Comments by "Asbestos Muffins" (@AsbestosMuffins) on "Scott Manley" channel.

  1. really makes it amazing that we were able to do a manned landing 6 times
    3
  2. every photographer's dream, to be able to effortlessly lift the largest of lenses
    3
  3. so where's the massive living section gonna go in the final spaceship?
    3
  4. probably the rings exploding from the gravity being unbalanced
    3
  5. nobody but state level agencies are going to touch nuclear propulsion, and of those, only NASA and Roscosmos are even capable of touching it
    3
  6. he did do some video a long time ago
    3
  7.  @hjalfi  there's a lot of KSP's quirks that actually have real world analogues
    3
  8. largely symbolic and questionable business decisions have been the motto of brexit anyways
    3
  9. just a biopsy the condition is unfortunately terminal. hopefully they can save future OM's though
    3
  10. they're probably going to use a bunch of small burns since unlike apollo you can take your time
    3
  11. maybe look at giving your pet rock a home, its not exactly healthy to have raw uranium ore either
    3
  12.  @pedrolmlkzk  well ya, the uranium dust is the problem, rocks tend to be dusty
    3
  13. maybe but china has launched less manned missions than NASA before Apollo with a single mission each year for the next 5 years
    3
  14. not quite that. The 3 landers all represent 3 different types of strategy on NASA's part and 3 different levels of technical development needed
    3
  15. He's just mad he got written off in season 3
    3
  16. God has a sense of humor. We had to put glasses on a telescope before we could see the immense beauty of the universe.
    3
  17.  @Amerikanskis  they used a lot of their titanium fabricating submarine pressure hulls. Like I'd imagine 1 typhoon was worth 4 sr71's in titanium
    3
  18. ballz deep69 cmon, even Elon can't do the impossible.
    3
  19. that 2024 "mandate" was going to deliver 5 frozen corpses to the surface of the moon because thats how rushed it would be
    3
  20.  @nathanlee6654  the trunk is basically an interstage adapter with solar panels but space-x doesn't seem to want to utilize it for anything but empty space or transporting cargo
    3
  21. ​ @volvo09 shedding the heat is the biggest problem
    3
  22. its always puzzling to me how many mental gymnastics american companies will do to avoid developing new engines. Like Spacex has problems, but at least they developed their own engines and have the skills to keep doing so. The engines are the entire rocket, everything else comes from your engine performance
    3
  23. Getting it back to earth orbit might be easy enough as using that satellite recovery bus vehicle the DoD has been messing about with, just grapple the ascent engine and use that since its around the CoM, or use the docking node since its still there. getting it back down is maybe harder requiring something to encapsulate it, deploy a heat shield and land it, and its gotta land on the ground too since its gonna have to land on land
    3
  24. the aerospace industry is a confusing bunch of consolidated units
    3
  25. paying near 200$ for nowhere near a gigabit because I'm 1 block away from competition so we're a captive customer
    3
  26. There were probably some nasa engineers turning blue until the engine valves and solar panel opened
    3
  27. solar pickles, bacon heat exchangers, lettuce thermal control blanker, burger heat shield my god its better than MOOSE!
    2
  28. the game devs must have been huge TOS fans, evil gas aliens, the Horta, antimatter torpedoes...
    2
  29. oh nixie tubes, ya those fragile, hot, high voltage tubes are exactly what you want in a spacecraft. looks cool though
    2
  30. legacy space was having a senior moment in the early 90s, Boeing/Lockheed were caught spying on each other, you had the intelsat get stuck in LEO thanks to a titan III failing, the new roscosmos trying to figure out how to space, ESA having the above mentioned failures.
    2
  31. Not only that but this also puts him as one of the last solo spaceflights a feat that probably won't be repeated without exceptional need
    2
  32. ​ @benjaminhanke79 Piketon, Ohio did some of that work too
    2
  33. ya but doesn't that result in a shooting war on the moon's surface...
    2
  34. RIP Voyager I and II sometime in the 2020s, the math on the RTGs just sadly shows they're gonna run out of power sooner rather than later
    2
  35. nice to see all this innovation in rocketry finally.
    2
  36. gonna love to see a modern Mir-type station get built. I think the ISS certainly is good but it had to be assembled by the STS
    2
  37.  @tlamn1905  the nevada proving ground was so blasted that they used it as a moon analogue for astronaut training. Strontium from the tests contaminated the entire world. All metal products refined today are still contaminated with nuclear byproducts from the atomic testing of the 50s, both from the US and USSR. Nuclear weapons testing is incredibly destructive and permanently renders the land unusable. There just isn't any reason to continue it today with all the simulation power we have, and people who think its useful for geopolitical posturing need to take a course on the cuban missile crisis since nuclear testing between the US and USSR absolutely propagated that crisis
    2
  38. Just Being Socially Awkward We had a 2 stage to orbit rocket with a fantastic spacecraft in Saturn IB, they could have redesigned the CSM or build a new vehicle but shuttle was something nixon signed off to keep nasa busy for a few years scratching their heads instead of asking for more money
    2
  39. really getting concerned since you have at least 4 companies making these huge constellations, then both china and russia wanting to build them, and a few other countries indicating they want in, and we already were having problems after we did this with GPS and now you're talking about 1000x the stuff in orbit compared to gps
    2
  40. The japanese mission probably took up the space and mass that any lander would have needed. The question would have been whether an orbiter or a lander would develop better science and the orbiter obviously would be better at this point.
    2
  41. on the up side, it has amazing coverage over Antarctica
    2
  42. kind of sad the rear pusher engine design proposal didn't go forward, its the more interesting of the two
    2
  43. Not sure how well cryogenic fuels will store in space, nobody's really tried yet, I guess spacex has an answer but I'm not convinced on other rockets you could store hydrogen indefinitely
    2
  44. the end docked to the reentry vehicle does not have an airlock
    2
  45. eh, ditching all that already paid for apollo hardware for some pie in the sky space shuttle that would take 20 years to build anyways and could be massively underfunded was a bit more of a embarrassing story
    2
  46. the one thing is that nuclear fuel would make sense to ship over the vast distances of space, its very energy dense, very compact, and from a commercial prospective it might actually be something that could be profited from, assuming it can be shipped intact
    2
  47. they want nasa to stop doing "woke science" so they're gonna starve everything but manned space of funding.
    2
  48.  @ryanhamstra49  not sure the ground equipment and range safety equipment can handle 2 rockets simultaneously. nasa only has so much cryogenic fuel storage capacity, and only so much equipment. My guess is its not trivial to retask the ground equipment for another launch, though they can do it somewhat rapidly
    2
  49. I feel like they ought to be able to model the issue with the blade but then the rover would have to wait on it to get back to speed
    2
  50. these guys were only up there a few minutes at a time though, far far less than what we're doing on ISS or did with Apollo
    2