Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Curious Droid" channel.

  1. +Pirate Gunner You do realise that Islam was also the reason why their civilisation rose to be at the time the zenith of scientific and intellectual exploration during their day, right? Or are you ignorant of that too?
    15
  2. To be fair, Muslim nations used to be the forefront of science (especially astronomy) . There was once a time when most of stars in the sky were named by Muslim astronomers. Sadly their civilisation have gone down a lot thank to radicals and extremist. Highlighting their previous achievement might inspire them to re-pursue them might help them steer away from the radical and extremist ideology that plagued them now. Saying that this destroys NASA is one of the dumbest bullshit I've heard today.
    12
  3. Did you watch the video before posting?
    11
  4. +Gmail X There're two types of personality cult surrounding Elon Musk: Those that believes he a godsend that can do nothing wrong and those that think he's a snake oil salesman with nothing to show for. You seem to be the latter. Of course both of them are jut wrong on soo many levels.
    11
  5. That is incorrect. The SLS have more than twice the payload capacity of the Falcon Heavy.
    10
  6. They don't need to go top the North Atlantic at all to discover America. They already got the Pacific route covered.
    6
  7. LOL, For second there I thought you're going to sa Nord VPN was founded by an MiT alumni.
    6
  8. +Apex Tyrannis If all that is needed to match the SLS is by attaching two more boosters to the FH ( it would not even if you can do it), then Space X wouldn't even bother designing the BFR in the first places . It isn't that simple. At the current timetable, the SLS would be operational earlier than the BFR. Sure once the BFR become operational the SLS wpuld become superfluous but until then it will remain top dog in terms of payload capacity.
    5
  9. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ?
    4
  10. +Apex Tyrannis You are still missing the point of both of our arguments. I never argued that BFR isn't better option than SLS if both of them are operational. My point is that until the BFR is fully operational , the SLS will remain the most powerful launch system available and the only one capable of fulfilling the super heavy payload/mission the NASA had in mind for it. The Falcon Heavy is nowhere close to the capability of the SLS ,even the New Glen ( which challenge the Falcon Heavy directly) don't approach the SLS capacity . Adding two more boosters to the FH isn't as easy as you suggest and even then it would not match the SLS even if it is possible to do so. The BFR is the only rocket in development that is in the same class as the SLS in term of payload capacity.
    4
  11. I always assume that the OP is just trolling whenever I see a comment like this.
    3
  12.  @relentlessshillstomper114  I can' tell if you're serious or trolling (with that alts account of yours). You do know that rocket engine work well in vacuum ,right?
    3
  13. Unlike the military, the projects doesn't have the goal of screwing people over .
    3
  14. I wished 3d mapping and VR is more advanced than what we have now so that we can store the likeness of these huge historic objects there , and so that anyone can visit the place in virtual space.
    3
  15. I don't get it. Can you please explain the context of the word?
    3
  16. +Kasian I think he was being sarcastic.
    2
  17.  @domesticterrorist483  We would also not have Hubble, Parker Solar Probe and many other non commercially profitable experimental mission. We probably won't even have Mars mission as Mars is an economic sinkhole.
    2
  18.  @thelexkex  Really? You care comparing the bloated US military budget (which is larger than the next 9 countries after US combined) to the minuscule NASA budget? You forgetting weather monitoring satellites medical equipment., electronic that make everything (from car to aeroplanes) better and safer, renewable energy etc . I can go on an on about space exploration technology that have and will save millions of lives and even make our planets a better place . An considering all lives that cellphone have improved and saved, you are seriously wrong on that too.
    2
  19. No, the atmosphere actually impeded thrust in way because it creates resistance. Rocket engine usually have gimbals to control the direction (or uses something like reaction wheels in space). I think the problem here is you think rockets and spacecraft move like aeroplanes, they do not.
    2
  20.  @icflatndatsdat5615  Did you fail physics in high school because You don't seem to know shit bout how aerodynamics works. HINT: Atmosphere don't generate thrust in anything , not even aeroplanes . Aeroplane are the one that can't work in vacuum because they need atmosphere to act against their control surfaces (wings , propellers , bodies ) to generate lift and control. Furthermore the engine need oxidiser from the atmosphere(oxygen) to burn the fuel so they can't operate vacuum. Rockets on the other hand carry their own fuel and oxidiser so they can operate in vacuum. Furthermore rocket doesn't use wing to generate lift and thrust . In a sense they operate the same way a firemen hose or a balloon (both work fine in vacuum) .
    2
  21. Did you not watch the video before posting your comment?
    2
  22. So in 2070 Prospero will burn ? I wonder if Leman Russ will have anything to do with this as well...
    2
  23. Didn't even bother watching the video ,huh?
    2
  24. But the principle behind it was developed at NASA.
    2
  25.  @sparqqling  Sorry, that comment was supposed to be directed at the OP.
    2
  26.  Carlos Saraiva  If you are anti-nuclear as a power generation system than you really aren't smarter than a Climate Change denying ignoramus . Of course I take this back if you meant to say you align with the use of anti-nuclei as a power source . I can fault a person who loves futuristic sci-fi concepts 😁
    2
  27. +Apex Tyrannis To be fair, not even Space X was matching their original progress schedule. Both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy was supposed to debut earlier than they actually did. I think it isn't best to take Elon's schedule (even for the BFR) at face value. This industry is famous for its delays
    2
  28. +Colin Thorneycroft That makes no sense. Moon Shrimps can't use phones.
    1
  29.  @thelexkex  If we done that you wouldn't even have the device to write the comment I'm replying to. You seem to forget that most of the tech behind modern electronics and even the internet came from space exploration. Save your complains of true money pits, like the bloated US military.
    1
  30.  @stealthworx4371  Can you tell me the profitability of space probes like The Parker Solar Probe or space telescopes like The Hubble? No profit driven corporate would fund such non profitable ventures.
    1
  31.  @domesticterrorist483  Because most the technology that make our civilisation exist in 2021 (including the one that you used to post that comment ) came from discoveries from purely academic research decade or even centuries ago. Don't forget that the person who discovered radios waves don't even believe there was any commercial application or benefits of his discovery to human kind. Non of these is possible if we only fund research on what we believe as profitable in the short term. How many space probe, space telescope and other academic research and exploration project have Space X and Virgin embarked on in a year, a decade or a month ? The answer is the same for all : zero.. Again the problem with for profit entities is they won't sink money on nonprofitable venture without any incentives.
    1
  32.  @thelexkex  Again, like what I pointed out to Domestic Terrorist , most of what make our civilisation ticks comes from cutting edge space exploration research that was purely academic and had no practical commercial application decades ago. The problem with companies like Space X is that they can't and won't fund any of those nonprofitable research. We need " incubators" like NASA to mature the science and tech to the point profit driven entities would see the value in them. Sure, if you want to complains about the mismanagement at NASA (mainly due to political pressure like the SLS), you may have a point , but that doesn't seem to be the crux of your complains, it seem you wanted to do away with NASA and space exploration completely .
    1
  33.  @thelexkex  Again, that fact that you wouldn't even be able to post your comment if not for tech (most of the components in your device can be traced from space research decades ago) proves what I said is true. What is your alternative to NASA's inefficiencies , then? Surely it's not private sectors as I already pointed out how they simply won't even fund purely academic research without any profit prospect or other incentives behind them.
    1
  34.  @thelexkex  Firstly, the internet and lots of modern electronics would not even existed if not for the research from space exploration that happened decades before you were even born. Take a look at the history of their development and you will eventually find the roots (from pattern to papers ) in space exploration And secondly, your view of "profit is the only way to know if thing are useful" is incredulous on so many levels. Take radio waves for example, if we follow you line of thinking no research would have been put to even discovered it in the first place as even the person who discovers it (Heinrich Hertz) don't believe that it have any benefit or impact on us. It is only after decades of non profitable academic research do finally have nay commercial application for it. Today over 140 years after its discovery we used radio wave in so many ways from radar to remote control to microwave oven. This is true for everything other impactful discovery including electricity . They all needed to be mature in academia fist. If we go by your logic our civilisation and tech level would still be in the middle ages.
    1
  35. Didn't Falcon 9 have a total of three failure? One partial failure and two launch failure ?
    1
  36.  @MarfixVince  Never said it isn't.
    1
  37. Why not use liquid methane as radiation shield. The downside that I can think of is it needed some cooling and thermal protection and well as being flammable.
    1
  38. There are tons of problem with using the ISS as you described. It would be cheaper and more pragmatic to sent up a new stain than to retrofit the ISS for new missions.
    1
  39. The ISS wasn't designed for the lunar obit . The reason why it sit at 400 km above the Earth is because there it is shielded from the intense radiation thank to the magnetic field. If you want to put it it deep space then you would need to add more shielding to it as well as retrofitting most of its modules. Then there is also the ludicrous amount of energy needed to boost it from that orbit to where the LOP-G's proposed location (passing the Van Allen Belt along the way) you can check afrew video on YouTube why this is s significant hurdl. . Or course there is also the issues of the ISS being an older station with components that are near obsolete ( current solar panels are more efficient that the ones it even if the "mileage" is the same) and the fact the you would still need to design new module for mission that are the LOP_G is designed for and attached time to the ISS. The idea of using it as a substitute for LOP-G 9 ( or similar type station) carries as much merit as continually funding the Space Shuttle or MIR .
    1
  40. + "The unmanned part addressed anything to do with solar radiation over long term. New systems may be more efficient, but when you count the energy cost to get them into orbit I doubt it really matters..." It does matter a lot. It would take a lot, lot more energy to boost something the size of the ISS (even without adding the shielding needed to survive there) then to send the LOP-G from planetside to its proposed orbit. "As for Mir, I think they should have done the same, The Mir modules could have served as a staging ground, even if they weren't used in the final construction, though after the fire and the collision I can see how that could have been an issue, but fire or not I doubt it would have been used for anything." The MIR was a decrepit ailing (some of its module aren't even operational or can be entered in its last few years) station that was not only no longer suited for newer scientific mission but was also a health hazard (seriously look it up) to the astronaut . "The shuttle... Yea it was old, and the space frame not particularly suitable to be re-purposed in any way but still possible with enough imagination." Not at the cost of nearly half a billion per-launch. The Space Shuttle was an expensive compromised project that virtually choked NASA's ability to fund new experiment and innovate for years . There is a reason why may people who are more savvy of the space exploration weren't a fan of the Space Shuttle and what it represent. "The point is... it costs a non trivial amount to get materials into space in the first place... so once they are up there, isn't it best to make use of what there is? Any new designs MUST consider reuse, recycling, re-purposing." Again, that have nothing to do with the absurd idea of boosting the ISS to the purposed orbit of the LOP-G. The ISS is completely unsuitable for that mission and it will cost more ( in material and financial standpoint) to retrofit and boost its orbit than to send a brand new station up there.
    1
  41. The problems is the aerospike is less efficient at any stage than an equivalent bell nozzle . With multistage rockets you can have difference bell shape for different altitudes.
    1
  42. The pad question is paramount. What use of a reusable launcher if you have to rebuild the pad for every launch?
    1
  43. What are the efficiency of the power transmission systems? How much of that energy from orbital systems can be transmitted back to Earth and how much energy is lost in the process?
    1
  44.  @sydclark5581  Kindly watch again , it seem you conveniently miss everything from 3:10 onwards .
    1
  45.  @sydclark5581  Wow, you still ignoring everything in the video.
    1
  46.  @sydclark5581  I am also being polite in pointing out that you conveniently ignored everything in the video. If you really indeed have watched it, you would know that NASA's contribution is more than just writing paper on the principle in 1965. Another thing: You are in public forum buddy. If you don' want anyone to picked apart your flawed way of thinking, then don't write in the the first place.
    1
  47. Boom indeed.
    1
  48. Raptor engines weren't built for the smalsat market.
    1
  49.  @james1seattle  Kindly explain it then.
    1
  50.  @james1seattle  Oh , I see.
    1