Comments by "Sebastian Nolte" (@sebastiannolte1201) on "Scott Manley" channel.

  1. Well, Felix Baumgartner only reached 39 km.
    4
  2. Our observations leads to it. You think people came up with this from nothing? LOL. But people today probably don't even watch the sky and probably would not have notice the planets, while already in ancient times people discovered them. And what are you talking about whurling, twirling, hurling, wibbling,...? Do you know how copernicus came to the heliocentric model? He observed that the planets make weird trajectories and loops at the skies and change their speed. So that would be hurling and wobbling and that would be strange. So he thought: What of not the sun and the planets move around the earth, but instead the sun is fixed and the earth and the planets orbit around the sun? Because then the movements suddenly make sense, and they are clean ellipses around the sun.
    3
  3. We have entirely new vehicle. You actually want to send people in it with the very first flight?
    2
  4. Let me guess: Because of the van Allen Belt? And you have sent up your own probe to the belt, measured the radiation and came to the conclusion that it is not possible to pass it for human beings?
    2
  5. Interesting how Christopher even tells the obvious thing only in the last sentence: camera focal length. I can go out with my smartphone and take three pictures of the moon: One with 0.7x zoom, one with 1x zoom, one with 2x zoom. And the moon will have a different size on each of this pictures. Do you know what camera was used here and what focal length? Have you calculated if it adds up? Have you take a picture of the moon with the same (or at least comparable) camera and settings and compared the pictures? I don't think so. So how can you say "The moon appears larger from earth than the earth from the moon?"
    1
  6. It was never designed to orbit and will never. Completly different approach.
    1
  7. "and Blue Origin requires 28 million dollars for a suborbital hop. " That is really correct. According to statements in the past a flight with New Shepard will cost about 250.000 Dollar. This was an auction for marketing and charity.
    1
  8. I really don't understand why all the time people come up with that stuff when it comes to space. Why? People spend their money for so much bullshit, but alway space exploration is the problem? The entire budget of NASA in 2020 was only 0.48 % of the US federal budget. And why don't I see such comments in the comment section of a trailer for a new blockbuster movie that costs 300 million dollars? People spend so much money for entertainment, clothes, the newest electronic gadget etc.
    1
  9. Is it a 100% fact that this is a complete different thing than the refurbishment of the Falcon 9, or is that just whishful thinking or what SpaceX claims? Don't get me wrong, this is an absolute fascinating engineering Marvel, and I am not a SpaceX hater. But Elon often made wild claims, and many fans just blindly applaud it and take it as if it was already reality ("passenger Earth to earth transport" with starship as an alternative to airplanes is still a stupid idea that will never happen, sorry). The breakthrough idea is not "building the strongest rocket ever made" or "catching huge rocket boosters". Instead the vision was: Space flights become as common as airplanes, because you basically only have to pay for the fuel. And we still have to wait if that actually will work out. Don't forget: Already with the Space Shuttle back then they claimed that flights will become cheap and can happen often. But that didn't work out, because the refurbishmend of the Orbiter needed much more money and time than expected. And does SpaceX have the ultimate idea for the Starship (so the upper stage, that goes into orbit) concerning their heat tiles etc, so that it can be get ready for the next flight quick and cheap? Yes, Starship will land. Yes, we will see the first full flight of of an entire Starship and everybody will applaud. But that alone is not what was promised. That alone will not change the world. I read a german article about ITF5 . He often write about space stuff, it was not an "anti" article, but just quite neutral about the goals that were achieved and the challenges that are still there. One interesting point was, that SpaceX had to put more heat protection on the upper stage that was heavy, and that the fuel that is needed for the landing is more than expected. So that this particular flight did not have much payload capacity. Oh, and an important part of the idea was the refueling in orbit. I have heard that is already necessary not only for Mars, but already for the moon? And even for that it needs several refuels? Besides computer graphics we haven't seen anything about refueling, it is just an idea. However, I observe it, it is fascinating, but I will wait what actually will happen and what promises really will be fullfilled. And I don't join the "This changes everything!!!" choir too early.
    1
  10.  @JesusistheonetrueGod  So funny, how strong religious people argue against the big bang. Actually the big bang theory was mainly made popular by an astronomer, who was also a theologist and priest. Back then some other scientists critized the theory, called in "pseudoscience" and said, that it was made by people, who were not neutral scientists, but instead were searching for a theory that is compatible with a belief in God who created everything. The Big bang theory basicly says, that space and time has a beginning. The big bang describes the moment of creation. The other theory, that was favoured by the criticial scientists, is, that the universe was always there, and that there was no creation.
    1
  11. Where is your definition of "looked like space"? The black sky? You already get that at less than 30 km.
    1
  12. Floating has nothing to do with the altitude. The "Vomit Comet" goes up to 10 km.
    1
  13. Yes! That is what I think about all the time. When Musk back then presented the ITS he showed how super inexpensive the flights would be because you more or less only have to pay the fuel due to 100% reusability, and that would revolutionize space travel. And everybody is just talking about the landing, as if that was the main issue. But seem to forget that a big challenge (or THE big challenge?) is, how you can cheap and quickly reuse a vehicle that has slammed into the atmosphere with 28,000 km/h. The space shuttle also had a reusable second stage that landed on earth. And it also was promised that it will be super cheap and can reused quickly - but neglects that promise! Because the refurbishment was so effortful and expensive. And I don't see how SpaceX wants to solve that problem, not even in theory.
    1
  14. They will use heatshields, and to me, that is still the biggest challenge. I mean, this flight was epic, and it is amazing what they achieved. But the biggest question mark to me is still the full reusing of a spacrcaft after ree-ntry. The Space Shuttel already was a vehicle that came back from orbit, landed on the ground, and was made to be "reused" and so flights should be cheap and should happen often. But the reality was: It was more like "refurshibable" but not "reusable". So it took much more time and money than planned, to make it fit again for the next flight. I totally believe that Space X can make a starship that comes down and land as they plan it and as they show in the simulations. But the question is: What will be the conditon of that thing after re-entry from orbit, and how easy can it be used again? Elons idea is: With a fully reusable spacecraft the(more or less) only costs for a launch will be the fuel. Like it is the case for airplanes, and only because of that flights are affordable to everyone. We will see, if he can realize that...
    1
  15.  @gunikx  So... you think that the scientists (who are the target audience of the JWST pictues and data, not the general public) are stupid and don't notice that they are fooled by... who even? NASA? You know that you can book time on the JWST to use it?
    1
  16. "Still trying to figure out how to go to the Moon......" ... with humans. This vehicle should be capable of it, when it is finished. And NASA meanwhile has a vehicle that can bring people at leat in moons orbit (the lander is planned to be a verion of Starship). The first flight of the SLS rocket with the Orion Spacecrafts was succesfyull in November 2022. The Spacecrafts flew around the moon and landed in the ocean. But without humans, The next flight will be with humans. "if Not leave Earth" SpaceX sends satellites into orbit all the time with their Falcon 9 rocket, so what do you want to say? "but some how NASA has a Drone Rover on Mars it plays with daily? " Yes, so? You see the difference between "Sending rovers" and "Sending humans"?
    1
  17. "And the mission of Atremis? To circle the moon and return to earth" With human beings in it. "something the Russians did more than half a century ago. " Not with human beings in it. "Meanwhile, over 6 years ago we had SpaceX demonstrate the power of the Falcon Heavy which propelled a Tesla out beyond Mars orbit." Well, you don't need a Falcon Heavy for that. The first testflight with a 6 ton dummy (so comparable with the Falcon heavy Tesla Roadster flight) of the Delta IV Heavy was in 2004.
    1
  18. What? How was this an epic failure?
    1
  19. I think some people are a bit too optimistic with SpaceX and the "fully reusability" of Starship. We already had a vehicle with a "fully reusable" orbital stage: The Space Shuttle. And back then they also claimed that it can be reused super quick and cheap - but that didn't happen, it took much more time and money than planned. SpaceX seems to experiment with the Heat tiles. I don't see that they have the ultimate solution. The big vision that Musk had and that is the foundation for his claims, that flights with Starship will be super cheap: Rockets become like airplanes, so where you only have to pay for the fuel. So to me the big question is (and I have the impression that not many people talk about this) how quick and cheap Starship can be made ready for the next flight.
    1
  20. - US Air Force Definition for the beginning of space: 80 km - most used definition for the beginning of space: 100 km - International Space Station: 400 km away from earth's surface - Hubble Telescope: 550 km - geostationary satellites: 35,786 km - the moon: 384,000km - James Webb Telescope: 1,500,000 km
    1
  21. ... says the guy who has a million-dollar-car as a profile picture.
    1
  22. " It’s not like new glen will be done by 2024" How do you know? Current schedule says that the first launch will be in 2021
    1
  23. The entire trip is very boring. A 360 degree Camera to see just black void around you?
    1