Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "'How Starship Will SQUASH Long Haul Aviation' : BUSTED!!" video.

  1. 27:49 when you say "even when he is posed with the question" only shows you actually know little to nothing about those you scold in your videos. So when it is so obvious to us that you know very little about them, why do you pretend?
    6
  2. you are just jealous.
    5
  3. 3:22 omg Thunder... you really didn't understand what she said? I thought you had at least half a brain. The argument is that they would not need as big of a fleet, which obviously reduces cost.
    5
  4. he has literally made the industry change, shifting it towards reusability.
    5
  5. I am sure you said the same when the falcon 9 crashed over and over again on landing :P.
    4
  6. 5:27 fantastic straw man mate, just glorious.
    4
  7. 17:14 imagine assuming a like on a video equals literally believing everything that is said in said video :P. Your idiot audience lap your videos up as well, even though they are littered with trash.
    3
  8. it is funny when people like you expose their ignorance :).
    3
  9. it's funny when a "random" comment makes more sense than a science youtuber with years and years of experience. Well not funny, it is just sad :P.
    3
  10. tbh "BFR" main real goal has to be to put up starlink satellites.
    2
  11. 15:31 thunderfoot saying the twin booster landing isn't impressive. Where do you get off mate?
    2
  12. 13:35 no, look at the Buran, the Russian space shuttle.
    2
  13. I think what is often missing is that the whole landing and reusing thing is just a bonus really. If the rocket goes up, it is a success, and this is something Starship actually does already.
    1
  14.  @extrastuff9463  but the economical success of Starship comes from its ability to put Starlinks in orbit. The rocket will be a success even if no human ever flies on it. The project is pushed by a dream, but we have to remember that success can come from more things than fulfilling that outrageous dream. "... as thunderf00t pointed out building a more or less functional habitat with robots first would be nice to have for humans to not die." And that is what Starship can help with, bringing those robots there. Not sure how you think of this as an this or that. Starship is designed for massive payloads, great, isn't that exactly what you want for Mars? I am really puzzled by your anti-Starship stance here :P. They are not going to bring all that stuff to Mars using the SLS if you catch my drift...
    1
  15. the current plan is 28 engines.
    1
  16.  @michellelewis3063  but you recognize that it makes it easier?
    1
  17.  @michellelewis3063  the pictures I have seen of people speculating about a 28 engine configuration didn't seem too unreasonable to me. People have also made animations with center engines gimbaling, so honestly I see no reason to doubt that 28 engines would fit in there. I presume those comparisons are better than me eyeing a video :).
    1
  18.  @michellelewis3063  yea but we are talking about the space now, if the engines would actually fit. You saying "animations fly easily....." has no relevance to that topic. You asked me to look and I gave a better answer than what I can see on SN8 with my eyes alone, and instead of being happy about that you resort to a snide comment?
    1
  19.  @michellelewis3063  it is indeed not proof, but it is better than you passing judgement just by looking at SN8 with your eyes, which is my point.
    1
  20.  @michellelewis3063  sure, but animation/schematic > eyes.
    1
  21.  @michellelewis3063  not only that, it will be exciting as heck to watch/follow :P.
    1
  22.  @stanfrymann8454  ?? the original comment was brain dead.
    1
  23.  @Yor_gamma_ix_bae  "I’m not talking about investors." You want to talk funding but you don't want to talk about investors...... ma dude, where did ya left your brain?
    1
  24. I recall that name from an idiot in a comment section :P.
    1
  25.  @sciarkadatul411  I am sure it was super smug and don't hold up :P.
    1
  26.  @JackSparrow-re4ql  you do realize that SpaceX actually sends things to orbit, right? Including astronauts?
    1
  27.  @JackSparrow-re4ql  no private entity had done it before. Also, orbit is since the 60's, and that was ROSCOSMOS, and later NASA ofc., so feel no need to try to educate me on the subject :P. It is funny how you try to make an accomplishment of a private citizen not a big deal just because it just rivals, not exceeds, the accomplishments of the mightiest countries in the world :P. I mean, it is hilarious :D. I am not in any cult, but you are clearly in an Elon hating cult, which is actually even more annoying than the Elon cult :P.
    1
  28.  @JackSparrow-re4ql  I am just telling you how it is. No matter how easy you say it is, Spacex/Elon was still first. "Get a fucking life." Look yourself in the mirror mate. I don't like to be mean, but it is obvious you are the one who is dissatisfied with your current life.
    1
  29. well said.
    1
  30. makes for better video for debbie downers to watch :P. TF certainly doesn't follow "the principle of charity", and understandably so because it would be a lot more difficult for him to produce videos if he did.
    1
  31. mentioning Theranos is like mentioning Galileo. Mentioning doesn't make you right.
    1
  32.  @DailyDroneFPV  at the same time, they don't suggest you should use starship to fly earth to earth tomorrow. I think this is the biggest failure of the critics, they project too much or the current state on the future.
    1