Comments by "Fred Bloggs" (@fredbloggs5902) on "The Return of the Space Planes | Answers With Joe" video.

  1. It was too expensive and ultimately a death trap killing over 1% of its crew.
    9
  2. 2 in 135 is very obviously not 0.014%... ...it’s 1.48% Nobody would get on a plane they knew had a WORSE than 1 in 100 chance of killing everybody.
    3
  3. Space Shuttle and SLS are a tribute to cost-plus contracts... ...Great for shareholders ...Not so good for tax payers.
    3
  4. I’m sure there are also people who love the “Spruce Goose”... ...but that doesn’t make it a viable plane.
    2
  5. Starship renders the whole concept irrelevant
    2
  6.  @ONECOUNT  2 failures in 134 is the 1.4%. That’s the BEST figure. This is most definitely NOT “well within tolerances”. Nobody would get on a 747 with a 1.4% chance of crashing, regardless of the number of passengers. Expressed in numbers of people, 14 died out of a total of 355, this gives the much worse figure of 3.9% deaths.
    2
  7.  @ONECOUNT  You’re understanding of math is weak, don’t give up the day job. There are 2 legitimate ways to calculate 1) failed-missions / total missions 2) deaths / crew total I’ve already given you both numbers
    2
  8.  @disposabull  you are clearly totally insane, I suggest you get professional help.
    2
  9. Arguably so were:... Gunter Grasse Erwin Rommel George Soros
    2
  10. Great reference... ...so it also crashes then.
    1
  11. It’s just a capsule that costs nearly double the SpaceX crew Dragon, it’s not obvious to me how it advances anything.
    1
  12.  @rockstarskolas  What part of “it’s just a capsule” do you not understand?
    1
  13. Capitalism has its faults but it’s better than the alternatives.
    1
  14. And went bankrupt
    1
  15. You’re right, they could have gone on killing 1.4% of their passengers
    1
  16. And it would have been New York.
    1
  17. I agree, it’s totally arbitrary.
    1
  18. Blatantly wrong
    1
  19. All you’re doing is producing a less efficient booster. SpaceX already have reusable boosters.
    1
  20.  @WillTellU  1) Liquid oxygen is cheap and required anyway once you get remotely near orbit. 2) Refurb of Falcon-9 is currently at around $250,000 and falling. Which represents less than 0.5% of a complete new rocket.
    1
  21.  @WillTellU  Nobody cares, the fuel cost of a SpaceX launch is around 0.3% of the cost of the rocket.
    1
  22.  @WillTellU  what part of the fuel cost being an insignificant component in the overall cost do you not understand?
    1
  23. Define ‘zero’.
    1
  24. We simply don’t care, SpaceX deliver.
    1
  25. No, it’s a rocket with a gliding angle approximating a brick.
    1
  26.  @DavidJohnson-tv2nn  The Shuttle had a failure rate well over 1%.
    1
  27.  @5kr3aminMunk33  The failure rate for missions was 1.5% The death rate for crew was 3.9% Nobody would get on a plane if they knew they had a 3.9% chance of dying.
    1
  28.  @aviationlover3613  1.74% is still simply too high, but you’re welcome to claim “nah, it’s fine” as much as you like.
    1
  29.  @Sajuuk  Mostly true, but not completely, there are a few other new companies going down the SpaceX path. And his massively lower prices are forcing the old dinosaurs to at least pretend to be moving to reuse.
    1
  30. You’re welcome to suggest something.
    1
  31.  @LemonMan91  I’m sorry, I didn’t realise your feelings were so delicate.
    1
  32.  @LemonMan91  I invited suggestions, you need to take your meds.
    1
  33. SpaceX are
    1
  34. Unlikely
    1
  35. So is cyanide
    1
  36. To be fair, it’s more the subcontractors who are a bottomless pit.
    1
  37. Because... They’re big and largely uninhabited
    1
  38. How fast does it go?... ...is that all?
    1
  39. Simply not viable... ...and full reuse of the separate components makes it irrelevant anyway.
    1
  40. That doesn’t work
    1
  41. No longer necessary and probably not viable anyway.
    1
  42. Thunderf00t is a grifter for clicks who blatantly and deliberately uses obsolete figures to promote a personal agenda. The total cost of refurbishing a Falcon-9 is $250,000 not the $20,000,000 claimed by Thunderf00t.
    1
  43. Not different by much, the universe is 13.8 billion years old, while the Earth is 4.5 billion... ...but the heavier elements took time to produce and are probably required as a prerequisite so it’s not obvious that we’re the butt end.
    1
  44. 1) Starship makes them totally irrelevant 2) Nobody has ever managed to make one 3) Their viability at all is highly questionable
    1
  45. They’re in a status war with Pakistan, totally pathetic, half their population doesn’t have plumbing.
    1
  46. The Germans were allegedly also developing one. This claim is in some doubt.
    1