Comments by "Grak70" (@Grak70) on "Scott Manley" channel.

  1. Boeing is paying $750M of the R&D cost and doesn’t have the facilities NASA does, nor their simulation capabilities. Did you watch the video?
    72
  2.  @quistador7 and if you do that, you will never get big science projects like voyager because they can’t be done at a profit. There is no profit motive to basic astronomy research.
    50
  3.  @jamalalkaabi8  thinking probably the white hot fire shooting out of a kitchen pan when it got a little too hot.
    32
  4. "27C...not great, not terrible."
    22
  5. Way cooler than having nukes as a way of legitimizing your superpower status. Congrats India! (Yes I know India has had nukes for decades)
    10
  6.  @AdrianBoyko  right because NASA had never done any aeronautics research of its own.
    8
  7.  @lufwaffeaircraft  yes, capital markets will always distribute resources in the most efficient mann….oh hey FTX, what’s up? Enron’s here too? And Twitter’s coming? Wow, this party is gonna be EFFICIENT.
    7
  8. However this launch goes, you can bet the next Angry Astronaut video will be insufferable.
    6
  9. ⁠​⁠​⁠ @esecallum the sensible heat of cold CO2 is piss in the ocean compared to phase change or decomposition of an ablative layer. Anyway, heat transfer in the high velocity regime isn’t conductive (essentially zero) or convective (goes as v^3): it’s radiative (goes as v^8). So a “cushion” layer of gas is useless.
    5
  10. What data would this generate that would be relevant to starship? They’re entirely different systems.
    5
  11. Abortemis
    5
  12.  @steveaustin2686  starship is still at the tin-can stage and none of its components have EVER flown to space. I acknowledge the flaws and shortcomings of Artemis, but its basic hardware design is complete and its components already have flight proving. The engines themselves have actually flown. Both projects are critical and need to succeed, but I think SpaceX is further behind than it would like its investors and fans to believe. Traded companies need to project optimism to maintain PE and funding and SpaceX has done a great job at that. It has also made huge, ambitious, and impressive strides and taken risks NASA never could. But still: tin can.
    5
  13. Lol took you guys 3 tries XD
    4
  14. When people ask “why should I care about quantum physics, isn’t it just propeller heads writing down equations?” I point them to semiconductors and the ortho-para hydrogen heating effect. :-)
    4
  15.  @RogerM88  yeah. I want SpaceX to succeed too, but you can clearly tell they’ve transitioned from the “blow shit up until something works” to the “the next test needs to work” philosophy. They’re still iterating quickly on component design, but this close to something they think will finally work as intended, they can’t risk blowing up too many more Starship prototypes. And in lockstep with this change, their testing pace has slowed dramatically. But you wouldn’t know it to hear the same fanboys that point and laugh at Vulcan Centaur. Every little setback or delay proves their point, but when booster 7 had a methane explosion on the pad it’s “a learning opportunity”. They just can’t hear themselves…
    4
  16.  @SRFriso94  I don’t think anyone disagrees with that assessment. But at the same time, no commercial provider was going to have a lunar capable, crew-rated vehicle ready even on this delayed timeline. Delta-4 is completely booked to end of life and was never human rated. Starship hasn’t even crossed the Karman Line yet and is probably still years from human rating trials assuming it works, and…that’s it. There’s nobody else.
    4
  17.  @RogerM88  totally agree. I’m in the same camp.
    4
  18. Boeing is paying more than 60% of the development cost: $750M
    4
  19.  @esecallum  no, it won’t. Especially not at high velocity. Trust me, bigger minds than either of us have considered all this. I’m an engineer and even I know this idea is nonsense.
    3
  20.  @funtourhawk  yes I’m sure hanging a flag up was a devastating time sink for their engineers that caused the launch to fail.
    3
  21. And to that end, if Starlink has lots of paying customers and that capacity comes online quickly, that counts. But right now, since they can’t crank out enough base station capacity, every Starlink launch increases SpaceX’s liabilities.
    3
  22. I wish Scott Manley was the pre-eminent science communicator of our generation instead of Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
    3
  23. I was looking for this comment lol
    3
  24. In a modern chemical plant, waste steam is fed into what’s called a “multiple effect” generator, where the low quality steam is used to preheat water or even lower quality steam to use up the temperature differential. So-called “triple effect” steam generation, where this trick is employed throughout the steam plant up to three times, are not uncommon in industry. Ultimately recovering this heat is limited by 1) the phase transition back to liquid and 2) the temperature differential you need to bridge, since more heat will flow if the counter-current streams have a large difference in temperature; at some point the capital and floor space won’t be worth getting that last bit of heat back.
    3
  25.  @steveaustin2686  ah, I gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I agree.
    3
  26.  @jannikheidemann3805  you have a good point. Think about how NileRed wouldn’t have been able to pursue his passion without chill AF parents who trusted him.
    3
  27.  @suserman7775  what could apply to anything? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. This review was literally the agency’s job: to clear a major industrial site, with potentially highly disruptive activities, for operation. I don’t understand people who get their panties in a knot because SpaceX isn’t allowed to operate with anarcho-capitalist impunity.
    3
  28. There will have to be a balance of consequences. No company will bid a contract likely to bankrupt them. As an example, Boeing has already lost $660M on the contract renegotiation for 2 new 747-8 Air Force One aircraft. Not saying cost plus pricing is good, but neither is “we have no compunctions about destroying your company over a space telescope budget overrun.”
    2
  29.  @Casa-de-hongos  that’s really not possible given there are only a couple companies capable of even bidding projects as big as SLS or JWST. I get the desire to punish inefficiency, but banning niche contractors for running over budget is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    2
  30.  @DUKE_of_RAMBLE  you are correct 100%. It’s an unavoidable consequence of politics and the intelligence of your average senator and voter that behind the scenes bureaucracy and pork never looks as bad as video of an expensive rocket blowing up. It has to work the first time.
    2
  31.  @suserman7775  your personally acceptable lens, on the other hand, is presumably the correct one.
    2
  32.  @jonathanj8303  so?
    2
  33.  @jonathanj8303  neither of us knows the details of the contract. And this is routine for R&D projects where the risk of investment is too high for private capital to go it alone. You are assuming by suggesting that Boeing should pay for everything that NASA has no vested interest in the tech itself, or that the federal government for that matter doesn’t want to promote US industry leadership. The federal government routinely underwrites the construction of large power plants for the same reason: the risk is too great for private capital, only concerned with short term returns, to bother without it. Yet the need remains. Footing part of the bill guarantees long term returns are even possible.
    2
  34.  @lufwaffeaircraft  I see you’ve never paid to fill a pothole before. My family happens to live on a road not administered by our county works and fixing potholes is incredibly expensive, even if you’re just a bunch of homeowners taking up a collection to hire a contractor. Things cost more than you think. Also, it doesn’t matter if FTX / crypto was a scam. It still attracted billions in capital from private investors and all that money went up in smoke. So it was 1) not a government action and 2) a shit allocation of capital by the market.
    2
  35. Notice at 9:07 this is why getting liquid helium (other than its incredibly low boiling point) is such a pain in the ass. There are no materials with low enough boiling point to drop it below the inversion temperature in a pre cooler, except hydrogen. And working with hydrogen is its own pain in the ass.
    2
  36.  @Maryland_Kulak  if you think that you really know nothing about anything. Your caricature is stuck in the 60s-70s, much like your mental age.
    2
  37.  @esecallum  lol no you didn’t troll.
    1
  38. Gonna say it: if you’re insisting on visiting a hellhole world, Io still would have been more awesome.
    1
  39.  @TheKwiatek  don’t need that if you’re smart. Radio waves are much much larger than the damage they would cause if the dish was thin enough. Raleigh equation for resolution guarantees small damage won’t affect signal fidelity that much.
    1
  40. It blows my mind that we literally would have never figured out the excess heating of liquid hydrogen without quantum mechanics. It’s the only explanation that works and it just happened to be discovered less than 50 years before having lots of liquid hydrogen kicking around was a problem we needed to understand.
    1
  41. Thank you for dunking on Steve Aoki.
    1
  42. I cackled at the Homer / hedge joke
    1
  43. If you’re complaining about the taxpayer cost of this project but not making 100x as many comments on the B-21 project, you have your head up your financial ass. You wouldn’t miss the amount of money this cost you personally if it fell out of your wallet. Meanwhile we spent how many trillions on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and… “Oh well.”
    1
  44.  @mynameismatt2010  because they have to recoup the cost from future subscribers and not from contracts paid at least partially in lump sum today.
    1
  45.  @snuffeldjuret  do you not understand how cash flow works?
    1
  46.  @snuffeldjuret  if you launch a rocket and it makes you no money for six months, that’s a problem compared to one that makes you money today. Nobody’s talking about “counting only rockets that launch”. The comparison was about WHICH rockets make SpaceX money and when. Honestly I’m shocked some of you fan boys can put on your pants in the morning…
    1
  47.  @snuffeldjuret  IN THIS THREAD DING DONG. You know…the one you replied to??
    1
  48.  @snuffeldjuret  SpaceX making enough money to survive is not an arbitrary distinction, which was OP’s whole point here. If SpaceX launches more rockets than anyone else but makes no money on 80% of them until way down the road, they will run out of cash and credit. This is basic business sense. So yes, how many they launch for paying customers IS the relevant number.
    1
  49. The complaints that instantly came up about this are just another example of how social media has made every idiot an implied expert. All those people didn’t stop to think “maybe I’m missing something here? Maybe the people who sent an SUV to another planet are ahead of me?” No, it was “this will make me look like a cynical smart ass sticking it to the elitists and I’ll get lots of outrage likes from other idiots.”
    1
  50.  @arunpatil5302  smoke less weed. JFC
    1
  51.  @daoyuzhang1648  yeah I’m sure the government is trying to actively stifle one of their biggest contractors. You SpaceX persecution complex fanboys are hilarious.
    1
  52. The graph at 2:50 is a work of art.
    1
  53. Same. My t-shirt collection has suffered massive attrition over the years. If you don’t catch a splash in the first minute and get it under running water, goodbye.
    1
  54. The sun will shine again
    1
  55.  @RossReedstrom  I guess I’m old!
    1
  56. The President is a Russian asset.
    1
  57.  @johnk7302 you are not going to discover 21st century transition metal catalysis in your garage hobby lab.
    1
  58.  @a..d5518  that’s a pretty good idea. I think the curse of public procurement, especially for unique, state of the art systems with no profit motive that take decades of science just to build is sunk cost. Not the fallacy of throwing good money after bad, but if a project runs over budget and gets automatically cancelled because of the contract structure and NASA gets nothing, Congress will ask “why tf are we funding you again?” Politicians of all stripes are more tolerant of projects that go way over budget than ones that produce absolutely no useful outcome after years of funding.
    1
  59. This is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. Where does the HEAT go?!
    1
  60. Go watch EA’s video on this. SLS has an enormous amount of finished equipment ready for test. SpaceX has a flying silo. I’m disappointed at how slow SLS has gone as well, but this is a stupid decision.
    1
  61. Demolition Arecibo and replace it with a 1GW instrument. Our capabilities are only limited by our ambition.
    1
  62.  @MikehMike01  …he typed on the Internet.
    1
  63. We’ll see…
    1