Comments by "Sebastian Nolte" (@sebastiannolte1201) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

Yes, they do. So what is your point?
5
You clearly can see how the earth in the background is moving, because they flying around the earth. So what are you even talking about?
5
"Nice scuba divers" Have you ever seen a movie set where they film space scenes under water? No. Because it is a stupid idea. Why should anybody do that? "Fake as the black starless sky." You expect to see stars on a video made in daylight?
3
Well, you clearly can see that it is moving in the background. But of course that is not the rotation of the earth. When you fly in an airplane and look out of the window, do you see the earth spin underneath you? No, you see earth's surface moving underneath you with the speed of the airplane. You always see the relative speed between the camera and the earth. And here it is the same, just higher and faster. They fly around the earth wit 28,000 km/h at an altitude of 400 km. And that is what you see.
2
Actually it would be weird IF you would see stars. This is in open daylight. Have you ever seen stars at day? Do you have the slightest experience with photography? Do you know why cameras have an HDR mode and what it does? You also can send a balloon with a camera by yourself up to altitudes where the sky is already black. Many people do that, Youtube is full of it (search for "Ballon to space", "GoPro to space", "Startosphere balloon..."). You don't see stars on any of them. And we know where the ISS is, all the time, all data about it is public. You can just look online where it is at the moment, ther are also Apps for your smartphone. You also can look up when it will pass in front of the moon or the sun in your area the next time, there you can see its sillouette. Just look it up , and go there with a telescope or a high zoom camera. Again, many people do this, it is a regular thing, search youtube for "ISS transit".
2
"why does america think its a success when they supposedly " Because this is a a reusable rocket. The plan is that both the booster and the starship can land and be used again. And it is by a private company. Completly independet from it, NASA had several flights to the moon with the Apollo mission and they will do it again with the Artemis program. The first Artemis flight around the moon (without passengers) already happened last year.
2
"They supposedly launched a car into space yet" Yes, and hundreds of satellites. And human beings to the ISS. Including tourists. With another rocket. These are test flights of an entire new rocket, much bigger, ew engines etc. "yet This rocket could not pass through the firmament" There is no firmament. Or do you have evidence for it? " or as NASA would say the Van Allen Radiation Belt." Oh, so the Van Allen belts are the firmament? They begins about 600 km away. Also the Internatopanl Space Station (400 km) is this side of the belts. And this rocket here exploded at about 150 km. So what does that has to do with the firmament?
2
As you say, you don't fell the speed of a vehicle when you are inside of it, you only see the relative speed compared to other objects. They also see earth's surface moving underneath them with 28000 km/h, but at a distance of 400 km it doesn't look fast. As you can see in this video
2
"Where the sky ends" Where is that? So what altitude? "Use your eyes." I see stars, moon, sun,... so single objects far away. "Its an barrier we can't see past. " I don't see any barrier. And why is that even here relevant? So you think this rocket exploded because it hit that barrier? But you ignore all the hundreds of rocket launches, that happen all the time (they are are regular thing, satellites aare a regular business, feel free to work at such a company or found one) and don't explode?
1
@glodusmuspell9069 How should you see the whole earth? Imagine earth had a diameter of 127 cm. Then they are only 4 cm away from the surface.
1
Well, you see a video of a rocket that leaves earth. Every airplane leaves the earth.
1
@MASTER__CHU Regardless of time? So when you look up to the sky you see stars AT DAY? I don't think so. The view towards earth is the only really interesting one. When you are in an airplane, what is more interesteing when you look through the window? Looking down or looking up? I guess looking down. Of course, because There is not really a difference between "Looking up while you are on the ground" and "Looking up while you are 11 km away from the ground". So why do you think that "Looking up while you are 400 km away from the ground" the view should be so different? Imagine you are in the desert at a super clear night. So you have a fantastic clear view on the stars. So you lay down on your back and look up. Now your bed starts to hovering and goes up, while you still lay there and observe the sky. So you are 10 meters high, 100 meters, 1000 meters, 10 km, 100 km, ... Do you really think the view should change? Why, and starting at what altitude? If you think that these astronauts are "closer to the starts" or "closer to the other planets" then you have no idea of the dimensions...
1
The pressure is zero. It is a vacuum. There is no air.
1
And because of that he meanwhile has sent 275 Falcon rockets, that successfully brought people, satellites, cargo,... into orbit?
1
@leemallinson9268 "You don't know its true you just believe its true " Nonsense. I know the physical laws are true, because they work. We experience it all the time in you everyday life. You don't have to believe scientists, but engineers. Every engineer who designs cars, airplanes, roller coasters,... will tell you, that an astronaut on a spacewalk will not feel the 17000 mph. By using the same laws that they use to design cars, airplanes, roller coasters... YOU have to explain why they should feel it. Why don't you just calculate the force that they experience when they move with 17,000 mph at an altitude of 250 miles? Come on, show me the cal " if you want to believe that they are moving 17000mph that's upto you." There is no reason why they should not. It all adds up. The burden of proof is on you when you claim, that they don't. So I don't "believe" it. I know that it is true.
1
Why does it matter? I really have no idea why the usage of a fish eye lense should feed the doubters. I don't get it, it doesn't make any sense. When you say that it is a fish eye lens then you admit that it is real and not CGI! That they are really up there, 400 km away from the surface (you can estimate that when you look down and recognize islands/coasts/.. on the ground, the curvature is irrelevant), moving with 28000 km/h (you also can measure that). Why should the type of camera lens be relevant for the qeuestion, if a video is real or not?
1