4 ms·
From what little i've seen of this guy; he appears to have no actual technical understand or depth to anything he reports on and basically just echos pop scienc
by dokem 5y ago
From what little i've seen of this guy; he appears to have no actual technical understand or depth to anything he reports on and basically just echos pop science and press releases. Scott Manley, Curious Mark and Periscope archival footage comes to mind for high quality content to learn about rocketry and related technology.
- aero-glide2 5y agoI like him a lot, but recently in his tweet he didn't even know how pressure varies with area in a nozzle. I do think he should learn a bit more.
- sourdoughness 5y agoHe’s be the first one to tell you that he’s an amateur who is always trying to learn more.
- panick21_ 5y agoHe actually interviews people who know what they are talking about and does the research. He has good contacts in the industry, better then most people. The video actually contains lots of information you can't find anywhere else. He spends a lot of time validating his videos himself with industry expert and then has a huge patreon community that goes threw everything and tries to find errors. He is an educator he doesn't have to be able to design his own engine to make good educational videos. And Scott Manley is also not an engineer and Scott Manley actually used Tims graphics in his own videos. Right now he is working on a 1h 30min video on Russian engines that is more detailed then anything out-there and he spend 2 years researching it.
- sourdoughness 5y agoI think that’s over-stating it. His content is deliberately designed to be accessible to everyday people, so it necessarily needs to be limited in depth and detail. Having heard him on podcasts and other settings, his knowledge seems plenty in depth to me (an amateur enthusiast who wants lots of detail) for that role. He’s not an engineer, and that’s fine.