAL ISSUES we do have. In stead we have clowns like Elon (who as I have repeatedly explained does some great things) keeps hijacking public discussion with some of the most idiotic garbage. Elon's garbage is then followed by morons like yourself you just keep regurgitating the same ridiculous crap coming up with the same idiotic excuses for supporting it and then NEVER DEAL WITH THE REAL FACTS Have you ever done any work on underground ventilation systems? I have, for the Australian mining industry, but only on the fringe doing control systems for the fans. Here simple test to see if you know what your talking about or just regurgitating other people. Do the ventilation systems for underground tunnels blow or suck and more importantly WHY?
    1
  169.  @SpeakerWiggin49  Yeah but Thunderf00t is actually an engineer abut only has 1M subscribers. These guys have 10.4M subscribers which means that at least 10.4M people are feeding their brains on this crap.
    1
  170. HEY THUNDERFOOT MADE A MISTAKE. I work in Industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Those 2 robots you show at 37:30 have been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS NOT 15. The company I left in 2001 was the (then) Kuka and Adept agent in Australia and we knew what our competitors could do. The robot on the left of your shot is a standard 6 axis anthropomorphic arm and those have been around for decades. The robot on the right is a 4-axis "Spider Robot" (just put "4-axis spider robot into google"). I know that BEFORE the year 2000 ABB had one of those available. The thing that you are NOT highlighting in that part of the video is that the spider robot is locating the items its picking off the conveyor using vision guided robotics. Notice how all those parts are randomly arranged and the spider is arranging them in organised groups so the other robot can place them on the next conveyor. There is a camera upstream of the robot looking down on the conveyor which has an encoder on it. The vision system identifies the location and orientation of each part and with the encoder on the conveyor translates that to the Spider which can then pick it up and orientate it and put it back down in the right place so the other robot can pick up the groups of 4 parts. I know how that stuff works because I had that technology demonstrated to me by an Adept Engineer when I visited their Cincinnati Office in 1998 or 99. They weren't using a Spider robot at that time. They were using a small high speed SCARA robot. So I know for a fact that technology has been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. So SORRY Thunderboy but your 15 years is wrong its at least 25. Fyi - I actually did aerospace and if you would like I'd be happy to show you how truly stupid they are being with the Artemis program. Its worse than most people realise. The closest I have seen anyone expose the real depth of the issue is Destin (another Aerospace) who has the YT channel "Smarter Every Day." For anyone interested put "smarter every day artemis" into the YT search and the top item should be titled "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" posted 4 Dec 2023.
    1
  171. As an aerospace engineer I love Elon for his enthusiasm and his investment. In that he has actually been a very, very good thing for space industrialization and without that we would be worse off. BUT I absolutely hate the fantasies he promotes at times. I suspect its his way of challenging people or his way of inspiring the public. Problem is those of us who know can see through it. I do remember Space Station Freedom because it was the solution to what's next when I was in college (late 80s). Then a little thing called the Challenger accident happened and our hopes crashed with it. Some things of note from that time. Apologies if the following is long and seems like lecture notes. 1: Space Station Freedom was first budgeted at $20Billion. That was TOO expensive so it was redesigned and then budgeted at $30 Bullion. That was TOO expensive and it was then redesigned for a second time and costed at $40 Billion. So that got scrapped and we got the ISS for $200 Billion. 2: The massive costs of operating the Space Shuttle and massive costs it added to the ISS are the main reason nobody has gone back to the moon in 50 years. There just wasn't any money left after the shuttle and ISS. The massive issue is with those costs is that the technologies needed for a moon bas or Mars base have never been fully funded and there's still huge amounts of work to do and most notably in life support. It wont matter if anyone goes to Mars and is dead from a lack of oxygen or carbon dioxide poisoning months before they get there. 3: After Challenger happened and people were calling to scrap NASA it was revealed that the Apollo program had returned almost $10 for every $1 spent. You see all those technological advances had finally started to filter through and pay off back in terms of sales tax and technology exports. Every body knows about Teflon, but many of the aluminum alloys we have across out industries came out of Apollo. But the biggest of all was the computer evolution from the size of houses down to shoe box size. All of Microsoft, Intel, Google, Facebook and the rest of them might not exist if the Apollo AGC wasn't built. The technology boom Apollo kicked off is still generating money to this day. 4: Kelly Johnson (yeah the guy behind the SR-71) told congress to not replace Challenger and instead spend the money on its replacement. He asked for the $3 Billion budgeted and no interference and estimated he could have an SST in 3-5 years. Boeing stepped in, Rockwell stepped in, others stepped and NASA got a 5th shuttle that also cost too much to operate. They then spent over $14 Billion on a shuttle replacement that was NEVER DELIVERED and that $14 Billion doesn't include anything spent on SLS, which still hasn't flown. Best wishes to all.
    1
  172.  @aporiac1960  Well you're a fair bit on the fan side and fairly blind to certain things. Your clearly not an engineer or you'd get the points being made. As I said I love Elon for a lot of what he's done, BUT that does not excuse him for some other things that he's got very wrong. Thunderfoot is quite right to have a crack at him for Hyperloop. it was dismissed decades ago for some fairly obvious reasons. The most obvious is the number of people it can transport which for its cost is utterly ridiculous. That was worked out decades ago. As for simply going to Mars, sorry but I DO HAVE THE EDUCATION to comment on that and he's so wrong on that task he ought to be slapped for it. He was totally brilliant on getting electric cars to market and breaking the mindless lethargy of the established manufacturers. BUT he was idiotically wrong on self driving cars and got caught out. Uber made the same mistake, so he's not alone on that one. Thunderfoot isn't perfect, but the arrogant brainless stupidity of these 2 that he's criticizing here is well founded. If you are too blind to see that then you're the insane person.
    1
  173. I wouldn't call this a busted video because he keeps pointing out where the Veritasium video was right. Its more like he's a more comprehensive explanation of what's going on with electrostatics and various fluids.
    1
  174. I'm Australian so I have no skin in the game of whether Britain is or isn't part of Europe. But as an outside observer its incredibly obvious that the Brexiteers had no actual Brexit plan. IMHO Nigel Farage's career was complaining about Europe and more importantly blaming Europe for anything and everything that he could. Like all populists he never had any real plan for anything. This is very typical of populists - their only intention is to complain about and blame others by making as much noise as possible. Look at what Trump has done in America. Sadly like Trump Nigel Farage will never accept any responsibility for anything he's done. Maybe if Britain is lucky one day someone will throw his nonsense, garbage, arrogance, selfishness and hypocrisy right back in his face.
    1
  175. AEROSPACE ENGINEER here: For professors there's 2 points and the first of those is MONEY as in how much can they drag into their department. The second is that they like to put ideas in front of students at times they ALREADY KNOW can't work and the actual lesson is in recognising it. Third they will at times give students a novel idea to investigate for their final year project. We had 2 options my year. The first was for a 4 seat light aircraft and the second (which I did) was for a novel kind of comet fly by space craft. It had a detachable shield that flew ahead of the space craft and provided a clear area free of the tails dust to fly in and observe the comment unobstructed. It was novel and innovative and would also NEVER WORK, but we got what we were supposed to get which was the experience of working on a team project. So I hope that answers part of your question. The bit I'd be far more inquisitive of is how so many got conned by the fact it was never viable for reasons people had discovered decades ago. In aerospace Robert Goddard the guy who first wrote about trains in vacuum tubes is also the father of modern rocketry. He's a legend and his work is well known. Plus there's all sorts of sci-fi where this sort of travel was shown - Logans Run and Space 1999 being 2 I know of. THIS WASN'T A NEW IDEA. And that's what quite a few college professors need to be asked: "How did you NOT see this was nonsense or WASN'T an original idea and let your students believe it was a new idea?"
    1
  176. So said the same sorts of clowns with Theranos and how did that turn out????????? How many times have we seen over decades, some clown of a journalist with ABSOLUTELY ZERO understanding of technology hyping the crap out of some technology that never went anywhere. Sooner or later we need to not only make fun of these BS artists but actually front them up publicly as in get right in their faces and out them for the clowns they are.
    1
  177. Another Australian here and I am old enough to remember all the UFO sightings that we supposedly had in the 1970s following the Apollo Moon Landings. In most cases they were all debunked as aircraft or meteors. There was a famous one of what clearly looked like a classic saucer shaped object flying near the hills outside Las Angeles. Because there were Hills in the background people knew the distances. So they knew how large it was and how fast it was travelling and people went "Ah Ha" The someone did the basic image analysis. Because it was filmed on the old classic super-8 what they basically had was several 100 still images and they overlapped them. It became really obvious it was just a Cessna but it was flying at an angle to the camera where the light just came of it in a way that at the distance it was it looked like a classic 1950s flying saucer. How about all those early astronomers who looked through their telescopes and saw "canals" on Mars??? In a documentary (back in the 80s or 90s) I remember seeing a psychologist do an experiment on it once they took groups of high school arts class students and asked them to draw an object they had put at a distance beyond what most people could clearly distinguish details. The object was simply a circle on a flat surface with some random blobs inside the circle. No matter how many times they did it the majority of people would include lines connecting the blobs. There is something weird about the human visual cortex that when it can't distinguish details on a distant object it will add details in an effort to recognise what it might be. Psychologists have known about this stuff for decades.
    1
  178. It was also a good way, as Gen-Xr to demonstrate how stupid millennials are at being sucked in by a clown like Elon Musk. Maybe they'll now stop telling us how tech-savvy they are. Being able to use an iPhone or the internet does not make a person tech-savvy.
    1
  179.  @durshurrikun150  About WHAT? Come on if you think I am wrong then what am I wrong about or are you just like the other Muskrats and Bezos space cadets you just don't like having you fantasy exposed.
    1
  180.  @durshurrikun150  WTF stupidity are you ranting about now? Why don't you go back to school and learn some history from people who know what they're talking about instead of listening to people who probably weren't even alive back then. The USSR wasn't overthrown by traitors. The USSR collapsed under their own bureaucracy. They destroyed much of their own country like the Aral Sea through stupidity. The US didn't need to support any of them. All they needed was to stand back and watch. And its almost all Putin needs to do now to destroy America. Do nothing because America is tearing itself apart through stupidity of techno personality cults like they have with Gates, Suckerberg and Elon Musk. FYI - I was alive back when the Soviets collapsed and saw it happen.
    1
  181. In simplest terms - they want to believe in a future Don't forget we live in a world with a very uncertain future. Nobody actually knows what specifically will happen with climate change but we all know it will be hard times ahead. Then add in that we all know our political leaders are owned by the billionaire class. What do you think's driving both this type of blind belief that technology will save us or what's the rise of religious fundamentalism? There are people who really think Elon is going to take them to Mars in the next few years and save them from climate change. What does that sound like? FYI - I am an engineer. I did a degree in aerospace but work in automation, robotics and control systems. See those Yellow robots around 10 minutes. Those are Fanuc's a Japanese brand that I am trained on. There is real genuine frustration in the engineering world these days. There is so much misleading PR being pumped into the soft skulls of a gullible population its almost a full time job for some people explaining that the PR is just PR and ITS NOT FACT. Think about how many amazing technologies people promised that NEVER came into fruition. Where's Mark Zuckerberg's Libra (now called Diem)? What about nuclear fusion, faster than light travel or my favorite flying cars? In particular there's a staggering amount of ignorance regarding robotics and automation. Automation rarely costs anyone their job. Usually it saves jobs by making people more productive. Nobody packs up a company and moves it to China AFTER they spend money improving their production. Robots cannot think. They do as they are programmed to do. You program them to move in certain patterns and they do that again and again and again day in, day out within a defined accuracy. They don't complain or get sick and can work in the dark 24/7. They are great for repetitive tasks and totally hopeless for abstract tasks.
    1
  182. HEY THUNDERFOOT MADE A MISTAKE. I work in Industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Those 2 robots you show at 37:30 have been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS NOT 15. The company I left in 2001 was the (then) Kuka and Adept agent in Australia and we knew what our competitors could do. The robot on the left of your shot is a standard 6 axis anthropomorphic arm and those have been around for decades. The robot on the right is a 4-axis "Spider Robot" (just put "4-axis spider robot into google"). I know that BEFORE the year 2000 ABB had one of those available. The thing that you are NOT highlighting in that part of the video is that the spider robot is locating the items its picking off the conveyor using vision guided robotics. Notice how all those parts are randomly arranged and the spider is arranging them in organised groups so the other robot can place them on the next conveyor. There is a camera upstream of the robot looking down on the conveyor which has an encoder on it. The vision system identifies the location and orientation of each part and with the encoder on the conveyor translates that to the Spider which can then pick it up and orientate it and put it back down in the right place so the other robot can pick up the groups of 4 parts. I know how that stuff works because I had that technology demonstrated to me by an Adept Engineer when I visited their Cincinnati Office in 1998 or 99. They weren't using a Spider robot at that time. They were using a small high speed SCARA robot. So I know for a fact that technology has been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. So SORRY Thunderboy but your 15 years is wrong its at least 25. Fyi - I actually did aerospace and if you would like I'd be happy to show you how truly stupid they are being with the Artemis program. Its worse than most people realise. The closest I have seen anyone expose the real depth of the issue is Destin (another Aerospace) who has the YT channel "Smarter Every Day." For anyone interested put "smarter every day artemis" into the YT search and the top item should be titled "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" posted 4 Dec 2023.
    1
  183.  @EaglePicking  Sorry to burst your bubble and I have explained this many times, BUT there is no way they are going to solve the autonomous driving issue because the amount of computing required to do it at the level people would expect just does not exist and wont possibly ever. The actual task is far more complex than most people can even conceive let alone consider how it might be done. There's the issue of having to match what the human visual cortex can do and the human visual cortex is actually 2 systems NOT 1. There's the focus part and the peripheral part and its the peripheral part that amazes me because of what it does. The brilliance of Alan Turing's enigma breaking machine wasn't that it systematically searched the possibilities. It worked by eliminating what the answer could NOT be. The human peripheral vision system does something similar. ONE of its main tasks is threat analysis and it does that by clumping complex arrangements into single items it can dismiss very quickly. Consider your driving and you see a tree. Your brain does NOT register a million leaves and twigs and branches it just clumps it into a tree and if that tree is NOT a threat its dismissed very quickly. The same goes for the millions of bit that make up a house. Your brain doesn't go there's that brick, that brick, that brick........ etc. It goes building. It does the same for all sorts of other things. PLUS it doesn't have to even see a particular object previously ever have had to see Your peripheral system can do that almost 50 times a second. The amount of available data points is staggering and this system just does. On top of that it compares the previous frame tot recent frames to discern movement. People who think we will just be able to do that in silicon based electrical system that can fit in car really don't get what the task is. I can go on and on about this stuff but wont waste your or my time. Its just NOT going to happen. Maybe just maybe if we can get quantum computers working but not silicon based systems.
    1
  184. Derek Muller actually has a science education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Muller#Early_life_and_education So he has no excuse for not seeing through Elon's garbage. The fascination with tech billionaires is that they make average people feel "techie" if that's even a word. If you have a look at them they mainly do stuff that make technologies more accessible. Even go back in time to Henry Ford. His brilliance was making the car accessible to everyone. He's one of those accessibility stores I know about. I grew up in a town not far from where Derek Muller was born. He's from a town called Traralgon and I'm from Warragul. I actually went to college in America and did aerospace engineering at the U. of Illinois. Not as famous as some schools but in the late 80s it was pretty much the world center of supercomputing. We had this odd system called Plato. It was one of the worlds first wide area data base systems, but it was a pig to use. It was so bad most of us refused to use it. Everything was in text, no pictures, no graphics and it was so slow you would fall asleep using it. To this day I suspect we were being used as lab rats with that system. But the computers we all started using were these cute little boxes from "that fruit company" called a Macintosh. They were just great for typing up term papers. They gave us 2 rooms full of them and they were packed 24/7. You could go in there at 3am and still have to wait. So a couple of the geniuses from the supercomputing group decided they would make Plato as easy to use as an Apple. They weren't really the first to try it but they were the first to succeed. Their program was called Mosaic, their company was called NetScape and the web browser you are reading this on right now is the result of their work in making computers accessible to everyone. I don't know about others but Marc Andreessen is estimated to be worth $1.7Billion. And yes I sometimes wish I'd done computer engineering instead of aerospace.
    1
  185.  @Skank_and_Gutterboy  I 'd contend that when Michael Moore isn't being a self righteous pr*ck he's not to bad. His real failing is that when he does point out things that need to be discussed he's often so obnoxious that nobody want's to then discuss those things. I think the "History Channel" is one of the worst for complete crap. What ever it might have been once its pathetically bad these days. The ones I hate the most are the clowns who claim that this military system or technology "shocked" the world. Most of them are produced by utter clowns who have no idea. I saw one today by a guy who claimed to be a fighter pilot and he was reviewing the Top Gun trailer. He made this idiotic comment about Iran having F14s. He could have looked up Wikipedia and found out Iran had F14s. That fact check that takes all of 30 seconds. He also describe a barrel roll to change position in formation that I suspect is wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't a pilot at all let alone a military pilot. Following them are the Elon Muskrats who haven't the faintest clue that he's selling a fantasy after fantasy. Some of the Elon's fanbot channels are so bad its ridiculous. Thunderf00t has covered some of them.
    1
  186.  @ThahnG413  It depends on how much they have to stretch everything and why they are doing it. I remember hearing Mel Gibson say how they had to totally change the execution scene in Braveheart because of what was actually done to William Wallace. It would have been banned in every nation on the planet. So they had to do that one. The French Princess was never in England at that stage as she was only a couple of years old at that time. She was there because it made for a good story. What they had to do in Apollo 13 was compress a story that took several days into 90minutes. But overall it might just be the most "close to the actual truth" film ever made. Couple of interesting notes. All the scenes in the Lovells house are really in the Lovells house. Its the same house they lived in at the time and they still live there. It wasn't a set. Tom Hanks and Kathleen Quinlan went and stayed with the Lovells for a couple of weeks to get their mannerisms. Marilyn Lovell has said Kathleen Quinlan did her so well her own family said it was freakish. She apparently got her voice and hand mannerisms perfect. In the final scene on the deck of the Aircraft Carrier Jim Lovell does a cameo as the "Captain." He's the older guy who shakes Tom Hanks hand. Its is own personnel uniform because in his words to wear anything else would be impersonating an officer.
    1
  187.  @ThahnG413  Guessed right. its not only in the "this is as good as it gets" they really did make an effort. Heads' up you will upset people if you just ignore the effort they made. There was no wire work it was all done in actual free fall inside a jet doing ballistics. They really did make the effort and if you belittle that, expect to be told where to go. If you are interested get "Shadow of the Moon" it was made by some of the crew who did Apollo 13 and they interviewed many of the surviving Apollo Astronauts. IMHO its the best documentary of any type on the Apollo program ever.
    1
  188.  @ThahnG413  Whether you intended or not you came across as belittling their work.
    1
  189.  @ThahnG413  WELL IT CAME ACROSS THAT WAY
    1
  190.  @ThahnG413  YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT AND THE FACT YOU WANT TO KEEP ARGUING. You are the most pompous arrogant self righteous clown I've had to deal with in a while. I bet people walk away from you all the time because you're always telling them EVERYTHING they should think.
    1
  191. I wouldn't call this a busted video because he keeps pointing out where the Veritasium video was right. Its more like he's a more comprehensive explanation of what's going on with electrostatics and various fluids.
    1
  192.  @fulcanostwyr6852  Yeah I get that. BUT ITS STILL NOT A DEBUNK like the ones he does on utter garbage like Hyperloop, Spinlaunch, Lomi and other crap. Those are things that are 100% garbage, BS PR and outright con jobs. All he's done is show that Veritasium had an incomplete explanation for what's going on. Its very similar to Veritasium's video on how electrical energy is transferred. is wrong in certain aspects and at the same time shown this does not work for all fluids. Thunder00t's yet to clearly explain why some fluids do behave this way and others don't. What he's shown is that Veritasium produced an explanation that is incomplete There's a huge difference between debunking garbage and disagreeing over scientific explanations. Science is more often than not. *NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR and there are rarely simple YES-NO or BLACK-WHITE answers.*
    1
  193. Sorry I had to stop only a few minutes in. I just got my bullshit-o-meter back from the service department after Trump melted part of it. Sorry but it just costs too much to keep having it repaired.
    1
  194. THERE'S ONE GIANT PROBLEM with all of this. The Democrats (or should we call them the DUMOcrats) were so stupid they lost to "they're eating cats and dogs" boy. That's 2 out of the last 3 elections they have lost to a clown show. IF YOU WANT TO SEE STUPID - A bunch of Harris-Walz campaign staffers were interviewed on Pod Save America a few days ago. NOT ONE of them accepted any responsibility at all. FYI - I'm Australian and in 2019 the Australian Labor Party ran a similar Hilary Style campaign AND LOST. Later in 2019 British Labor did the same thing so I asked a Brit (one of Thunderf00ts countrymen) WTF was going on. They told me staffers from the Clinton Campaign advised BOTH British Labor and Australian Labor in 2019. THAT'S 4 Major Campaigns in 3 countries these people have lost in 8 years and sat there on Pod Save America and simply refused to accept any responsibility for anything. Trump didn't so much as win. The DUMOCRATS ran a campaign so hopeless that even Japanese Kamikaze pilots would not have joined it.
    1
  195. As an aerospace engineer compared to the crap level being produced these days about space flight its so much better that its like comparing Will Smith in Shark Tale to a Jacques Cousteau. Some of the garbage being sold to the public these days is so pathetically far from reality that its possible to claim fraud on several organisations. Just ask any engineer how many times they have had to correct family and friends on reality, because somebody saw something on YouTube, TV or a movie?
    1
  196. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Like many engineers I am TIRED of clowns promoting garbage to the public that we then have to explain and explain and explain why its not possible or it won't work. This crap and nonsense is going on constantly, with scammer after scammer promoting the next thing and wasting everyone's time and money. Just the other day I had some ignorant clown tell me that here in Australia we ALREADY HAVE a couple of Small Modular Reactors operating. Funny thing is NONE of the companies involved in SMRs are saying anything other than they HOPE to have them available by the mid 2030s. According to this clown somehow Australia has time warped in a couple of SMRs. As an aerospace engineer I hear all sorts of nonsense from terraforming Mars (which is simply a fantasy), to Jewish or Chinese Space lasers causing grass fires to hypersonic missiles that manoeuvre and dance around the sky AND ITS ALL BULLSHIT. What Thunder00t is doing with these basic calculations of HOW MUCH IS NEEDED is what I call planetary mechanics. Along with my classmates we were introduced to this by a NASA engineer who did a guest lecture one day. He'd just finished a project for NASA on what it would take to terraform Mars. Once NASA realised just how much stuff (like air) is needed to cover a planet they gave up on the idea of EVER terraforming Mars. But 35 years later there are millions of Elon Musk fans who think they will be going to Mars to terraform it. DID you notice for this proposal the team leader is an Architect? If Architects knew how much engineers HATE THEM. Other than a few of the very best architects who know what their designs do to the people who have to make them, the vast majority of architects are PROBLEM CREATORS. The worst part of their attitude is THEY KNOW they are creating problems for other people to deal with.
    1
  197.  @keg3212  I wouldn't say its uninteresting, BUT it is repetitive, BUT then so is Elon Musk.
    1
  198.  @artemirrlazaris7406  That's the perfect description of what these programs do. They mimic a specific human action and no matter what the processing power they are only capable of doing what's in their coding. The whole idea that AI will save the human race or that it is actually intelligent is a fantasy pushed by liars, charlatans and gullible media. As an engineer I hate the misrepresentations of technology in the media. There's another comment by an assistant professor Henrik Løvold you should look at.
    1
  199.  @Enkarashaddam  We'd probably have Thorium power if those idiots at places like the Gates Institute of Stupidity would stop wasting money by the truckload. But as usual unless BG can get his grubby hands on the patents he's not interested.
    1
  200.  @dogwalker666  spot on
    1
  201.  @Deebz270  There's a slight understatement "the Earth's biosphere is in early stages of shifting its state of thermoequlibrium" Before I explain why I agree and give you something to think about. There will be a next version of economics. The true effects of Climate Change wont change that, in fact it will drive it. I suggest you listen to Mark Blyth he's better at explaining the economic phases than I am. On the planet. I did my degree in aerospace (late 80s) and we once had a guest lecture from an Alum who had just finished a NASA project on the basics of terraforming Mars. He introduced us to what I now call Planetary Mechanics which is just the basic calculations on how much needs to be done. The other subject is Planetary Dynamics which is the whole how do you make the gas cycles and water cycle work. Its like comparing how many nuts and bolts you need versus how do you make a car actually work properly and not fall apart. The simplest thing I do with people is ask them to look at the surface area of the planet in question in square kilometers and then add 9 (000,000,000) zeros. You now have a very reasonable (within 1%) of the volume of air that's 1km thick covering the surface of you planet. Now that you have that number is pretty easy using a very basic formula to work out how much energy is required to raise the temperature of that volume of air from say 20℃ to 21℃ AND YES its a seriously huge number and if you consider the energy of something like the Hiroshima bomb you can easily work out how many Hiroshima's it takes to raise that much air from 20℃ to 21℃. I wont tell you that number and if you do calculate it I suggest not trying to tell too many people it either freaks them out or they think you're nuts. I use the same method to show how Elon is FOS on terraforming Mars. You do the same thing but instead calculate the MASS of earth standard air which is 1.2kg per m3. You then ask the Muskbots where Elon is going to get 173 Trillion tons of air. I actually had one of them recently say that we only need the oxygen??? So then I asked where they thought Elon would get his hands on roughly 36 Trillion tons of Oxygen. So yes you are dead right the Earth is transitioning, but what its transitioning into is a bugger of a question because there will be things in play that we don't talk about much. Water Vapor is top of that tree. Warmer planet means more water vapor in the sky. Water vapor does a couple of things. It reflects light off the planet so tends to stop it getting hotter but it also acts like a thermal blanket so once its hotter it tends to keep it hotter for a while. Then when it finally does cool it comes down as rain and snow in seriously large amounts. So we can expect these events where lots of moisture gets sucked into the sky and then eventually comes back down with a bit of a deluge effect. I'm Australian we are currently having our 9th major flood this year. We even had snow in a few places. Yeah driest country on the planet and we've been flooded 9 times in one year and been snowed on right before summer starts. Nothing to see here! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404 Sorry for the longish reply but you're smart enough to get it.
    1
  202. Yeah but jets fly using Jet Fuel which is basically refined Kerosene so its NOT quite the same as gasoline and therefore unrelated in Elon's version of reality.
    1
  203. OMINOUS WORDS FOR THE IDIOTICALLY OVERCONFIDENT Stockton Rush "it's pretty simple but if we mess it up there's not a lot of recovery"
    1
  204.  @tolep  D-ckhead that is being racist. 🧏‍♂️🧏‍♀️
    1
  205.  @garethjackson6187  Yeah I was surprised too and then checked her background and yeah fraud seems to be a family trait, a bit like it is with another well known family in America.
    1
  206. INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS engineer here: This is WHY I KNOW FSD (full self driving) is a false and misleading concept at least for the moment. AND APOLOGIES IF THIS IS LONGISH. FYI - My degree was in aerospace but I have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. That has included working with many sensor systems including laser scanning systems. Although I don't work with vision systems I was introduced to the basics of vision systems in 1998 and am fully aware of many of the advancements in that area. The actual problem with FSD is the amount of information that needs to be processed. As human beings we just don't realise how much information our visual cortex processes every second and that's because most of it is processed by our peripheral system which is NOT part of our general conscious. Its all there in our periphery and we aren't focussing on it. Our peripheral system is extraordinary at clumping things together and dismissing irrelevant clumps while alerting our conscious system of potential threats or items of interest. For example we don't see a 100,000 leaves attached to 1,000s branches attached to a trunk connected to a root system we see a tree. We don't see several million yellowish hairs covering 4 legs a body, a tail, a head, big teeth and an even bigger set of fangs we see a lion. Out on the African savannah people don't see millions of blades of grass, 1,000s and 1,000s of antelope, wildebeests, birds, insects and other wild life. OUR BRAIN via our peripheral system filters out the noise and will latch onto that 1 lion out of all those millions and millions of items in our visual range and SCREAM "that's a threat." Similarly when driving a car down the average suburban street we see but don't focus on the millions of leaves - we see the trees and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see don't see all the nuts, bolts, sheets of glass, sheet metal, paint and rubber - we see parked cars and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see the bricks, boards, windows, window frames, paint - we see houses and dismiss them as NOT a threat. BUT WE DO SEE the bouncing ball coming down a driveway and our peripheral system SCREAMS that there's a dog or a child chasing after that ball OR we'll see a flash of something else and our peripheral system will alert our conscious brain to be aware of it. Like we'll suddenly notice one of the parked cars just moved. This is what our peripheral system does with incredible speed. It processes a staggering mass of data every second and compares it to previous seconds and then filters out all the noise. This is why certain players in team sports seem so amazing in how they can suddenly pass to another player in a way that asks "How did they see them?" The answer is they are people whose peripheral system just operates better than average and in some rare cases a lot better. NOW TRY AND CONSIDER HOW YOU MIGHT GET A COMPUTER TO DO THAT???? Remember no 2 trees are the same, and no 2 cars are ever parked the same, and no 2 houses are the same PLUS no 2 streets are the same anywhere on the planet. There's always something different. NOW CONSIDER that the perspective (as in the visual angles) on that scene is changing every second because your car is MOVING. You now have to process the next image and compare it to previous images to pick up that movement or notice that item that gets the wider scoping part of the system to flag an item of interest to the higher level decision making part of the system. Suddenly you will realise that the scope of the technological task to get a computer to do what the human peripheral system does is monstrous. Once you understand the scope of the task required to to do FSD you'll quickly realise that it MIGHT BE possible for some limited situations or MIGHT be possible once we get the visual scanning systems capable of sorting through all the noise to find those few items that need a higher level of evaluation we can't even begin the task BUT RIGHT NOW we don't have those systems because if they existed we hear all about it. We'd hear about the camera that's as good or better than a human eye and we'd hear about the processor that's as good as the human peripheral system AND NOBODY is even saying they have it under development or has made "the breakthrough". Lets also NOT forget that a bunch of car manufacturers GAVE UP on FSD about 5 years ago. Uber sold off its FSD once they, (like the car manufacturers) realised just what it would take to do the job. This is also why, with the exception of a few tiny companies desperately trying for attention (and money) have stopped trying to build self FLYING air taxis. Sorry if this was longish but I hope you get the gist of why it might be possible in future but NOT NOW.
    1
  207. ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    1
  208. What you're pointing out is yet another ugly case of Dunning Kruger Syndrome. This clown is another person who thinks because he can use technology (computer, video, video editing software, etc.) that he's technically literate. I'm an aerospace engineer and some of the stuff I see published is atrocious but the comments are even worse. Its another aerospace engineer, Emily Callendrelli, who I think hit the nail right on the head in TEDx talk a couple of years ago about STEM education and STEM literacy. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9haKpJakU4 I'd put the issue of STEM literacy among journalists and media content producers as one of the biggest issues the world has right now. How do we have sensible public discussions about transportation or energy production or water management or climate change when the people speaking are technically illiterate?
    1
  209.  @terrypussypower  Yeah I know about the scientific method having been trained in it. Actually most scientific fraud NEVER gets exposed, because its not in anyone's interest to publish the facts. I have worked in research and seen it first hand. In both my first and second jobs out of college I saw FIRST HAND both academic and financial fraud. Its why I left that world and have never been back. I can tell by your comment you have never been in research and seen what goes on. people think peer reviewed means its an independent and honest review. That's not always the case. There are the online journals that claim to be peer reviewed. Many of them exist for making money. Anyone can publish almost anything if they pay. Its a real problem and others have spoken about it and a couple have produced really good vids on the subject.
    1
  210.  @terrypussypower  I'm in engineering and my research was in engineering and it was in engineering where I saw both academic and financial fraud. So don't BS on about esoteric fields. Clearly you've never worked in research or you'd know what goes on. The tragedy is that there are many people who work their butts off to do great work. But like any field of endeavour sh*t finds a way to float to the top.
    1
  211.  @scumbaggo  Yeah this is what its like these days. Western society is dominated by what I call "techno clowns." People who think because they can use a computer that they are somehow technically qualified. Some of them call themselves "futurists" others call themselves "technology educators." Whatever - they are all full of SHlT and rely on an ignorant public who don't know how ignorant they are. Here's my current head scratcher. Less than 2 weeks ago the head of Australia's Space Force (yes we now have one too because if America does then so do we) announced during the Avalon Air Show that we would be focusing on "soft kill satellite technology." I did my degree in aerospace in the late 80s in America when the whole Reagan "Star Wars" thing was going on. Many of the post grads ahead of us were DARPA funded. By around 1987/88 we had all worked out that NONE of it would ever work. We kept quiet because people were getting funding to get through their masters & PhDs. But after the collapse of the Soviets and that whole program got scrapped we could tell the truth. NOW 35 years later I am again hearing about "space lasers" and people wasting lots of money. A couple of years ago I put to the government a small (but what I thought useful) space program proposal using 1/2 the money from a particular government venture which we all knew was ridiculous. So I knew I would not be taking money from any other program. I asked for $720 million. They said NO and then gave the air force $7 Billion for "Star Wars 2.0." How do you think that makes me feel right now????
    1
  212. The only way you could see this as a plot twist is that you are claiming that this has gone from a straight dive into the ground into a spiral dive into the ground.
    1
  213. As an aerospace engineer its because NOBODY ASKS THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW. Its really is that simple. As an example after the Challenger disaster (my junior year) Kelly Johnson who had been the lead engineer on the P38, U2 and SR-71 publicly said (paraphrasing) "DON'T REPLACE IT, its a flawed system that's too expensive to do the basic job we need which is just getting people up and down. Spend the money on doing something better." The decision to build another space shuttle was emotional and NOT practical or rational or sensible. You'd think when you have one of the greatest engineers of all time publicly say what needs to be done and all but a few ignore him claiming national security for a non-existent threat and there's your explanation.
    1
  214. HEY THUNDERFOOT - Who's filtering out and hiding comments? Is it you or the YT algorithm?
    1
  215.  @DrWhom  Thanks for every occasion an engineer clarifies something another charlatan makes another claim and 2 more media people pop up praising their genius. Its like playing infinite exponential whack-a-mole. In college one of my options was in Greek Mythology. Both Hercules and/or Jason of Argonauts fame fought it but the problem was for every head you cut off 2 more grew out of the neck. That's what dealing with these people is like.
    1
  216.  @MrRaulstrnad  My favorite thought exercise is to ask people -> How many engineers does it take so the average person can turn on a light? Be honest and remember your first number. I've had only a couple of other engineers even begin to get close. When I give you the number you'll think I'm crazy.
    1
  217.  @MrRaulstrnad  What was your first thought? For most people it's about 5 (usually 3-8) because they don't go beyond the switch or socket - they think of a desk lamp or a room light. A few engineers (mostly with an electrical background) go onto the power station, but even fewer (without prompting go back to the basic metals needed. Since I have worked in manufacturing and more recently mining I just go with the metals and my basic list is. Tungsten (filament) Tin (bulb cap) Copper (low voltage wiring) Aluminum (for the cores of the HV transmission lines) Iron (transformers, transmission towers & lines) Zinc (for galvanizing exposed iron components) Nickel, Manganese & Chromium (for the stainless that wraps around HV transmission lines) Coal (to process the iron ore) Sulphur (to make sulphuric acid to process the other ores except aluminum) Soda Ash (to make caustic soda to process the aluminum) So that's at least 10 (or more) mines with all the factories that make mining equipment - diggers, trucks, crushers, conveyors, screens, tanks, pipes,..............etc Then there's the trains, trucks, & ships that take the raw mining materials of to the processing plants. Then there's the processing plants for taking the raw mining materials and producing raw stock - iron, nickel, aluminum smelters.....,etc. Then there's the factories that make all the things that go into building a power station. Then there's the factories that make all the things that go into building a power grid Then there's the factories that make all the things that go into building a house with wiring. Then there's the factories that make all the things that go into building a light. And does not include any of the other infrastructure or many other raw materials required so that 1 person can have a home and turn on that light. It's at least 20,000 and may be well over 50,000.
    1
  218.  @Pooopers  I wouldn't even put it at pushing green politics. I had a look at the channel and its claimed to be a "Making science make sense." and looking through their vids it just an endless pile of nonsense form clowns who know little about science.
    1
  219. There's actually a very simple way to look at this. Consider the size of the electric motors in the cranes. I do control systems and automation and they don't look much over 100kW. Even if they 200 or 250kW during discharge they are only discharging 50% of the time (at best) because they have to go up and get the next block. So even if you use really big motors your going to struggle to get anything more than a few hundred kilowatts out of this thing on discharge. How does that work with a solar farm of wind farm producing megawatts let alone on a grid where things are measured in gigawatts?
    1
  220.  @mc1993  I see you went to the same school as Samuel L. Jackson and too lessons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Xkb4lyRKQ
    1
  221.  @alext7074  Thinking critically isn't what any these people are doing. He's not trying to solve a problem, none of them are. If they really wanted to go to the moon stroll about and take some happy snaps they could have done that. We've known how to go to the moon and get back for 50years. All the math is done, all the science works its just inefficient and costly. To change the costs and efficiency takes people to listen to those people who know what they are talking about and none of them want to do that. They don't want to be told what they don't want to hear. The sad fact is people prefer to listen to blowhards, suck-ups and con men.
    1
  222.  @Jonathan.D  Here's an update on Elon's twitter deal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SfXoCj4TLk Summation. Elon might be in some trouble. he's just been successfully sued in Delaware over the SolarCity debacle but the amount is yet to be finalised. Now there's this where he might be trapped. Hmmmmmmmm!
    1
  223. Have a look at the rotating restaurant perched on the tail and look at the edge of it Have a look at the struts on the tail bracing the rotating restaurant - they're square. Have a look at all the stuff under the main wing connecting it to the lower wing. This is OBVIOUSLY somebodies joke just to see how many news services would bite. Thunderf00t should have started or finished with that.
    1
  224. Dude there are people old enough to remember films like Logan's Run (1976) where they had pods in tubes or TV Shows like Space 1999 (1975-77) where they had pods in tubes. There's nothing new about pods in tubes. Robert Goddard the grandfather of modern rocketry proposed vactrains (trains in vacuum tubes) in 1904. Elon like others pinches stuff from science fiction and then flogs it off to gullible fools. Go watch the film Gattaca (1997) and you'll see where Elizabeth Holmes got here idea that you test for everything with a single drop of blood. Go watch the film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and you'll see where Erich von Däniken got his ideas that aliens were responsible for making modern man out of monkeys and apes. OR you can also watch the film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) along with many films and TV shows from that time period and you'll see where the Gateway Foundation got their ideas from which Common Sense Skeptic covered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVd-PCo6NbU And if you really want to see where Elon gets a lot of his ideas go and watch TV shows like the "Thunderbirds," "Captain Scarlett", "Fireball XL5" all done out of the Gerry & Silvia Anderson studio Century 21 Productions.
    1
  225.  @sgfx  Buddy I have just had a 1/2 go at Thunderf00t over part of this video. You can see that comment in the comment he's pinned at the top of this. I am actually full of praise for what he's done to break the strangle hold the auto industry had on our lives. I am equally full of praise for what he's done breaking the stranglehold Boeing & others had on space. BUT NONE OF THAT EXCUSES THE HORSESHIT HE SPEWS CONSTANTLY Have you seen the assessment on Solar City. The final judgement for money isn't finalised but it looks like he will go down for 8-12 billion. He's in a lot of trouble over that. Don't like so many others say he's been out of hyperloop for years as a way to excuse what he did. HE BULLSHITTED EVERYONE on hyperloop. As for his crap on driverless cars, that takes pages to explain but in a nutshell. HE BULLSHITTED EVERYONE on driverless cars. STOP EXCUSING HIS GARBAGE
    1