3 ms·
This has been addressed and debunked by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Mason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Mason My apologies for not including the l
by computerex 8y ago
This has been addressed and debunked by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Mason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Mason
My apologies for not including the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4KR4-TN-Yo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4KR4-TN-Yo
He raises excellent points imo.
- constantlm 8y agoWhat? Where?
- Tade0 8y agoFor a guy working as a "scientist" he's pretty ignorant when it comes to basic chemistry. His "debunking" of Goodenough's battery shows that he doesn't understand the difference in the way energy is stored in carbohydrates vs batteries.
- computerex 8y agoHe has a PhD in chemistry. I don't know about the Goodenough's battery debunking, but imo his analysis on BFR Earth-Earth flights is spot on.
- Tade0 8y ago> He has a PhD in chemistry. If that's so then I find his videos intentionally misleading and remain skeptical. Edit: added newline.
- agildehaus 8y agoHis comparison of the Shuttle to SpaceX reusability is pretty bad considering how non-reusable the Shuttle actually was and how almost none of the reasons behind the Shuttle's problems apply to Falcon 9 or BFR. I think noise/safety are the real show stoppers. You can get the noise down by moving it further away from civilization, but I think the distance required would simply be too far. I also don't think a rocket will ever approximate the safety of a plane with current tech. If it was 10x more dangerous than a heavy aircraft (which is highly optimistic) would anyone go? I think SpaceX can make it work, can make it affordable to some degree, but making it a practical form of travel is ... yeah, no. I have no problem with them trying though. Their money.