>>10850149I just saw that video. Makes me wonder if he's the anti-SpaceX FUD poster here. Sure, we should be skeptical of reusability after the false promises of the Shuttle, but some of the issues he brings up are either misunderstandings or just false. There are legitimate points against SpaceX and some of their promises, but he just seems to be more interested in shitting on SpaceX because he wants to be a contrarian.
I'll just bring up one point of his
>"..they're struggling to replicate the [Apollo] command module." [16:29]No, SpaceX has made a nice usable capsule, but they had an issue during testing. The Apollo capsule had a rather disastrous first test too if I recall correctly. Testing is supposed to look out for such problems. Should SpaceX forego testing and only do studies until they were absolutely sure that things would work flawlessly? No, because no amount of studying will prepare for the real thing and one can encounter the real thing in a controlled way through testing, let SpaceX blow up stuff during testing as long as they show a commitment to improve.
Sometimes I want to make videos explaining spaceflight for people who aren't knowledgeable about it due to the fact that I explain it so much already with friends and family, but I kinda get imtimidated by the likes of Scott Manley or Paul Shillito in that I doubt I can match their quality. However, thunderblunder here has probably set the bar to be so low that it's subterranean, so maybe I should give that a shot.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
