Comments by "" (@salland12) on "Scott Manley" channel.

  1. Smart move to cancel literally the only functioning part of the Artemis program.
    51
  2. Yes with all the armchair engineers in the comments section speculating.
    12
  3. U do realize that superheavy/starship currently does 0 kg's to orbit and without refueling 0 kg's to TLI. I would also like to point out that the acoustics during launch are terrible so no useful payload can be launched in its current setup.
    7
  4.  @johndoe1909  Tesla Battery technology has just about reached the end of its development life. the Hyperloop was nothing more than a pipe dream. The boring company.... ah yes it turned out it isn't cheaper and they only reinvented the subway.
    5
  5. Well the initial launch was better. All raptor engines worked and the pad stayed mostly intact. The problems occurred during the hot-staging., the avionics and instruments are directly under the hot-staging ring. They got roasted during staging. This is why super-heavy failed to re-ignite, also the empty super-heavy was losing pressure at this point indicated by the venting. This caused structural failure on the vehicle and the FTS was triggered. Musk and SpaceX stated they hoped they would recover the booster at least. 33 raptors lost at 1 million dollars a piece is a pretty big loss. So in 2 flights they lost 66 million dollars worth of engines alone. This is all taxpayers money, NASA awarded them 1.8 billion dollars to develop Starship and demonstrate its abilities. They are still a long way off from their promises. Artemis Orion and SLS are ready to go on the other hand.
    4
  6. ''woefully over budget and way behind schedule'' sounds like some other space vehicle that is being developed somewhere in Texas.....
    4
  7.  @bevpotter9938  U do realize starship is payed for with a government subsidy
    3
  8. 22:36 When Obama canceled constellation he didn't have a 1st buddy billionaire who owns a private rocket company and who invested 300 million dollars in your campaign. This administration is swayed to this private company. This is blatant corruption.
    3
  9. Starship has 0 down mass capability, it has barely enough fuel to bring itself down (partially) from a suborbital trajectory.
    2
  10. If i got a dime for every plan Musk either (quietly) abandoned or delivered something (way behind schedule) that was far from promised i would be able to start my own private rocket company.
    2
  11. 2 weeks ago he did a starship update talk for spacex employee's. Most of this talk was about making life multiplanetary and going to Mars. So it is still a plan i guess.
    1
  12. Canceling SLS which is the only functional part of the Artemis program right now seems kinda stupid.
    1
  13. Only a true SpaceX fan would call an uncontrolled crash a landing. Reality check we are a long way of from a rapid re use launch system. This is ignoring the fact it cant even put itself into orbit let alone 100 to 150 tons of payload.
    1
  14. They over promised and under delivered by 50% and spend about 2.5 of the 2.8 billions dollars of their by NASA awarded contract money for Starship HLS.
    1
  15.  @dazuk1969  2.8 billion dollars of tax payer money that is as it was awarded by NASA to SpaceX to develop the Starship HLS. At this point they have burned thru all of that money and havent yet got a boilerplate Starship to orbit let alone a fully functional human rated craft landing on the moon.
    1
  16.  @Mole.mp4  sadly this is true and it was all taxpayer money. Maybe u are willing to dip in your own pocket to fund this further? I'am pretty sure Musk isn't.
    1
  17.  @natix1_  Rocket stages have been landing since the early 90s. hell in the 60s there were doing it on the moon. The reason why this hasn't been done in the context of rocket reuse is because it isn't very cost effective. Falcon 9 has proven this.. about a 10% cost saving on a multi 100 million dollar payload isnt very interesting. This kind of re-use also has serious payload and accuracy limitations which falcon 9 has also proven with its non reusable high thrust upper stage.
    1
  18. investing in re usability is pointless falcon 9 has proven this time and again. it only saves about 10% of launch costs, which in total is about 50 million dollars a launch. On a a multi 100 million dollar payload this saving is kinda pointless. Also the high thrust upper stage isn't good for accuracy so it renders your usable Launch market very small.
    1
  19.  @DanDitywitz  Indeed and i hear musk saying the best part is no part.
    1