Got about half way through the first video and so far he hasn't brought a single legitimate counter point. Is the rest of the video as useless? Do I need to spend time on the second? Or is it more of the same of wild speculation and incorrect estimates?
Time is a critical aspect of this. As an example, he talks about the sr71 but ignores the fact that the launch vehicles will only be in dense atmosphere for less than five seconds. Which minimizes heating. Their approach is simply to heat sink and use easily replaceable tips. Also, the video says, mach 7, whereas their target is mach 6. That's a huge difference in energy and a huge error for his math and assement. Another aspect he ignores, which is addressed in the linked video, is the vacuum. Again, he's completely wrong as it applies here.
I encourage you to watch the video and then come back to the debunking videos which are themselves fairly inaccurate.
Does this mean they can pull it off? I dunno. But what I've seen of the debunking videos (now and in the past), the debunking videos have themselves been debunked.
The last video is probably the one you want to watch. Scott manley. He's unbiased and very familiar with orbital and rocket dynamics. To the level at which science fiction writers consult him for realism regarding spacecraft.
Not sure what he says in that one, dont have time to watch now, but I do feel like I've seen it before.
Scott Manning agrees with me. The debunking videos are themselves debunked.
Got about half way through the first video
the debunking videos have themselves been debunked.
Watch the three links I posted.
Will do. If you think the other videos offer more than the first debunked debunked video, I'll check them out.
(post is archived)