It's actually interesting how similar rockets and jet engines are. You could think of a rocket as a jet (or sometimes two jet engines) where the afterburner is always on and the air intake is replaced by an O2 tank..

It's proof of tech. It'd be stupid and wasteful to do all the tests on a full size rocket.

Yeah, tail numbers are a lot like license plates.

No, they're the playing card company.

I thought Rockstar was going to launch GTA 6

Yeah, they could have a product ready by 2045! (If they hurry and make it a priority)

Unfortunately, the next competitor will be Amazon...

And then we'll see what happens next, getting a whole constellation up is no small feat, I can't see a third company getting a system working before 2050.

"Listen here you little shit..."

Well, different. You'd have highly compressed hydrogen in a cylindrical pressure vessel.

The Hindenburg just burned, actually it was mostly its highly flammable paint that caught fire. When a pressure vessel is ruptured, it explodes in a big way, or it quickly removes itself from the vehicle like a mini rocket.

I'm also curious, I thought hydrogen was the worst in this regard.

I like your theory on hydrogen reacting as it moves through materials.

There’s a YouTube channel called BPS Space where this guy spent 7 years learning how to land a model rocket space x style. He talked about how much you can learn about real rocket science even from a small model.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SH3lR2GLgT0

I'm a huge fan of Yamaha guitars. Great workmanship at a very affordable price, and if you buy used you can get them super cheap. My best guitar, an FG730S, which plays and sounds as good as any expensive gourmet brands, was only $102 at auction. I even bought another one as a backup. Used Yamaha guitars are the best deal on the market.

I know Blue Horizon or whatever it's called has had minor success with rockets. What's stopping Honda from out-competing them? Could it be a funding problem? (I know Blue Horizon has a lot of Amazon funding)

Whatever they tested it's probably proof of that, but such a small rocket and only 300 meters means that a lot of things were not really proven, because scale is a HUGE issue.
Just ask Elon Musk / SpaceX, the Falcon rocket is fine, but Starship is horrible. And the difference is scale.

Like how the 2018-2021 Honda Civics shipped with non functioning AC because they used the wrong type of refrigerant? They’ve also trained dealerships to deny the warranty!

It’s been in the 90s all week - I risk heat stroke in my fucking car going to work!

Now that's the real win.

What an ad. This is the second greatest YT video ever made.

That is not why starship fails. Starship fails because like everything that Elon does lately it emphasizes style over practicality. Starship is a very badly designed rocket that looks cool to Elon. Not unlike the Cyber truck which has been an abject failure in every way possible.

Well yeah, blue origin has already successfully orbited their rocket. Their rocket which has a 45 ton to low earth orbit payload capacity, about the same as the Saturn V (so actually impressive as fuck).

So the head start is what keeps Honda from out competing them. They're at least 10 years ahead of Honda (but likely more). And BO is solely focused on space, Honda on the other hand isn't going to prioritize that arm of development over others. So I can't really see Honda winning that sprint, if they're not totally committed to the race.

Hypothetically, we could terraform Venus. At the very least, it shares a lot of the issues that we're trying to fix on Earth, just dialled up to 11 - its main problems are that it's way too hot, the atmosphere has way too much carbon in it (96.5% vs Earth's 0.04%), and the atmosphere has way too much sulfur (0.015% vs Earth's 0.00000002%, making the atmosphere highly acidic). So if for example scientists had an idea for causing a chain reaction in a planetary atmosphere that rapidly sequestered all atmospheric carbon but were worried about unknown strength or side effects, instead of testing it on Earth where it could kill us all, they could test it on Venus where any failures would have no serious consequences. And if it worked, not only would it mean that we fix climate change on Earth but we partially terraform Venus into the bargain.

Venus has roughly similar gravity to Earth and has a ferrous core which could hypothetically be turned molten (and therefore ferromagnetic) to provide the same kind of magnetosphere that Earth's core does. Mars has neither of these things and would therefore never be able to sustain human life naturally - Venus potentially could. On Mars, the atmosphere is just one of many obstacles. On Venus it's THE obstacle. Solve the atmosphere, you solve Venus.