Comments by "Steven O\x27Brien" (@stevenobrien557) on "The Space Race" channel.

  1. They have been a pain in the butt for quite some time and when they had the monopoly on man rated rockets they got worse. It was time to part ways and no longer having their problems hold things back.
    7
  2.  @lincolnpascual  what treaty would that be?
    5
  3. ​@xBigBean if it was that easy why do his competitors suck?
    5
  4. @JamesField  because that isn't the rule. The rule is that if it hits that limit, NASA has to get approval from congress to spend more. Instead of doing that they cancelled it
    4
  5.  @guts2787  🤣oh wow. Who in NATO signed the Minsk agreement?
    3
  6.  @Bruvva_Wu  Some of those are shockingly bad ​
    3
  7. A lot of resources got wasted on the space shuttle which never delivered the efficiency that was promised but it was pushed by the Pentagon. In turn the Soviets felt compelled to develop Buran.
    3
  8. ​ @paulhaynes8045  where should it be? Where should you be?
    3
  9. Because if that rover was going to screw up the entire Artemis program then you bet they would get the needed authorisation.
    3
  10. OK, so what gets cut?
    3
  11.  @guts2787  lol nice try Germany signed as OSCE. No one representing NATO signed. even if they did the Russians reneged on that one immediately. 😂
    2
  12. Why are you so keen for the US to be reliant on Roscosmos for access to space? Because that is the previous situation your thinking resulted in and it's pathetic.
    2
  13. ​ @sonofamortician  um... why would there be more progress for something we haven't been doing since then?
    2
  14. That much mass pushed out hard enough to escape earth and lunar gravity? Expensive, you could do so much with the resources that would be wasted.
    2
  15. Could you imagine getting a divorce and turning your place into a motel while your ex is still there?
    2
  16. What rubbish. No one can exactly predict the cost of materials and labour in the future. You can only make educated guesses then when you throw in pandemics, global conflicts etc...
    2
  17. Not the same. Also I think they will want to look back at earth more than anything especially when the longer duration missions begin.
    1
  18. Oh but you're cool with massive pro Boeing bias NASA staff have?
    1
  19.  @Jesse_359  how exactly was the deal "corrupt"?
    1
  20. Thank you for your input, Capt Hindsight.
    1
  21.  @bb1111116  where did you state this before Capt Hindsight?
    1
  22.  @executivesteps  sure... "folks"
    1
  23.  @bb1111116  tl,dr.
    1
  24.  @StephenGillie  and like I said, that thinking got the US into the previous situation and it is pathetic. Seriously, SLS is a joke. Better hope Starship progresses or you wont be going back to the moon this decade, or ever if China gets enough of a head start.
    1
  25. ️​ @nickmcintyre2679  🕵️‍♂️
    1
  26. ​ @EvrDark space shuttle would have been better than a heavy launch rocket had it gotten to the launch frequency originally planned. Unfortunately the technology failed.
    1
  27. ​ @walkingwithsandels5728 fear of Chinese espionage and IP theft is just "paranoia"
    1
  28. You realise we have had people in space every single day for more than two decades now?
    1
  29.  @ericwilliams538  yeah I just read "everyday" without seeing "common" to get the context.
    1
  30. Thanks for the lazy AI post
    1
  31. Not really.
    1
  32. A "junkyard orbit"? Cost would be huge and likely vetoed by roscosmos.
    1
  33. Wasting time and money on Lunar Gateway
    1
  34.  @Jesse_359  thanks for the condescending answer to a question you weren't asked
    1
  35. Feel free to produce something better
    1
  36. They have veto due to being the main contributor, this is why the Chinese are banned
    1
  37. The lunar delivery tonnage could be increased with LEO refuelling
    1
  38.  @chancepayne3013  cool, read up on how Fordlandia Brazil turned out.
    1