Youtube hearted comments of Tony Wilson (@tonywilson4713).

  1. ​ @ErikS-  I am an engineer with 30+ years. You-re right he lacks a lot of experience but from my past interactions with him on this channel he is UNLIKE SO MANY OTHERS willing to engage people who know more than he does. As a counter point so you know what I consider good and bad science and tech channels. A while back I corrected a fairly basic mistake made by the Common Sense Skeptic who's a real Elon Musk basher and being honest he's well justified in bashing Elon. But on this one video where they were trying to promote a long forgotten and dismissed alternative to getting into space I corrected them on a point regarding air launched systems. FYI - My degree is in aerospace and I knew what they said was 100% WRONG. I got a damn arrogant reply telling me I didn't know what I was talking about and should remove my comment. I then replied back and sited all sorts of examples PROVING their comment was wrong. They then deleted me from EVERWHERE on their pages. So YES Ziroth is young he does lack experience BUT IS WILLING TO LISTEN while so many others are pretty SHlTHOUSE.
    27
  2.  @EngineeringwithRosie  I did aerospace but have spent the last 30+ years in control systems. I am qualified in what gets call EEHA - Electrical Equipment for Hazardous Areas. In the context of engineering a Hazardous Area is an area that has all the time or part of the time an EXPLOSIVE GAS or EXPLOSIVE DUST mix. It has nothing to do with toxicity, physical hazards, lack of oxygen or anything else. Its the areas of control systems where we keep gas plants, chemical plants, wheat silos, sugar processing plants,.....etc. from exploding. Of all the things that engineers in my field take most seriously its Hydrogen. Not only does it leak very easily but it ignites very easily. With gas mixes there is a range of mixing where the mixes is explosive. If there is not enough ignitable gas its wont explode and if there is too much it wont explode as there isn't enough oxygen. We call these points the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) and Upper Explosive Limit (UEL). When gas first leaks from a pipe or cylinder its 100% and then starts mixing with the air. Once it reaches the UEL it becomes explosive and stays that way until it dissipates enough to be below the LEL. Methane has an UEL of 16.4% and LEL of 4.4% while Hydrogen has a UEL of 75% and LEL of 4%. That means when Hydrogen leaks and start mixing with air it becomes explosive quite quickly and a lot quicker than methane. It also stays explosive slightly longer as it dissipates. Then there is the serious issue of hydrogen with ignition energy. Ignition energy is the minimum amount of energy that is required to get something to ignite. The minimum ignition energy for hydrogen is 0.019 mJ while for most hydrocarbons it is around 0.1mJ (approximately 5 times higher). So not only does a Hydrogen leak become explosive far quicker and stay explosive longer it takes about 1/5th the energy to go bang. That means everything we do electrically around hydrogen has to be specifically designed for hydrogen and there are some big traps in those areas. If you want to discuss further let me know.
    14
  3. I only saw Gary for the first time recently. He might be specifically talking about Britain but what he's saying applies everywhere. I'm Australian and he could easily be describing Australia, Our government just pulled $38 Billion out of thin air during COVID at one point, with no explanation of where it came from or an explanation of how they decided why anyone got any of it. A few weeks ago when the 2021/22 publicly listed companies had their reporting season it was announced that the CEOs of the ASX 200 had a new record HIGH average salary of $9.5 million. That's a wage bill of $1.9 billion for 200 people. That doesn't include all the other executives, board members or their bonuses. Now I know where our $38 Billion went.
    10
  4. I'm an aerospace engineer (U. Illinois) and Dr. Jonathan Trent commented a while back that people are not paying attention to just how harsh of an environment Space and particularly Mars actually is. He's also commented that NOBDY is even close to a functioning self supporting closed loop bio-logical system. As a doctor you'd have a more detailed grasp of what it actually takes to sustain life. Beyond water and oxygen there's food and that means DIET. It seems that the space cadet family have just ignored that human beings EAT, PEE and POOP or as I call it the EPP problem. Your an ER doc. Does the human body stop EPP when you put it into an induced coma? And yes I know what its like to come out of an IC. People generally have no idea of going into IC but they sure do remember coming out. I'll never forget the doctor saying "Relax. Congratulations you made it!" What amazes me is that the space cadet family have as a core belief that we must become an interplanetary species to survive, because we have basically broken the life support system on the planet we live on. They then proceed to ignore the issues of life support which are at the core of their beliefs. As doc you might also have better knowledge on the psychology of cults. But my understanding is that all cults have people who CHOOSE to WILLFULLY IGNORE basic facts that are right there to be clearly seen. These are people who can look at something and then deny or dismiss it. Feel free to comment further on that.
    5
  5.  @commonsenseskeptic  I did aeronautical & astronautical engineering at Illinois in the late 80s. So far love your channel. The fact you are using simple basic math to prove points is fantastic. I totally empathize with your frustration with the "space cadet family" (SCF). I'll call them that instead of a cult. Irrespective of what we call them the point is there is too much of public discussion about technology (across all industries) being presented by people with no technical training or those with technical training who have just thrown away all they were taught. A while back Dr. Jonathan Trent (who is without doubt one of the smartest people I've ever encountered) commented that NOBODY is even close to being able to deploy a fully self sustaining closed loop biological system for off world use. So at the most fundamental basics we don't yet have the technology for long term off world self supporting habitation. That's not to say its impossible but the actual science (both R &D) hasn't been done to where we have a deployable system. Put it this way: If we only had a partial system that was deployable and could recycle SOME air, SOME water and provide SOME food, then why isn't that module already attached to the ISS. Even if it only provided a few cubic meters of Oxygen, few liters of water each week and few kilos of food each month, then that's a huge cost saving because that's supplies that DON'T need to be lifted to orbit. Go back an look at the ORIGINAL Space Station Freedom concepts that merged into the ISS. That was all being done while I was an undergrad. Those concepts called for 6-8 people stationed in space NOT 3. The simple reason why it was quickly scaled back was food, water and oxygen COSTS. Going back to basic math. Look at the next planned lunar mission. The Apollo LM had 75hours for 2 men that's 150 (2 x 75) man hours of life support. When Trump announced 4 people for 2 weeks that became 4men x 24hours x 14days or 1344 man hours. That means you need to land on the moon 9 times as much water, food, oxygen, CO2 filters, etc. and al the hardware to use it. Reducing that mission profile to 3 people on the moon for 10 days brings that back to 720 man hours, almost halving the life support requirement. Basic math is a great tool. Its also something people who like spinning daft ideas hate. In space discussions the ridiculous spin masters are the terraforming people. Way back when I was in college we had a guest lecture from an alumni who had just done a study for NASA on terraforming Mars. He basically told us to forget it. To change a planet that much was technically impossible and he gave us a list of reasons. The number one reason he gave is that planets are massive STABLE systems. For sure at the detailed level they are incredibly chaotic, but at the planetary level they are hyper stable. Otherwise they'd be falling apart. Planetary systems are like mob psychology. Its impossible to predict details like what individual members of a mob will exactly do. Yet you can predict a mobs overall behavior with incredible accuracy. That's one of the basic tenements of Isaac Asimov's psychohistory, which is now a genuine scientific field of study and we see every day in both commercial and political advertising. Its part of why public understanding of climate change is so poor. This entire concept of terraforming mars was DISMISSED by NASA over 30 years ago as folly. This is just a discussion on space. If we start going into other areas of technology like energy, water, agriculture, the ocean systems and the insane public discussions on them we'll be here for weeks. I you want to have a discussion on this stuff let me know.
    5
  6. AUSTRALIAN HERE and you could easily swap all the British place names Gary mentions for Australian place names and NOBODY would realise the story is about Britain. Just like Britain we are dominated by economists who went to places like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, etc. We have a huge problem in Australia with calling out the nonsense of these people. There is some sort of "You must not question" mentality when it comes to people who went overseas and went to one of these "elite" universities and did economics (either as a degree or MBA). They are like some sort of sacred priesthood that speaks nothing but absolute truth when the reality is they are WRONG, WRONG and WRONG on most things.
    4
  7. I'm Australian and started watching after Ward Carroll and Juan Browne recommended him. I haven't stopped watching. Its actually a far more important subject than most people realise because of how much stuff gets moved by sea. Australia is an island and almost everything we do goes by ship. People go by air but stuff goes by ship.
    3
  8. Lets look at one of the real tragedies here. Chris Anderson has taken his creations TED & TEDx which were (past tense) brilliant and trashed it. Here's some examples of what I mean by brilliant. These are very intelligent highly skilled people giving us introductions into their work. FYI - I am an aerospace engineer and the first 4 are all STEM people. Jonathan Trent (formerly of NASA). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8lWDmz7wVU Emily Calandrelli - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9haKpJakU4 Bill Crawford - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF5hDwZa7-0 Don Pettit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWjdnvYok4I Nick Hanauer on Plutocrats - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8 Cassie Jaye on Men's issues - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY Lera Boroditsky on language - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKK7wGAYP6k These are all amazing talks by amazing people and we'd normally never get to hear what these people have to say or what they are doing if it wasn't for TED & TEDx. I am Australian and had never heard of the that tribe in Australia with no concept of Left & Right before seeing that unless I heard Lera Boroditsky's talk. What Chris Anderson has done to his own creation by sucking up to Elon Musk is a tragedy.
    3
  9. And there's a video here on YouTube that tells you how to pronounce Languedoc and its titled "How to Pronounce Languedoc? French Region Pronunciation"
    3
  10.  @commonsenseskeptic  On another note I'd love to help you do a debunk of space mining. I did a degree in aerospace (late 80s). I've worked mainly in automation, robotics and controls systems. In 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt who was here in Oz to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Apollo 17. I wanted to discuss with him satellite maintenance. Everything from my background said it was an industry waiting to boom. He quashed that quick by getting me to answer why nobody has done it? He then told me look up Helium-3. That meant mining and by chance Australia was just starting a mining construction boom to feed the Chinese beast. It too some time but I got into mine site construction and operations. Unlike all the fanbots and schemers I actually have worked on mines and helped build them and get them running. I can tell from basic numbers just how ludicrous some of the proposals are. Forget the money the tonnage is the reality. For example I worked at the Tom Price Iron Mine at one point. It produces 20MTA (million tons per annum) and its perfect for the basic numbers. Good iron ore is about 70% iron content. Lower grades are 55-60% and the really high grades are up to 95% (basically iron filings with some dirt thrown in). So for every 20 tons of iron ORE we get about 14 tons of iron. Which just so happens also is the landing capacity for the Space Shuttle. So it would basically take 1,000,000 Space Shuttle flights to handle the what just 1 iron mine does each year. Australia doesn't produce 20MTA it produces over 800MTA of ORE and China produces over 1,200MTA of ORE. Other than for incredibly rare and hyper value substances that the entire world demand is under 100tons per year will ever be feasible. Your mate Angry Astronaut just last week just pointed out the potential to mine nickel from the moon. One of my construction projects was Nickel mine. Global production of Nickel in 2020 was 2.5 million MTA (of metal). Which if we got from the moon would require about 178,000 space shuttle flights to land it here on Earth. What about Copper that's about 20MTA a year (of metal). In a way I like Anrgry because he stands up and calls out a lot of things that need calling out. BUT THEN he states some idiotic garbage and does it regularly. People can scream and yell all they like AND THEY DO. The fanbots scream at me all the time. Even if we suddenly got a Space Shuttle with 10x the capacity it still doesn't make sense. Except for incredibly rare ultra-high value substances NOBODY will be space mining anything anytime soon. So if you do want to do a debunk on the whole space mining thing let me know.
    3
  11. I actually came to this channel from Sub Brief.
    2
  12. ​ @mapper7310  I'm An Aussie and that is the point I keep trying to tell people. These issues are WORLDWIDE. I'm an engineer and my interest in economics came from a small project I did in 2016 into Australia's energy sector. Its way worse than ANYTHING the Australian people understand. When I look about the world for similar information I get the same story again and again and its all the fault of economists. I even heard the other day companies are leaving NZ because of energy costs. It took me a couple of year s to get an understanding of the cause and its 2 things. FIRST - economists think the rest of the human race are a problem they have to manage. SECOND - economists don't understand how economies actually function at the nuts & bolts level. They know how markets function because that's WHAT they are trained in. What they don't get is that market solutions don't work for certain basic requirements. They don't get that every business and household needs things like energy and water AND if you screw those things up then everything suffers additional costs. That's why their market solutions don't work for education, health care, infrastructure in general and PARTICULARLY ENERGY. They don't understand how that stuff functions and supports society. I watch people like Gary because it helps me understand how mainstream economists think and operate. His video on "Why are economists always wrong?" is something EVERYONE should watch because it explains so much. He's not perfect but the value of his information is staggeringly high.
    2
  13. Aerospace engineer here - WELL DONE.
    2
  14. To All - just to give a different perspective on a person mentioned at one point in this. Jeff Greason is mentioned several times in this video. He was a founder of XCor which has CSS rightly points out went bankrupt. Anyone can check that on XCor's history on Wikipedia. I'd just like to point out something that anyone can also check on Wikipedia. You'll see that XCor was closely associated with Burt Rutan who designed and built the X-Prize winning Space Ship One. Yes XCors entrant in the X Prize (the Lynx) failed to fly but then so did all of the other contestants. Peter Diamandis the person who ran the X-Prize also tried to get the Rocket Racing League started. He chose XCor to build the prototype for the Rocket Racing League. That prototype not only flew but once flew 7 times in a single day and to the best of my knowledge that has never been equalled or surpassed by anyone, government or private. I just wanted people to know that in his day Jeff Greason was one of the top aerospace engineers in the world. FULL DISCLOSURE - I had some limited contact with Jeff regarding his rocket motors circa 2018. I've had no contact with him since. At that time he seemed a reasonable person and very knowledgeable, which makes my quite surprised to see him associated with these people. If he does reply to CSS I hope that CSS will give him a fair opportunity.
    2
  15. And for anyone who's interested. As an engineer I agree 100% with CSS's summation of the NASA assessment of OAC's CLD proposal. My bet it took more time for someone at NASA to write up the assessment than it actually took to reject the proposal. Also CSS's assessment of the docking issues are spot on as are the balance issues he points out. This is exactly the sort of thing I wished more people in the media would point out regarding space subjects. My pet subject for unrealistic space issues is space mining and here's the basics of why. I'm Australian but did my degree in America. After meeting Harrison Schmitt in 2002 who spoke about mining the Moon for Helium-3 I went into the Australian mining industry to learn how to build and operate remote mines. I have over 15 years of first hand on site experience building and operating mines and I can state in all honesty that even the boffins at NASA haven't got a clue. I written to several people who have done TEDx talks on space mining and the one who did reply was actually an architect. He is actually a decent person who did the TEDx as a public speaking exercise. He was quite honest that he didn't know the subject that well. He sent me the main source of material for his talk which was the published papers from a NASA Conference on future lunar activities. It included quite a bit on mining and I can tell you all the NASA people need to actually spend some REAL TIME on mine sites seeing how they actually work. The biggest giveaway for anyone interested is to look at how they plan to do maintenance. If they say nothing then that shows they know nothing about mining and if they say robots then they know nothing about maintenance of heavy duty machinery. At its most basic mining is about getting what you want out of rocks. Just digging rocks and dirt out of the ground puts wear and tear on the machinery. After that you smash those rocks into smaller rocks and in some cases into powder. Yeah - at its most basic mining is about smashing rocks and that is incredibly hard on all the machinery. Anyone who thinks there's no maintenance is delusional and anyone who thinks it can be done with robots is ignorant of heavy duty machinery. And if CSS wants me to help on a "Why space mining is bunk!" video - then YES I WILL HELP IF HE ASKS.
    2
  16. NO GARY (from Australia) THANK YOU. For helping the rest of us better understand how the system works and how it works against us.
    2
  17. HEY SAL - From Australia (love the channel and just hyped you on Peter Zeihan's geopolitics channel) Since we understand the metric system better and also have to deal Americans we are fairly good at quick approximate conversions. if you understand the 3meters is very close to 10 feet (its actually 9.84252) then its simple. For meters to feet just divide by 3 (you don't need to be exact just close enough) and then add a zero. So 8.52986 meters divided by 3 is close to 2.8 (and a bit) which means 28ft and the precision is 27.98510499 Going the other way is equally simple divide feet by 10 and multiply by 3. 57 ft -> 5.7 x 3 = 15+2.1 = 17.1m and the precise answer is 17.34. Its NOT exact but a quick way to get close. Just remember going meters to feet it will tend to give a bigger number than exact and going feet to meters will give a smaller number than actual BUT either way you will be close enough in most cases.
    1
  18. HEY SAL Did you really say $660 a month to be at seas for weeks on end? FARK - no wonder people like Bezos, The Møller family and others are Billionaires. And they all complain about what it costs to deliver stuff????
    1
  19.  @wgowshipping  Sal in a crazy way you make these things seem almost sane. Just so you know Ward Carrol recommended your channel.
    1