27 ms·
SpaceX test flight of Starship SN-5 [video]
- dgritsko 6y agoDid they already do it?
- lpellis 6y agoJust did a minute ago, it worked! 6:57 in the the timestamp on the top right, I dont think I can link to a time in a live youtube video
- dgritsko 6y agoUnbelievable! Congrats to SpaceX! Edit: just found this replay on Reddit - https://streamable.com/c2bff3 https://streamable.com/c2bff3
- ajaimk 6y agoYes you can. FYI -> https://youtu.be/NJR4gZBLMNw?t=2190 https://youtu.be/NJR4gZBLMNw?t=2190
- lpellis 6y agoThat 'copy video at current time' option wasnt available until the livestream ended though. I should have tried manually adding it.
- valine 6y agoThat was a sight to behold, history in the making for sure. This was the first flight of a vehicle which may someday take humans to mars.
- mitchellgoffpc 6y agoMan, I saw that thing moving sideways right after liftoff and I thought it was a gonner! Huge congrats to SpaceX for landing with an offset engine like that on their first try!!!
- allenrb 6y agoSame here. I was waiting to see if it would cross the point of no return and obliterate their ground facilities... again. Instead, looks to have been a nearly perfect test. Onward!
- Tuna-Fish 6y agoIt did obliterate their launch stand, with the flame of the raptor cutting through a thick steel beam, and you can see walkways being tossed about at ~0:12, but they have parts for 3 of those already on the site.
- Klathmon 6y agoThe single raptor engine is offset from the center on this test, so it had to do some pretty quick and somewhat dramatic adjustments to keep things upright.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y agoWhy is it offset from center? To stress test the steering?
- floatrock 6y agoThere's some center-of-gravity and shifting of things as you burn up fuel. Not an expert, so here's where the streamer talks a bit about it, including why the space shuttle did it too: https://youtu.be/NJR4gZBLMNw?t=1195 https://youtu.be/NJR4gZBLMNw?t=1195
- Cogito 6y agoThe 'thrust puck' the engine is mounted to is designed for multiple engines, none of which are in the centre. They are only using one engine this test, but are testing the flight-design thrust puck (as opposed to some interim structure with a centre mount for the single engine).
- ncallaway 6y ago
- snoshy 6y agoPretty wild. Seems like it took out a chunk of the pad on the way up as well. Those Raptors are no joke.
- mchusma 6y agoCongratulations to SpaceX! Helping make the pandemic more bearable one hop at a time.
- modeless 6y agoDirect link to the launch time: https://youtu.be/NJR4gZBLMNw?t=2183 https://youtu.be/NJR4gZBLMNw?t=2183
- fnord77 6y agoIs there an official spacex feed?
- snoshy 6y agoThere was not. They typically don't provide one for tests, especially as these hops are relatively minor compared to getting to orbit. It's likely they'll provide one for the 20km hop coming up, since amateurs and fans aren't going to be able to set up their own feeds much further.
- Robotbeat 6y agoNo, but there were no fewer than 3 hosted live-streams (one which had 3 different HD live cameras you could switch to) with countdowns and technical commentary. All by non-traditional media. Remarkable what is possible nowadays. Here they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwC6LG_z8zE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwC6LG_z8zE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJR4gZBLMNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJR4gZBLMNw And the last one is constantly streaming 3 live feeds of the SpaceX Boca Chica facilities 24/7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QbM7Vsz3kg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QbM7Vsz3kg EDIT: And by remarkable, I don't just mean technical capability but the really impressive non-traditional media community that has grown up around New Space the last 5-10 years. Here's amazing, close-up 4K video of the hop by yet another non-traditional space media person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXzPu6MM99Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXzPu6MM99Q
- Ajedi32 6y agoThey actually posted an official video of the hop just now: https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0 https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0
- api 6y agoSo much less sooty with methane instead of kerosene!
- modeless 6y agoIt's not just the fuel but the way it's burned. The older Merlin engines don't burn all the fuel, by design. The new Raptors do, and it's actually quite an achievement. More information than you ever wanted to know about it is here: https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/ https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/
- BbzzbB 6y agoWhat a week for SpaceX! Two days ago they landed Bob and Doug, and now they succeeded to hop a water tower (as a side project nonetheless, AFAIK only a small part of SpaceX is on this team)! Can't wait to see future iterations and improvements of this beast, especially to see more Raptors strapped on!
- Robotbeat 6y agoThe water tower was last year. This is a prototype using the same production technique as for the production versions. EDIT: More grain silo than water tower. ;)
- byw 6y agoIs it just me or does the workmanship look like a step up?
- djaychela 6y agoThey've been interating on the construction process with each one built. I've been welding (DIY) for 30 years, and the first ones looked pretty bad to me - lots of distortion, and I actually thought the first one was just a mock-up. But the process is clearly improving with each build. I still think the nose cone looks like it will improve in the future, as it doesn't look as precise as the main body is now looking, but I'm sure they're working on it. This, overall, is an amazing achievement. I watch every F9 landing that I can, and it never ceases to amaze me. The FH two-booster landing looked like straight out of a SciFi movie. But this... this is next level again. The 20km flight will be truly incredible.
- fiftyfifty 6y agoIt's also worth pointing out that the new prototypes, like SN5 that flew today, are made with significantly thinner steel over what "Star Hopper" was made with last year. They have spent a lot of effort perfecting their manufacturing technique so they can make these things as light as possible and still achieve the safety margins that they need to support manned flight. That's why they need the 22 ton weight on the top for this flight, because they can't throttle a single Raptor engine low enough to hover these new designs.
- ackbar03 6y agoWhat was the context behind this launch? Did they just luanch a grain silk just for kicks or something? That can't possibly be the new design for a rocket
- deegles 6y agoIt's basically the bare minimum to test that the components they're building work.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ekimekim 6y agoIt's a prototype to test the materials, engine, process etc. Since it's only ever going to do little hops like this one, it doesn't need to be aerodynamic.
- dencodev 6y agoIt's not clear to me why you need to spend so much fuel hopping around on Mars or the moon.
- thinkcontext 6y agoThey are testing on a path to be able to land from orbit. Starting with short hops by prototypes that get iteratively improved is the same methodology that allowed them to be able to land their currently operating Falcon 9. They are the only one to ever achieve this. It's a big deal because everyone else builds a $100M rocket and then throws it away because it can't land. Reusable rockets have the potential to make açcess to space much cheaper.
- dencodev 6y agoSo the idea isn't to literally hop? They ultimately want to land it the same way the F9 rockets land now, and this is just a test?
- Diggsey 6y agoWhat you don't get a sense for in the video is the size of this thing... It's absolutely bonkers. 9m (30 ft) in diameter 50m (160 ft) in height (or would be with the nose-cone) That's the height of a 12-story building. And this is the upper stage of the full rocket.
- sneak 6y ago...with a 22 ton steel weight (that little block) on the top of it, in addition to the entire weight of the test article and the fuel.
- m4rtink 6y agoThere is likely very little fuel though for such a small hop.
- KiwiJohnno 6y agoI read somewhere it had about 15 tonnes of fuel onboard, which isn't trivial
- trsohmers 6y agoFor reference, the Falcon 9 FT is 3.7m (12 ft) in diameter and 70m (230 ft) in height.
- mabbo 6y agoAnd it's being powered by one raptor rocket. It's designed to have 6.
- _kst_ 6y agoAnd the first stage "Super Heavy" is designed to have 31. Update: I think the hopper in the video is a prototype of the lower stage, which is planned to have 31 engines. The upper stage is planned to have 6.
- 6y ago
- doomlaser 6y agoThis is the first time I've seen video of a starship test that didn't end in catastrophic explosion, so this is great news! I'm still worried about the overall design, specifically when it comes to landing. The current procedure is for it to fall into the atmosphere flat on its side, then continue to fall for a long time, and then only when it's near the ground it must reorient 90 degrees to upright and then do a final suicide burn to land. It seems like it has too many chances to fail with no recovery, but I'm no rocket scientist.
- bob33212 6y agoIt is a safer design because it is just 1 piece. There are a hundred ways it could fail. But that is within 1 system. Not multiple systems
- imglorp 6y agoTo be fair, the hopper 150m test was ok. That was scaled down but retired risk for the raptor engine and fuel and controls. The full size is the same thing but with more structure and stress issues.
- lmm 6y agoParachutes are a lot fiddlier and less reliable than the layperson assumes, so the baseline for how complex a system like this can be is worse than you'd think.
- doomlaser 6y agoIn my mind, the multiple complex reorientations while falling at terminal velocity — with no plan B — just seems particularly harrowing..
- Laremere 6y agoDoing it once is harrowing. Even doing it the tenth or the hundredth time might be harrowing. Doing it the thousandth time is starting to get old. Doing it the ten thousandth time is business as usual. The place to improve from is not as good as you may think, "On the Demo-2 mission, NASA has estimated a 1-in-276 chance of losing the crew at some point." Once you have full re-usability, you can fly rockets several orders of magnitude more times. When you're flying that often, you have the ability to work out the kinks. If instead you limit to what today feels the safest, you might limit yourself from full re-usability and eventually being much safer. If you want to still go for full re-usability, adding a backup system might actually make things more dangerous: It's another thing that has failure modes. Redundancy can be a double edged sword.
- zizee 6y agoNo one has seemed to have mentioned it yet, but the game changer of Starship will be full reusability of both the first and second stage of the rocket. Falcon 9's reusability of the first stage was a huge step towards making access to space a lot cheaper. If SpaceX can realize full reusability with Starship it will enable things like large scale moon bases, space hotels and mars colonization. They still have a lot of challenges ahead of them, but today's hop takes us that much closer to the future of space as presented in films like 2001 A Space Odyssey. The future is exciting!
- llboston 6y agoAnother significant thing is that Starship is designed to be mass manufactured at a relatively low cost. SpaceX can crank out thousands of Starships, fly them to Mars and build a million people colony. Starship is truly a game changer!
- eric-hu 6y agoCan you recommend resources for reading more about the long term plans of Starship?
- yreg 6y agoNot the parent poster, but there is [0] Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species / Elon's original presentation from IAC 2016 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8 [1] Starship Update / 2019 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOpMrVnjYeY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOpMrVnjYeY
- themgt 6y agoYep, and in addition to both of these, Starship is also designed: * to be fueled / ignited such that it can be refueled in-situ on Mars & then launched back to Earth, without advanced rocket fuels or the TEA-TEB chemical igniter. * to be able to refuel from another Starship in-orbit The combination of all of this, if they pull it off, will be the ability to send truly massive payloads to Mars, faster and cheaper than anyone could have imagined just a few years ago. To me it does really show the benefit of taking a systematic approach, working backwards from the goal "get to Mars and stay" in a resource-constrained environment. They've very strategically targeted the technology/engineering required to bring the costs down to something reasonable, while NASA's approach for 50 years has basically been versions of "can you give us one trillion dollars?" (or "we can put a couple humans on Mars for 3 days for $100 billion") Today's Starship hop is getting very near the nail in the coffin for SLS. I still have some concerns about their crazy re-entry flip, but the speed SpaceX is moving is leaving everyone else in the dust.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoAlways impressive to me. And I know that people will say "Yeah, basically the only thing 'new' here is the engine" but there are also a bunch of other things that struck me; It did the hop 'off balance' (the final version expects to have 3 raptor engines working together) so the engine out scenario for landing still seems pretty safe. There is something like four more advanced vehicles in the warehouse section at various stages of completion. So scaling up making them seems to be working out. It looks "small" in the images but when you see people working on it you can tell its grain silo big. That is a heck of a thing to fly overhead. Rockets taking off and landing vertical has amazed me ever since I saw the DC-X do it once.
- rbanffy 6y agoThe DC-X still manages to look modern next to it. Had it succeeded, it'd have done something not even SpaceX is doing, which is a fully reusable single-stage-to-orbit craft. I don't think we have the advanced materials for that.
- ecpottinger 6y agoI think the Delta-X could have done the job, what went wrong was letting NASA taking control of it. Remember these are also the people who went with segmented solid fuel boosters, these were the people who thought the VentureStar with three new techs that all had to work at the same time but rejected the designs that did not need as much new tech, these are the people who let the SLS design go forward. The Delta-X was an interesting design until NASA was involved.
- mschuster91 6y agoThe Wikipedia article on DC-X is interesting. > In a post-accident report, NASA's Brand Commission blamed the accident on a burnt-out field crew who had been operating under on-again/off-again funding and constant threats of outright cancellation. That is the reason why SpaceX is so much more efficient and revolutionary, compared to what Boeing/ULA on US side and EADS/Ariane on EU are doing - they are cutting politics out of the equation and with it, a whole boatload of issues.
- bfieidhbrjr 6y agoDoes anyone else get super depressed by this? I did some great work today. I coded something pretty cool and useful. I built a little deck to explain it. My coworkers loved it. My job security went up. I enjoyed it. The journey is the reward. But these guys are making rockets in tents. Should I be rethinking life? Because that's how it feels. I love it. I admire them. But it feels unobtainable. I want to make that kind of a dent in the universe. And yes I know it's thousands of people working there. But still.
- m4rtink 6y agoNot at all, rather I see every step on their journey as making easier for people who like space and rockets to get involved in the future, without having to win the "astronaut lottery".
- gorpomon 6y agoI hear you friend, it is disheartening to see, but also heartening to see.
- tjtrapp 6y agoWe're hiring for Starship and Starlink software teams: https://grnh.se/080f65d02us https://grnh.se/080f65d02us It sounds like you're passionate about your work and that's an important quality. As gorgoiler points out, "Making a difference in the world is what counts." If you'd like to help, consider applying! :)
- Ajedi32 6y agoOfficial video from SpaceX: https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0 https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0
- zionic 6y agoThis should be the link, it's way better!
- aphextron 6y agoOfficial video: https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0 https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0
- dvno42 6y agoThank you.
- handedness 6y agoThank you. So much more enjoyable with pure audio than with commentary which only detracted from it, and the shot is spectacular.
- dmix 6y agoA significantly better version.
- DangerousPie 6y agoCan we change the link? This is much better.
- Taniwha 6y agoSo what's burning above the motor, I thought these were closed cycle engines? Were they incredibly lucky
- Tuna-Fish 6y agoThere's a lot of speculation on that, it's probably either wiring/tubing insulation or paint that got ignited, or a small leak. It seems to put itself out at 0:51.
- fermienrico 6y agoCan someone please explain the significance of this milestone for a space-ignorant person like myself? I thought SpaceX does these types of landings all the time. :)
- wonderwonder 6y agoIts a brand new rocket design. Massively bigger and designed to carry ~5x the weight. The entire thing is built to be reusable in the sense of a jumbo jet as opposed to a rocket. It should be able to carry ~100 people. Good article: inverse.com/innovation/spacex-mars-city-stunning-video
- rtsil 6y agoNew rocket, new engines, new targets. If Falcon 9 (the current rocket) was a motorboat capable of going from one port to a neighboring one on the same sea coast, this is the early prototype for a transatlantic liner. It's designed to be much bigger, much faster and more powerful, while being fully reusable (like a plane) and extremely cost-effective, potentially 10 times cheaper than the Falcon 9, which is already the cheapest launch vehicle. That opens up all sorts of new possibilities. And these hops are the first concrete steps toward that.
- nieksand 6y agoSpaceX as a company is trying to solve the "transportation problem" of becoming a spacefaring civilization. Specifically, how do you reduce the cost of access by multiple orders of magnitude? There are three big targets they need to hit: 1. Make Low Earth Orbit (LEO) cheap with a combination of launch cadence and reusability. 2. Reset the rocket equation in LEO by doing in-orbit fuel transfer. 3. Reset the rocket equation at Mars by generating fuel from the environment. * The reasoning... (1) A high launch cadence means you can switch from artisanal to mass production. You drastically reduce fixed costs of ground equipment and personnel. Experience translates to increased knowledge, reliability, and safety. You are less prone to schedule slip costs because there are more trains leaving the station. (1) Reuse lets you get more life out of expensive components. It also helps you hit a higher launch cadence with less manufacturing capacity, further reducing costs. (2) In orbit propellant transfer lets you start with a full tank again in LEO. It might take four tanker launches to refill one tank, but ultimately you can increase payload to non-LEO destinations by an order of magnitude. Being less mass constrained also makes things simpler and cheaper for payload development. (3) Propellant production, aka in-situ resource utilization, lets you fully refuel at Mars or the moon. This lets you send non-trivial payloads in the return direction. * The progress so far... SpaceX has regular reuse of the 1st stage of their Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets. They have begun catching the fairings (nosecone) in giant nets mounted on ships and reusing those too. The 2nd stage is not reused. Doing so is difficult because it's much further downrange and has much larger velocity. SpaceX has used their progress on reusability to drive down costs and capture a large part of the commercial launch market. SpaceX is launching Starlink satellites to provide a global, low-latency, high-bandwidth internet access. Existing satellite internet is based on geosynchronous orbit satellites which have high-latency and low-bandwidth. SpaceX hoists 60 Starlink satellites per Falcon 9 launch. There are a couple hundred satellites in orbit already with several thousand planned. Their low orbit means they have a lifetime of just a few years and require regular replacement. If Starlink is a commercial success, then SpaceX will have found the "demand" needed to drive a high launch cadence. * Why the SN-5 hop matters... SN-5 is a prototype second stage for the "Starship" rocket. This rocket has both a massive payload capacity and _full_ reuse. In conjunction with Starlink this would solve (1). This prototype is demonstrating progress on the manufacturing process and viability of the design. There is still tons of work to be done. SpaceX is already planning to do in-orbit propellant transfer using Starship, which then solves (2). SpaceX has not begun on (3). However, the Mars 2020 rover mission actually has an experiment on board which does propellant production at demonstration-scale. The chemical reactions (sabatier process) are pretty straight forward, but providing sufficient energy and gathering the resources is a massive engineering challenge. Ultimately, SpaceX has a coherent, achievable vision for reducing space transport costs by multiple orders of magnitudes and has made demonstratable progress towards that vision.
- monadic2 6y agoIt’s times like these I turn to “Whitey On The Moon” by Gil Scott-Heron.
- Element_ 6y agoAnyone here work on the flight control software? What's it written in? ada? Curious how complex it is since it has to handle multiple engine failure scenarios etc...
- mulcahey 6y agoI'd check out the sofware AMA they did a few months ago on /r/spacex https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/gxb7j1/we_are_the_spacex_software_team_ask_us_anything/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/gxb7j1/we_are_the_s...
- Jaruzel 6y agoAs a child I read all the Tintin books. My favourite ones were Destination Moon, and Explorers on the Moon. The rocket used in those stories is iconic. For me, Starship taps directly into those memories. I know it's infeasible, but if they ever painted the production Starships white and red, it would make me SO happy. I'm too old now (approaching a de-orbit burn for 50) to be able to go to space, but I'm still loving the thought that my future grand-kids should be able to.
- buzzwordninja 6y agoOne thing I remember from those books is how they lay on their stomach during acceleration, whereas I believe all real life astronauts have been sitting, or on their backs: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/deckplans/Tintin5.jpg http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/deckplan... Which is also interesting given the recent (well... not even so recent now) discovery of the benefits of placing COVID patients in a prone position to ease breathing.
- ninjamayo 6y agoThis was incredible. I've been waiting to see this launch for months, especially after a few failures with previous versions. But it's all worth it. This is it! Next step will be even bigger and better. More hops, reigniting the engine and then 20km.
- sfjailbird 6y agoThank God for that guy in the corner helping me to know how to feel. Seriously though, this has been an incredibly annoying trend for a few years, everything has to be tagged with some pre-packaged emotional reaction. Such a dumbing down of public discourse. Someone linked the official video and it's amazing: https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0 https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0
- martindbp 6y agoSee also "Youtube face".
- smusamashah 6y agoThere is also a "Dreamworks Face"
- db48x 6y agoDoesn't Japanese television have a lot of reaction shots too?
- StevenWaterman 6y agoThe people watching that livestream are there specifically for him, he's a well-known personality in that community. If you don't want that, there's other streams without presenters, or with less obnoxious presenters.
- Cogito 6y agoI mean, feel free to be annoyed with the commentary, but there was no official live stream of the event. There were 3-4 non-official live streams, I think all of them provided by people who have streamed every single one of these tests live. Asking those people to not have a reaction when the thing actually flies is a little far-fetched, unreasonable, and contrary to what their audience wants and expects. This isn't a reaction video with "some pre-packaged emotional reaction", it's sitting down to watch an historical event with friends - hardly a dumbing down of anything. Even in the official streams of other events the hosts become emotional, and are often drowned out by the cheers of those around them. I really have no idea what it is you want or expect from these live streams.
- sidcool 6y agoThe rate of innovation at SpaceX is mind blowing. There is little doubt they will achieve their Mars dream.
- brianolson 6y agoskip to 36:20 for the action
- smusamashah 6y agoWhy is it shaped like this? Why the fire seems to be not exactly in center and how it managed to keep balance with that?
- randallsquared 6y agoThe fire is off center because they only installed one of the three engines that it would normally use, but didn't build a custom, centered engine mount.
- db48x 6y agoIt's a prototype of the lower half of a larger rocket, and it's not intended to fly very high or fast, so it doesn't need a nice nose-cone. The single rocket engine is mounted in the center, and it gimbals to the side to make the rocket move sideways. The on-board computer is balancing the whole rocket on that flame the whole time, adjusting it continuously to keep everything in balance and the rocket moving towards the landing zone; imagine balancing a pencil on your fingertip. The real rocket will have a lot more than just one engine, but for this test they only needed the one.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoIf I were the CEO of Molson Coors I'd tweet Elon about buying advertising space right about now.
- Jemm 6y ago"Norminal!"
- martythemaniak 6y agoI really love the out-in-the-open development process. It doesn't cost SpaceX anything, yet they attract lots of internet media where people set up streams, discuss progress etc. The next year should be pretty exciting as they develop things further. Starship has a number of big innovations, which are: - the raptor engine. This was developed behind closed doors and is sort of finished. We won't see much of it, but it is the most advanced rocket engine ever made and I'm not aware of any upcoming engine that can compete with it. - Stainless steel construction. What we're seeing with SN5 is the basic tank structure of the second stage. The hopper that flew last year was a neat demo, but SN5 was pressurized and the design is way closer to what the actual starship will end up having. The first stage tanks will also be a stretched version of these tanks, so that's why you see them focus on this so much right now. - belly-flop landing. To land, starship will be coming downhorizontal until a few hundred meters above ground when it'll make itself vertical to land. SN5 won't have the fins and cone to perform this, but SN6 will. It might be possible to see this before the end of the year - SN6 (with 3 engines) goes up 20km, goes horizontal to burn off speed, then lands vertically. - belly-first re-entry. Instead of a heatshielf that withstands a high temperature, Starship will burn off speed with its belly, but do it over a longer time period of time so that while the total heat is the same, the max temperature doesn't rise too much. The stainless steel can't take the temperatures ablative heatshields on capsules can. Don't know if Starhip will be able to perform this meaningfully without a booster. - in-orbit refueling. Starship is big and heavy and basically can't get anywhere unless it's re-fueled in orbit. I don't think this has been done before, definitely gonna need 2+ starhips and boosters to show this. - superheavy booster. This might be the simplest part of the whole system - a first stage with 31 raptor engines. Lots of stuff coming in the next few years.
- dgritsko 6y ago> the most advanced rocket engine ever made Would love to learn more about this, can you expand? What makes Raptor so unique?
- codeulike 6y agoFull flow staged combustion cycle, never been flown* before, explained here: https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/ https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/ * The Russians built one in the 60s but it never got past static fire tests
- zionic 6y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1HA9LlFNM0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1HA9LlFNM0 Is a much better video :)
- jvanderbot 6y agoI cannot get over how it looks like an ork built this.
- mosselman 6y agoI was just looking at the stream and what struck me is that people were donating to the channel... Why would you ever do this? $20, etc even.
- daveslash 6y agoThis might be petty and off topic, but do others find this sort of streaming-commentary off-putting? I don't so much mind the informational commentary, but the emotional outbursts of yelling, hooting, and hollering is just... not for me and really makes me want to mute the video. Like I said, maybe off topic, but I see this becoming more and more common and wanted to know what people here think?