Comments by "Valen Ron" (@valenrn8657) on "Scott Manley" channel.

  1.  @bobfg3130  You haven't stated any fact since you have stated many speculative IF statements. You're a hypocrite.
    3
  2.  @bobfg3130  For the radiation issue, Starship's diameter is wide enough to ring around the human habitant core with a significant liquid water layer.
    3
  3.  @bobfg3130  Falcon Heavy already thrown a space probe mass beyond the Mars orbit. Space X's major innovation is to reduce cost.
    3
  4.  @bobfg3130  >Doesn't matter. SpaceX are behind. In terms of reduced cost, reusability, and sustainability, Space X is head of Blue-Origin, Boeing (ULA, SLS), Lockheed (ULA).
    3
  5.  @bobfg3130  >The Space Shuttle transported humans to orbit. You don't know what you're talking about. For human transport to space, the Space Shuttle is an expensive boondoggle. Space Shuttle is a dead transport vehicle.
    3
  6.  @bobfg3130  Prove "SpaceX isn't ahead in terms of cost. Recently they've started charging more than ULA".
    3
  7.  @bobfg3130  The same source of funding with different overhead costs.
    2
  8.  @zhuzhaful  Elon already stated their moon lander projects will continue despite a pause in $2.9 billion NASA contract. SpaceX's Starship project is not dependent on a $2.9 billion NASA contract.
    2
  9. Starship's design also has to work on the Moon and Mars.
    2
  10. There's SR-72.
    2
  11. Dream Chaser spaceplane is still alive for the Vulcan Centaur and Arianespace rockets.
    1
  12. Paper rockets vs real-world physical rockets.
    1
  13. Space X = make water tank manufacturers great again.
    1
  14.  @brianfoss571  >nobody should be shocked if this results in SpaceX's lander functioning more like the National Team proposal than Starship. Not correct, Starship's refuel occurs at LEO which enables 100,000 kg cargo to be delivered to the moon. Multiple tanker refuel's low-cost structures are due to reusability. Space X's competition doesn't have direct control over SLS's architecture design, hence the limitation with the competing lander solution. Space X's vertical integration enables holistic system architecture design.
    1
  15.  @bobfg3130  Starship project has 220,000 lbs into LEO which is then refueled by another Starship tanker. Starship's Super Heavy Booster has a similar diameter and length as Saturn V's 1st and 2nd stage stack. Saturn V's 1st and 2nd stage = thrown away. Starship's Super Heavy Booster = reusable.
    1
  16.  @bobfg3130  "SpaceX isn't ahead in terms of cost. Recently they've started charging more than ULA" is bullshit. A reusable rocket is relevant.
    1
  17. ​ @mikek9297  SLS boondoggle has suck in $20 billion of taxpayers dollars without a single rocket launch. LOL
    1
  18.  @bobfg3130  > It's not big enough Don't assume my argument is about completely removing the radiation issue, but only reducing it.
    1
  19.  @bobfg3130  Boeing = software sucks.
    1
  20.  @mikek9297  Mars 3 lander became the first successful landing on Mars. It failed after relaying 20 seconds of video data to the orbiter. LOL
    1
  21.  @bobfg3130  >If you only reduce it, you've failed There's background radiation on Earth. There's background radiation in LEO.
    1
  22.  @mikek9297  >Yeah. Still beats SpaceX tho. SpaceX's innovations are lower cost and reusability i.e. the original plan for NASA's Space Shuttle program. The space shuttle was supposed to be smaller until USAF got involved with the Space Shuttle program. USAF must take the responsibility for creating a large Space Shuttle boondoggle. Eventually, the military resumed the use of expendable launch vehicles instead, leaving NASA with an expensive boondoggle.
    1
  23. Astra's FCS (Flight Control System)'s engine malfunction handling is pretty good.
    1
  24. accckiy, your post is a fraud.
    1
  25. Blowfeld20k, your arguments are filled with red herrings.
    1
  26. Blowfeld20k, Compared to Musks, you have done nearly nothing.
    1
  27. Wide area integrated defence system needs a satellite communication network. GPS is only a single component.
    1
  28.  @jodierye3011  Space X's Super Heavy booster's height and diameter are similar to Saturn V's 1st and 2nd stage stack. Replace Saturn V's Skylab with a Starship-like solution and LEO refueling. The basic idea with Space X's Starship is an evolved Saturn V-like rocket with reusability. Saturn V 1st stage = 7,891,000 lbf (35,100 kN) thrust Saturn V 2nd stage = 1,155,800 lbf (5,141 kN) thrust Space X Super Heavy 1st stage = 17,000,000 lbf (76,000 kN) thrust. Super Heavy booster is reusable. Starship as 2nd stage = 2,700,000 lbf (12,000 kN) thrust. Starship is refueled in LEO for trans-lunar injection. Starship is reusable. Luna Starship variant is to land on the moon. The Super Heavy booster and Starships are fully reusable, hence fulfilling Space Shuttle's original goals before USAF interfered with its design specs. Future Starship variants can be customized for specific missions. Saturn V design reference is a good place to start.
    1
  29.  @jodierye3011  >Show me a "Star Ship" that doesn't crash and explode or land on fire and needs a hefty fire suppression system McDonnell Douglas DC-XA was killed by politics during its R&D phase i.e. killed by political investigation for design flaw bullshit during the R&D phase. LOL Your argument is the same that killed McDonnell Douglas DC-XA. Smart computing systems requires additional data, hence many experiments with SN series. SN15 has landed successfully.
    1
  30.  @jodierye3011  >>BTW, a starship that takes off, belly flops and then lands doesn't prove anything. Any ship with the right engines that isn't carrying payload could do this, >>Lockheed Martin was doing this in the 80's For landing rockets, it wasn't Lockheed. McDonnell Douglas DC-X reached 3.14 km in height, DC-X is a small rocket with 60 kN (kilo-Newtons) or 13,000 lbf thrust Falcon Heavy has 22.8 MN (mega-Newtons) or 5,100,000 lbf thrust. Falcon 9 FT has 7.6 MN (mega-Newtons) or 1,710,000 lbf thrust Starship SN15 reached 10 km in height. Lockheed's VentureStar was killed during the R&D phase i.e. killed by political investigation for design flaw bullshit during the R&D phase. The composite fuel tank design issue was solved in 2004, but the VentureStar project was canceled in 2001.
    1
  31. Without DARPA, there's no money coming from DARPA. Don't blame the US for the UK's weak investments in R&D.
    1
  32. Joshua Slowpoke, That's Tesla Model X.
    1
  33. John Pfeifer, Tesla EV battery cell is mostly Nickel and Graphite. http://benchmarkminerals.com/elon-musk-our-lithium-ion-batteries-should-be-called-nickel-graphite/
    1