Comments by "" (@Wingnut353) on "Scott Manley" channel.

Almost certainly the latter.... the xEMU = design by committee and would there are probably a ton of cost and complexity optimizations a clean slate design could achieve.
18
@88Cardey Aircraft fail all the time.... they just have to fail gracefully. eg landing gear stuck down on takeoff happened to me.. we just flew back around and landed because we would not have enough fuel to make it to our destination with the gear down. In this case they could have detected the leak and not relit the engine.... and in the case of human launch they could have some kind of contingency to save the 2nd stage.
8
@fourutubez7294 no... anyone that thinks anything the NIF is doing will result in practical results is the one that is metaphorically drunk on fusion hype. There are reactors that may have future practical use, SPARC and ARC are teh most promising I think (like ITER but with a shorter more advanced development timeline).
7
Actually I think they put SN10 there so news sites couldn't say... that they would be delayed.
7
Acutally I'm calling it now... Laser ignition will NEVER itself be viable. You'd have to have magical level efficiency in lasers and power generation....
5
FYI Sodom wasn't the only city destroyed in this matter in the Bible... Gomorrah also suffered the same fate. It would lend some credence to thier claims if the carbon dating in the two cities matched up acutally...
5
Just launch a NEW friggin telescope.... a single reusable falcon could launch an even alrger telescope than hubble by serial thousand lbs margin... as far as that goes work with SpaceX to engineer the upper stage itself into a telescope... As an engineer... saving hubble makes NO sense at this point.... its vintage hardware that should absolutely be replaced with something better in every way. This is like making scientist use windows 95 because nobody can be arsed to buy a new computer just keep replacing parts on the old kettle till it disintegrates into dust. By the time you do a refit... you wasted 10x more money than if you had just launced a new one.
3
@unitedfools3493 you are quite wrong... all the things you mention are actually due to enforced monopolies not due to competition.... oh the other hand policies like requirng ISPs to share last mile networks, works to eliminate overhead. In the USA we have very very poor competition in the IPS arena... as most of them have established localized monopolies and become stagnant.
3
Looks like one of the tanks in the foreground was damaged also... not it has a stream of something spilling out after something appears to hit it during the explosion. Also so glad you mentioned fluid hammer effect... I was watching the venting before it started spewing but there wasn't an obviuous case if it, but perhaps still... if it were a valve we couldn't see the effect of directly.
1
Pride cometh before fall... if they hadn't bothered with the showy nose cone, it wouldn't have blown over.
1
By the time you do any of that... you should have deorbited the hubble and replaced it with hubble 2... simpler faster better. Even an 8.4m mirror used in the GMT telescope only cost $20 million, a mirror half the diameter probably cost less than a quater that.... there is no way you could (in any sane way) fail to build a hubble replacement that is better in every way... for cheaper than it would cost to service it on orbit. They spent at least 2.5billion just on shuttle launches to the hubble over the years... you could easily build 10 hubbles and launch them today for the same money that was spent in servicing mission launch costs alone.
1
Moon rovers are dumb... send people end of story. The rover is a 500 million sunk cost fallacy.
1
*bengahzi*... just saying troops on the ground in an hour would be what it would be good for. As far as that goes... landing the dang thing would probably kill any enemies on the ground anyway.
1
Funny thing is she didn't holder her tongue after the flight and basically said it wasn't as good as she expected... barely as good as a Mercury mission in the early 60s.
1
@-coolerlegothings-9784 A brand new hubble would not cost that much though.... brand spanking new, with state of the art everything would not cost 1.5billion. Maybe 100 million + rocket launch.... refitting hubble is way way away more expensive than just launching a Hubble 2. If hubble were on the ground it might make sense to refit it... but it isn't, and for every launch you just wasted 60million or so you could have spend on brand new hardware. Hubble is a relic from the late 80s think about that....
1
The octaweb probably doesn't experience much bending/flexing since it isn't elongated like a wing so there isn't anything to leverage on it.
1
Moves whole planet.... *flying safe*. Accidentally causes interplanetary pinball... whoops.
1
@clancy5600 telescopes are nothing but tubes... guess what the upper stage is. And yeah Dallin is right.. the mirror is the ticket, as well as the sensors. When they first launched hubble the optics were screwed up and the had to service it with corrective optics..... that added probably hundreds of millions to its cost since they were using the shuttle to do this. A single shuttle launch was about 500million... that would leave about 400million for developing a hubble replacement for that kind of money it could probably be extremely impressive even in a slight smaller diameter package (essentially an F9 upper stage maybe widened). they could directly link it to starlink also... which would give it around 1000x more bandwidth (the current telescope downlinks at about 120-200kbps). So there are basically a couple things they'd need for an F9 based hubble, solar panels (reuse the dragon ones), thrusters (reuse the starlink ones for station keeping and dragoon ones for positioning), a gyro system (probably can be had off the shelf)... a mirror and camera system, and a starlink downlink. Acutally checking again the F9 fairing is acutally 5.2 meters so woudl likely fit hubble.... or just directly launch hubble 2 as a 5.2m custom module on top of the second stage.
1
Why even bother servicing hubble... when you could use a single launch to launch a superior replacement and deorbit this relic... because that is what it is. I mean in a few years we will even have the capability to capture hubble in a starship and land it.... put the thing in the Smithsonian already.
1
Can you spell TAX WRITE OFF? lol... basically they phrased it such that him going is a cost of doing bussiness rather than a personal luxury expenditure... also from what I have seen these suborbital ships are too cramped to even bother spending money on it.
1
Hubble deserved to be replaced. Continuing to use hardware that should be deorbited is nonsensical... it would take 1 a single falcon launch to get a Hubble replacement into orbit (maybe even turn the expendable upper stage itself into a telescope). Most of the cost of hubble was from relying on the shuttle program to get it there, and to work on it... it would have been 10x cheaper to just deorbit it and rebuild it correct instead they serviced it on orbit due to sunk cost fallacies and here were are 32 years later... talking about reboosting an antique!
1
F9's reusable load is acutally greater than the total weight of the hubble... so doing all this shuffling around an servicing 30 year old tech on orbit is insane..... build a new hubble as a module on top of F9 with no fairing, and launch that.... that would be 5.2m telescope with more mass than hubble itself... 1000x more bandwith, 20 years newer sensors (its already been upgraded once some 20 years ago). I'm almost certain all of that could be done for less than the cost of a single servicing mission to the hubble back in the day which would have been in excessive of $500 million....
1
There are some guys in congress that want to just turn the entire program over to Boeing... while in fact Boeing should probably be broken up they have gotten too big to fail... and too big to innovate.
1
@GPT-4_Beta could we use the cold rays too cool Venus? /s
1
@shazmosushi William shatner is going to be on the next BO flight... so... the record will be 90.
1
@Scott Manley I'm gonna call you out on your false dichotomy.... you made the statement that either space force made a mistake or they can tell that it is a 3U ... there are alot more possiblilities than that and we should always keep an open mind to the possiblities, it's possible he was just operating on old intel for instance. It's entirely possible that the satellite is neither 3U or 6U... for instance.
1
Lets just be honest... the SLS will never go to the moon. And NASA already knows that but can't stop the project due to congressional interference. Also... don't be supprised when Trump is reelected and we go to the Moon, Mars and Venus in the next 4 years.
1