Obama is such a race-baiter, that I really consider him the worst president in the last 100 years. As a child of the 70’s, we grew up thinking as soon as a black man is president, all race issues in this country are over. In the 1980’s, you’ve got to remember that Michael Jackson was #1 in music, Eddie Murphy and Richard Prior were the highest paid comics, and Dr. and Mrs. Huxtable had the number one show on Television. He was a doctor, and she was an attorney. By the time Obama is president, he’s all about JayZ and folks who act like the white man owes them something. Obama should have taken office and been like, “Look, I was born a poor black child, and I’m now the most powerful man on Earth.” He refused, and instead wanted to play the race card- just like Jesse or Al Sharpton. What a waistoid. Instead of making things right in the most important country in the world, he chose smoking pot and pushing Joe Biden as his replacement. If that’s not the definition of a loser, I don’t know what is…
@jakajakman Says:
Only idiot car earn billions!
@deathpony698 Says:
You're insanely deceitful on Musk stuff. You showed the engines from Starship test 1 and then the re-entry from test 3 where the booster engines worked fine. While complaining about the test 3 re-entry as if it wasn't a record breaking test flight. Also the bit about the empty payload is a lie. In test 2 starship blew up because they were venting excess oxygen, test 3 was empty to avoid this.
@user-gv7cm8bz3n Says:
Musk is a joke
@paavobergmann4920 Says:
Thanks for reminding us of our favourite space historian Amy Shira Teitel. She´s great. The Vintage space was a great channel.
@KRYVV Says:
We need a KSP
@GaiusCaesar_ Says:
We should explicitly set goals for learning how to build a sustainable colony on the moon.
@dlloyd6300 Says:
Thank GOD you didn't take the piss out of Destin. I respect him so much! Such a smart and honorable person. Truly genuine.
@3nigma.3nc Says:
HLS is a fucking joke. Needs to be replaced with the blue origin design.
@leventeszecsy6262 Says:
24:24 You know why those engines failed? Because they got blasted by a storm of giant concrete pieces. Not because the engines were bad. How can you believe that any other engine would be better in a concrete storm? You are just stupidly ignorant at some times.
@vossti Says:
Im one of the millions who watched in awe as the 3rd starship burnt up on descent...and got fooled into thinking how successful the mission was... after watching this alot more is becoming clearer...I dont know how Elon managed to grift his way into NASA and just bamboozle and brainwash them😅
If you don't mind me saying, the issue with the modern lunar mission is intolerance to risk... Apollo, while (eventually) well planned by competent and conscientious engineers was pretty high risk, while using (at the time) cutting edge technology available at the time. Given a common risk profile with the current technology available, it *should* be cheap and easy... but, while we *were* willing to pre-record death notices for Apollo astronauts, these days a company wouldn't even be allowed to consider death a possibility. Therefore, all the additional technology gets added to "ensure" safety, rather than efficiency. Add that engineers these days seem to be less competent and conscientious (in my experience, anyway... yeah yeah, anecdata), and it all goes out of contol with safety factors, etc.
In short, you're right... WHYTHEFUK do they insist on putting people on these?!
@thedude7319 Says:
13:55 I disagree with that take, you have a benefit from getting humans into space and all the issues that bring not in a decade or so but for the preverbular '...for humanity and its prosperity...' in the distant future. then again we waste money on so many things
@assistantto007 Says:
Is musk secretly running nasa nowadays?
@assistantto007 Says:
Man on the moon , lol, that old chestnut.
@amosluyk Says:
Love the boosted content. Got really tired of all the busted ones, so I've been avoiding this channel for quite a while.
@ggghhhbbnjjjbb2330 Says:
Got to admit it's a pretty great way to convince the population to fork over billions to develop something they saw in a movie and WANT to believe is going to happen. Meanwhile you've got billions to spend on whatever you like, so long as you spend enough on movies and animations to keep the illusion going.
@goodmangammering Says:
While I agree with your points I think that a good reason to go to the moon is purely for the moral boost and potential to inspire people. It is unlikely that we get much scientificly from going back to the moon.
@robotnoir5299 Says:
For a second there, I thought you were FINALLY going to debunk the "fully boosted" nonsense.
@Lagrangeify Says:
I mean... oops?!
@dave-hp3rf Says:
Maybe it is because I am old {83]but I do not understand why anyone wants to go to Mars a very dead planet with a very dangerous atmosphere very unfriendly to human occupation I doubt if it will happen but I wish those involved success with no losses.
@paulcarter7445 Says:
Regarding the multiple launches required to fuel Artemis missions vs Apollo: the most significant improvement is Starship's re-usability, reducing cost and increasing reliability.
@raylast3873 Says:
Capitalism failing pretty bad on it‘s own now that communism is no longer around to threaten their profit margins.
@histreeonics7770 Says:
Perhaps someone else has noted this, there is a very major difference between HLS and Apollo and that is reusable spacecraft.
You are comparing firecrackers to hammers, not an honest comparison.
Ditto for your "empty test flight", they are still working on the control systems so a max load is an undue risk.
And so on for all the "failed" flights, they are experiments, testing an approach before committing too much based on unverified theories.
@Kaylakaze Says:
This video has done more to make the moon landing look fake than anything the conspiracy theorists have ever done.
@bogtrotter5110 Says:
Musk idiocy and conmanship will soon be shut down.
@gracesprocket7340 Says:
At this point it is Deja Moo. That feeling you've heard all their BS before.
@Connection-Lost Says:
You're just totally off the rails now. The Elon dickriding was too much already, a clear attempt to farm clout.
@slimal1 Says:
Thank you for this.
I dunno why skipped that video... gonna go watch it now
@gracesprocket7340 Says:
3 in 900 is 1/3rd of a percent. Not 3 percent.
@FilAnd01 Says:
0:16 wait… that PHD photo goes hard
@monstrositylabs Says:
I haven't been on this channel in years. Still full of crap I see.
@Lappillainen Says:
Of course doing everything like was done in '60s would have been done much quicker but the goal is now to do little more than erecting a flag and collect stones.
@TehJumpingJawa Says:
I'd like to point out that the argument for manned space exploration is not based upon the quantifiable scientific value.
Rather, it's the unquantifiable expansion of the human experience, and consequent impact upon human minds.
We dream of what we cannot achieve.
Once we achieve it, we dream of something greater.
@markharrison7872 Says:
Same promises from 40 years ago, just with some special words added to confuse the masses. 😊
@Miata822 Says:
More measured than your usual. Kudos for posting the link to Destin's wonderful talk.
@cdoublejj Says:
what are the rendezvous movie clips from?
@cdoublejj Says:
Damn it and here I've been enjoying the star ship launches and progress, hoping to see more starlink launches per year and future use launches of space cargo. Man Ad....ThunderF00t really Ruins Everything!!!!
@FishyAltFishy Says:
Based on his video's thumbnail i assumed it was just going to a "SLS bad video". Glad it was so much more.
@PinkMawile Says:
The Producers, featuring Elon Musk. Great musical.
@shadowcat314 Says:
What made Apollo a success? Stanley Kubrick.
@Bousedeus Says:
Eeeeeeyyyyy when the dollar isnt the dollar anymore whats the difference between 4 or 500 refuelings? I say job security
@CelataForCongress Says:
Fire Spacex NOW!
@louis_the_hedgehog Says:
The reason why it appeared the soviets were overtaking us and making all of these firsts was because they were throwing all kinds of funding and hardware at things using a quick and dirty method. They actually had more failings than the Americans, but due to the structure of the Soviet government they were able to cover it up. They only revealed things that were a success.
Now imagine how we would feel if someone kept wrecking rockets and called it a "success". Oh wait.
@ZneeZ1 Says:
The starship was never designed for a moon landing, it was designed for an attempt to populating Mars. When a business opportunity (probably extremely profitable) arises, due to other suppliers not succeeding, it’s probably stupid not to take the chance to increase fundings. Regarding tax payer’s money, it needs to be comparative and the concern should rather be on if an how much should be spent on getting people to the moon.
@cyrkielnetwork Says:
Why? Keep in mind NASA ties with US Army. US Army can't realy use thier most destructive weapon without place where leaders and elites could hide, and you can't really hide form total nuclear war anywhere on Earth. All thier nukes rusting in silos for decades and they will never be able to use them without safe, selfsustain bunker somewhere outside the Earth. There's no other sensible explanation for all this neverending cost, to acheive nothing. Space programs started as miliatry programs. Von Braun who made Apollo possible and designed Saturn V was a nazi who designed V2. At the end of the WWII everybody belived that next war will burst out soon and that space will be it's new fornt, just like air become new front in WWII. After some time everybody realized it's not really possible. So great era of rapid progress and huge investments fizzle out. But despite scientist all over the world agree that sending people to the Moon, Mars or wherever is stupid, and they can do much more science and cheaper with robots, politicians and military constantly pushing idea of building base outside of the Earth so they can use nukes and have safe place to hide.
@user-xl9gj3qg5x Says:
#KISS
@OdaviidS Says:
Remember when Elon cried wolf about reusable rockets? What a charlatan amirite. Why would NASA ignore the holy grail of rockets [reusability] when planning a multi-trip to the moon? I don't understand the criticism when 1] SpaceX's track record is amazing after fully testing/developing falcon9/falcon heavy and 2] Starship isn't fully developed.
@mission772 Says:
The big thing both you and Destin ignored was that Starship will be reusable. That's why Starship cant get to the moon in one shot, it will reuse the booster and potentially the second stage. That is also why 8 launches will still be cheaper than Apollo. SLS cost is estimated to be $40k per KG to LEO. The Spacex Falcon 9 cost around $3k per KG to LEO. The space shuttle was $54k per KG to LEO. Further more with those 8 refueling we get 150 tons to the moon instead of 45 tons from the Saturn 5. SpaceX is the best thing to happen to NASA since Apollo. Boeing and Lockheed are a complete waste of money, always behind scheduled and over budget. Also the reason the moon is important is to learn and develop methods of colonization and potentially become a launch point for deep solar system missions.
LATEST COMMENTS