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

  1.  @Grak70  that's just another arbitrary distinction. This thread exist in the video's comment section so for you to be so upset and try to throw insults around because you see someone not make the same arbitrary distinction is straight up ludicrous. Be better and do better.
    1
  2. how do you mean? Do you mean full starship and empty superheavy?
    1
  3. he just responded on twitter to a video taken in 2012 where he basically said the same thing :P.
    1
  4. what regulations in South Padre Island are they missing?
    1
  5.  @KingdaToro  could it? What is the max range for such an event?
    1
  6. did that one fly or float? :P
    1
  7. it's not just that, Jared is quite accomplished.
    1
  8. I suspect they want to save cool footage for either st jude or netflix, or just give the crew some breathing room.
    1
  9. I guess science dictates that you are a god then :).
    1
  10. computer really do say no?
    1
  11.  @limiv5272  even if the goal is to have the suit as a tourist product, it is still tested it for an actual purpose.
    1
  12.  @limiv5272  just because you don't think it is meaningful doesn't mean it isn't.
    1
  13. this is such great content.
    1
  14.  @blahblahghost  you've got issues man, I hope you'll work them out.
    1
  15. could it raise it's orbit once it detaches from the ISS? Seems like that would be valuable in terms of tourism. Maybe that results in more of a radiation issue though, but if people don't intent to stay up there for as long... Maybe I should know this already or figure out by myself, but will that viewing pod always be directed towards Earth? The more I think about it the more I assume it will, as it probably doesn't take much energy to have the station maintain one rotation per orbit.
    1
  16. as I've heard it, NASA gave them a few options on how to do things, and it seems like SpaceX went for doing more testing whole units and Boeing doing more testing of parts.
    1
  17.  @Jester-Riddle  not if the flight computer messes up?
    1
  18.  @Maelstromme  not sure what that has to do with what I said.
    1
  19.  @TomSmith-li5se  as you say probably, not absolutely, you cannot really say that it is irrational to not do it. Or are you calling yourself irrational?
    1
  20.  @TomSmith-li5se  "Your selfishness". Mine? Are you nuts? You should learn how to read. Where have I displayed any selfishness? Oh do please quote me where I do, lol.
    1
  21.  @skuzlebut82  "So, people should stop saying, "Elon said this," or "Elon said that."" Why? It is better provide accurate information, and then people can decide for themselves what to think of it.
    1
  22.  @skuzlebut82  wops, you expected me to read that? That won't happen when you start your first paragraph by intentionally missing my point.
    1
  23.  @skuzlebut82  you didn't make an honest attempt at actually responding to my comment, so why should I? If you don't take yourself seriously, why should I? "The fact that you didn't read all of what I said, means you don't have any interest in me saying something that opposes your point. So, my thought on Elon Musk fan boys still stands true." I don't want to talk about Elon at all, no matter if I agree with you or not about him, as that is a conversation that goes nowhere. I think it is a much more interesting conversation to talk about how you don't think it is appropriate to quote him on what he says. "Everyone" knows what Elon time is, so the issue you raise doesn't exist.
    1
  24. OK, finally time to convince my brother to start playing :D.
    1
  25. I wonder how easy it would be for them to transition Starship into BFR, literally. It should be cheaper anyway, just not so dramatically.
    1
  26. "The thing about "billionaires escaping to Mars" is largely tongue-in-cheek. I don't think many people seriously believe that ..." I have seen a large amount of comments in different videos that show otherwise :P.
    1
  27. if you mean powerful as in force produced during lift-of, it's about the double :O.
    1
  28. people who go to work for SpaceX knows what to expect though.
    1
  29. he was never serious about that though...
    1
  30.  @StephenGillie  do you honestly think your comments are smart?
    1
  31.  @keiththomas6601  that would be the 1st stage!
    1
  32.  @Anvilshock  indeed, it is such a pointless thing.
    1
  33. I'm confused about that, I see it being claimed that a hubble mission had people going higher, but without it being very detailed so haven't been "able" to confirm or deny.
    1
  34.  @danhunters8226  I've seen the claim that it was higher back then. On Wikipedia's STS-31 page they write: "The primary payload was the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), deployed in a 380 statute mile (612 kilometres (380 mi)) orbit. The shuttle's orbit in this mission was its highest orbit up to that date, in order for HST to be released near its operational altitude well outside the atmosphere. Discovery orbited the Earth 80 times during the mission.[5] The main purpose of this mission was to deploy Hubble. It was designed to operate above the Earth's turbulent and obscuring atmosphere to observe celestial objects at ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared wavelengths. The Hubble mission was a joint NASA-ESA effort going back to the late 1970s.[6] The rest of the mission was devoted to photography and onboard experiments. To launch HST into an orbit that guaranteed longevity, Discovery entered an orbit of around 613km by 615km. At one point during the mission, Discovery briefly reached an apogee of 621 kilometres (386 mi), the highest altitude ever reached by a Shuttle orbiter.[7]"
    1
  35. doesn't it always look like that? That is my recollection.
    1
  36. I don't think they are able to make that same test since they changed the design.
    1
  37. jupiter 2 = sls?
    1
  38. Scott didn't really get into that though.
    1
  39.  @charlesnelson5187  according to imgur, he should do way more than he does, and he is a very bad person for not doing so :P.
    1
  40.  @nebulanebula7499  that's funny :)
    1
  41. probably as many as kinds of serial :).
    1
  42.  @jordanturner97  "and you better hope the landing goes off flawlessly because if something wrong does happen you are guaranteed to die as there is no way of escape." Define "go wrong". It seems something went wrong on SN15 landing. They said beforehand that they were going to fire three engines in the initiation of the landing sequence. Only two fired though, and it was not the optimal two, so it looks like they managed to land even though they had an engine failure.
    1
  43.  @johnballs1352  controlling a robot on the surface while orbiting Mars could be easier though right?
    1
  44.  @johnballs1352  the data stream would be from Mars surface to Mars LEO though :).
    1
  45. 0:24 impressive that you can say this without giggling :).
    1
  46. looks like a space fencer helmet :).
    1
  47. oh wow, a sponsor, cool :). And what a sponsor :).
    1
  48. you mean Saturn V? Yes, but not sure what exact percentage when it comes to volume.
    1
  49. a good video, from a bad dude.
    1
  50.  @audaxxx4202  hm, I don't recall Biden ever saying that :O.
    1