Comments by "John Burns" (@johnburns4017) on "Mentour Now!" channel.

@johniii8147 Look again. The Soviet were first into Space and the first man in space. Lunar 2 was first on the Moon in 1959, not only that a few week later the Soviets sent a craft around the Moon taking pictures of the dark side sending them back. The USA was first in landing a man on the Moon, as if that made any great difference, and a reusable space craft, the Space Shuttle, which was a British idea. The USA had other firsts but they were small beer to what the Soviets did. The Soviet Lunokhod 1 was a remote controlled rover (the first) that landed on the Moon in 1970. To say the USA won the Space Race is absurd, as the USSR achieved most firsts, winning more races. The USA was playing catch up most of the time using a budget the Soviets scientists could only dream of. The Soviet guys were good.
93
@davidmacdonald1695 Take the stars and stripes glasses off. Again... The Soviets were ahead all along. You are saying because they never bothered going to the Moon as the budget was cut, every other first they achieved didn't happen. Do you see Reds under the bed as well?
11
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Not could have, they were capable. The Soviets were first in just about everything in space.
9
@gangleweed Once again..... The Soviets were first at most things in space. I never made it up. The USA relied a lot on the British to get themselves kick started - less so than the Germans. Search on YouTube Mark Felton Megaroc. The British built a rocket and planned to have a man in space by 1950. All was handed over the the USA who based a lot of their space equipment on Megaroc, when they decided to do something of course.
5
@JohnnyWishbone85 wrote: "It's false in that the Soviets were as smart as anyone else" You need to do some reading sunshine. The Americans were not that bright as the British did the heavy thinking for them.
5
@stevederp9801 Excellent post. BTW, the batteries will not fail as they will be in separate banks. Skeleton an Estonian/German outfit is selling Graphine batteries. The density will get better and better as time moves on.
5
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Little was gained. All knowledge cab be gained by other cheaper means.
4
@JohnnyWishbone85 Yes, you should keep off it.
4
@ChucksSEADnDEAD If you are trying to say the Soviets were incapable of doing it, you are mistaken.
3
@stevederp9801 wrote: "Electricity will always be safer and cheaper than hydrogen." Redcar in the north east of England, and Whitby near Liverpool in England are trials for hydrogen. These places will have the natural gas pipe network converted to hydrogen, along with the appliances. This is a trial. These places were chosen as refineries are close that produce the hydrogen. Japan is turning to hydrogen for energy used by heavy industry.
3
@alantasman8273 Thank you. The Soviets were ahead most of the time.
3
@theformalmooshroom9147 I does not matter where they are now. The Soviets achieved most firsts in the Space Race. Get over it.
3
@Mentaculus42 A turbine is a lot smaller and lighter than those 100,000 HP ICE engines.
3
@ZoneProfessionalGardening You need to do some reading. Back to the assertion that US technology was better than the USSR. Yerrr sure Buddy.
2
@jamesmooney8933 You have a wayward mind.
2
@Barefoot433 Such a wandering mind. The topic was Space.
2
@michaelsamuel9917 Do you see Reds under the bed? BTW, most firsts in Space were by the Soviets.
2
@StevePemberton2 Once again, most firsts were achieved by the Soviets. I never made it up.
2
@mateuszmattias technology No specific category was given. Also the Soviets made some excellent aircraft the MIG 29 comes to mind.
2
Curtis. Evans The Moon landing did happen for sure. In the TV age they needed pictures to excite the world-wide TV audiences. There was no time to do extensive TV work on the Moon, so one theory, which has merit, is that they interspersed faked filming and real filming, to add spice and needed content. I would go along with that The scrutiny of the Moon films got people doubting the landings. .
1
@theformalmooshroom9147 The USA is forever having electrical brownouts. Texas, the size of France had the whole electrical system collapse not long ago. Sounds third world to me. Who are Americans to look down on anyone else!
1
@FastEddy1959 Again... The Soviets achieved most firsts in the Space Race. Get over it.
1
Nice RR being inventive yet again.
1
@Rx7man 50% of the energy in the tank of a Watsilla engine is wasted.
1
@Mentaculus42 50% wasted energy in fuel is important. Some engines are running on compressed natural gas or LPG to keep emissions down. But the inefficiency is still there. Gas turbines take up less space. Space in ships is valuable cargo/passenger space. Those Watsilla engines are heavy, which also adds to fuel consumption.
1
@Mentaculus42 Hydrogen fuel cells are around 60% efficient and lots of work left to do on them.
1
@Mentaculus42 Heat engines (Stirling) are quite efficient. But need lots of cold seawater. Hence good for submarines. There are rotary Stirlings, but only in prototype form.
1
@Mentaculus42 The efficiency of large grid type of batteries has risen. These are capable of driving ships. Ship ancillaries via solar panels.
1
Electric motors to drive ships props have greatly dropped in size and weight. Look at Yasa's EV motors which are scalable.
1
@Rx7man Are you paid to write this tripe! Read what I wrote not what you want me to write. Fossil fuel burning is going to go.
1
@Rx7man Stop being silly. It is on the way out. The thin edge of the wedge has been rammed in.
1
@Rx7man That is a misinformed opinion. It took 13 years for NYC to change from horses to motor cars.
1
@Rx7man Fossil fuel is being phased out and fast.
1
The wings are 'clean' not having great strength so easily collapsed. They do not suport engines. The engines are at the rear on the fuselage. The right wing collapsed easily having little strength only there to keep the plane aloft. Wings with engines hanging off them are more sturdy, they would not crumble like a biscuit.
1