Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "Thunderf00t" channel.

  1. Even worse, he might not be the only one...
    10
  2. Convert the % of GDP the US spent on the Apollo program, and the equivalent cost today would have been about 1480 billion USD. So spending 3 billion on this is basically nothing. Still got 1477 billion to go spending, before USA reach Apollo program costs.
    10
  3. The ignorance of the masses. When you know what chamber pressure is, expansion ratio, maxQ, full flow staged combustion, hot staging, TEA-TAB, etc. etc... Then you can start having an opinion, because you have no idea what you are looking at. Its like 'the experimental top fuel dragster blew up after doing 300 mph after 200 yards' - my Corolla can drive me to the shop and back without blowing up. Lolz.
    8
  4. Thunderf00t is clearly a smart guy - so why does he compare price a company charges its customer (NASA) vs. cost the company has providing the service? SpaceX needs to earn money, and since they are already cheaper than their competition - why not pocket the difference. Also, the rockets are not always limited by payload weight, but by payload volume.
    8
  5. Never argue with an idiot. They will knock you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
    8
  6.  @somuchfortalent  - nothing, because its still in development. SpaceX have however launched more payload to orbit than the rest of the world combined using their reusable Falcon 9 rocket - because that's in operation. How can they afford to do that? Because Falcon 9 is the only rocket in the world that has a reusable first stage.
    5
  7.  @mityaboy4639  - you are correct, the timeline was optimistic for a never-before seen project. Which was also pointed out at the time by a lot of people. Doesn't really matter though, if it is 2024 or 2030 when it happens. It happens. Unlike the space industry which hadn't changed since the 1970s.
    5
  8. Well, the timeline might be off by a year or three. Which is fine, its still lightning fast compared to anything else.
    5
  9. Most likely.
    3
  10. Yeah, trick is to start out with the hardest fields, and then work your way down into the soft underbelly.
    2
  11. Hmm, hard to tell there, so I went and checked the original video https://youtu.be/5RRmepp7i5g?t=1181 and at 19:41 you can see it is actually formed the same. So not fake (at least that part isn't)
    2
  12. Can he prove that he has lost revenue because of Thunderfoot's use of the clip? No. The entire DMCA was introduced to stop pirating of entire movies - not stuff like this.
    2
  13.  @the1exnay  - then he should be able to prove that. Again DMCA was not introduced to protect the small content creator like this rocket filming dude. It was introduced to combat pirating of movies spearheaded by large Hollywood studios. So unless he has a large movie, that Thunderfoot has pirated, he got no protection.
    2
  14. This reminds me of software projects where the sales people oversold a lot. And you have to cut down features until you are at the absolute minimum. Wonder why they didn't remove the cars and just installed a rolling pavement, it would transport more people faster.
    2
  15. Time to get of the hype train. Because someone can render it, and someone can bullshit about it, and someone funds it, doesn't mean it isn't a scam.
    2
  16.  @atomiclemon77  - it is indeed not impossible. It is just extremely hard and has a ton of problems that are glossed over.
    2
  17.  @atomiclemon77  - well MSM already give you the sales pitch. Thunderfoot gives more on the "this won't work" side, which is refreshing when the MSM just is reading out a press release.
    2
  18.  @PistonAvatarGuy - and that proves what? Its comparing apples and oranges. The amount of resources thrown into the Apollo program was way way more than what SpaceX has access to in its wildest dreams. If anything compare it to the SLS program.
    2
  19.  @artnull13  - different company, different people, different product. Only common thing is Elon Musk. Why would Tesla be relevant to SpaceX development? SpaceX is a huge success, and Starship is the largest rocket ever flying. There is no comparrison.
    2
  20.  @PistonAvatarGuy  - yes, SLS worked. Once. After how many years and how many billions thrown away on its development? SLS is just rehashed tech from the 1970s. SpaceX Startship is revolutionary on all fronts, there is nothing like it. The engines alone are a marvel of modern engineering, and they are the first of their kind ever. The amounts of firsts on this vehicle is truely amazing. Suggest you get eductate yourself on rocket technology. Because this is like saying there is no difference between a T-Ford and a Tesla. The Starship rocket isn't done yet, nobody says it is. SpaceX has proven that the way to go fast in areospace is to allow failures to happen, and iterate and fix it. That's what made them crush every other rocket company out there in a decade of operation.
    2
  21. Well, living in Norway, Teslas are probably one of the most - if not the most common car brand where I live. However, they are now no longer able to compete with the competition (because they finally have some), and are falling down on the "top selling indexes". Of course, I think Model-Y will probably do it ok, but it has a lot of competition from other makers, unlike Model S and X had in its day.
    2
  22. Looking forward to ChatGPT debunking this video.
    2
  23. Hope you have an exit strategy for Tesla though... Selling is actually harder than buying, when you've made a lot on a stock.
    2
  24. With loads of Teslas in them.
    1
  25. Better to gain 300 billion dollars and loosing 200 billion - than not having any...
    1
  26.  @PistonAvatarGuy  - Why do you care, its a private company - its investor money. I'm sure if it goes bust, the number of governments all over the world ready to buy it up is long. Depends on how successful they are and what challenges they manage to overcome and how quickly. They are well on their way, and the most important things are already solved. Main one up next now would be heat shielding on the Starship holding during re-entry. Yes, there is no reason to question that at the moment. The design can change at any time, if it is deemed incorrect. That's the beauty of their development philosophy. They added hot-staging to an existing design in a few months. That's unheard of elsewhere. - Of course nothing is 100% for new revolutionary technology. The list of unsolved items are long, but getting shorter every day. - Yeah, that has been the approach for years. Hence why there hasn't been any progress in rocket technology until SpaceX really shook up the market. And why SLS will fail (too expensive), and why everyone (who knows what they are talking about) is exited for SpaceX starship.
    1
  27.  @JGaffney9000  - SpaceX throws more stuff into orbit than the rest of the space industry combined globally. ULA is for sale. Yes, there are other smaller rocket competitors out there, doing their thing. Stoke space is probably the most interesting concept IMO, and Rocket Lab. The rest is just wishes and old stuff, and nobody (except Stoke) is going to reuse the entire stack. None of these rockets have any appreciable capablity for anything else than putting smal satelites into LEO. Which is fine. Starship is another beast entirely.
    1
  28.  @PistonAvatarGuy  - well, Starship is not done yet, it is still in development. Why do you expect it to work on first or second launch, when that's not how SpaceX develops their rockets. One needs to see improvements from launch to launch. And that's what we are seeing. 2nd launch was much better than 1st. We therefore expect 3rd to be better than 2nd. Reusability is of course important, but that comes later. Right now the production of these rockets are so cheap, that a private company can churn them out in a few weeks.
    1
  29. ​ @PistonAvatarGuy  - why would it not work as promised? What system do you think would fail so hard that it cannot be worked around?
    1
  30.  @PistonAvatarGuy  - no other rocket in the world uses a full flow staged combustion methalox Engine. It is by far the most technically advanced, powerful rocket engine in the world, and therefore it has no problem lifting a steel rocket. Sure, if they were going for a non-reusable 2.nd stage approach they could easily have made the upper stage in aluminium instead. To get even more payload to orbit, and if all things should fail, they can do that. But that's not the current goal.
    1
  31.  @PistonAvatarGuy  - yes, the body is not in any fancy material. It doesn't need to be, it is however the correct material for the intended mission profile - which is different than any other rocket out there. The engines are the magic sauce here. They are hyper-advanced, far more so than any other rocket engine every produced. And SpaceX is spitting out one every day, so they are extremely cheap to make as well. (Not like the 100-150 million USD a pop for the SLS engines). This was, as you should know, a sub-orbital test flight, and it was going pretty well until the automatic flight termination system blew up the second stage. There is nothing pointing towards the engines being the cause of the problem - no idea where you got that from. Why do you claim it cannot have any payload onboard, didn't you see how fast it got off the pad? Or do you have some insider knowledge, that nobody else has? You are making wild claims about something you seem to have a very limited understanding off. There are very good reasons why NASA and rocket enthusiasts all over the world are very exited for this machine.
    1
  32.  @jazzabighits4473  - I used % of GDP, not inflation as basis for calculating the true cost of the Apollo program.
    1
  33. Well, it helps. A radio controlled car can easily do 800 km/h in scale speed. But you cannot really scale physics like that.
    1
  34. Some times I wish there is some sort of after-life where bad scammers like these can get their fair judgement.
    1
  35. No, it does not. When I first heard about it, I thought Musk and gang had sort of solved the hard parts. But it seems to be an idea they got on a pub, wrote it up and that was that.
    1
  36. It would be less insane on the moon. But a railgun is a much better concept on the moon.
    1
  37. no known (by the authors of the paper) I would say is more correct.
    1
  38. I rather have a few AA batteries around.
    1
  39. Ok, so how can I make money on this company going bust in a few years?
    1