Search Results
6/20/2025, 11:38:00 PM
>>40568263
Mythbusters, especially the "Build" team, were notoriously retarded. They got into constant arguments with the fans because they'd do shit half-assed and call it busted. They would even have to do new episodes on old subjects because there was such a fan debate around them, like the arrow split. That + TV dying is what started to kill Mythbusters. So the idea of them being retarded is not at all far-fetched in the slightest.
>>40568335
>>40568384
You keep making this "no money no reason" argument, but I'm genuinely not buying it as a neutral 3rd party here. NASA's budget was down in 1969 by a substantial amount from its peak in 1965 from ~$35b to ~$23b, so it was already operating at a lower cost in general from it's peak, which is strange considering the tech required to perform this feat. But then afterwards even after the budget cuts, it's not like they were out of money. Even their lowest point, they still had a cool ~$12b which is nothing to scoff at, and then their budget was still around that area up until the spike in the late 80s/90s, and you're somehow telling me that the price to space admission was just $13b more than what they had?
>B-buh muh inflation!
Shouldn't the price of technology required to do this task also go down though? SpaceX making recoverable rocket parts to reduce the price didn't happen until a private company started looking into this on their own, and honestly the way they handled it actually seemed pretty simple. "Why not just recover the shit we're using to lift off to reuse it?" That should definitely have been something they could have thought of in the 70s-80s. Why not until 2010+?
And then the idea that there's no money in space runs into 2 problems.
1. We don't know what all of what is in space yet, we need to explore it.
2. We KNOW there is money in space. A shit ton of it.
>B-b-buh it's not feasible!
Surely just the idea of it being there should have incentivized tons of people. We do we not see them try?
Mythbusters, especially the "Build" team, were notoriously retarded. They got into constant arguments with the fans because they'd do shit half-assed and call it busted. They would even have to do new episodes on old subjects because there was such a fan debate around them, like the arrow split. That + TV dying is what started to kill Mythbusters. So the idea of them being retarded is not at all far-fetched in the slightest.
>>40568335
>>40568384
You keep making this "no money no reason" argument, but I'm genuinely not buying it as a neutral 3rd party here. NASA's budget was down in 1969 by a substantial amount from its peak in 1965 from ~$35b to ~$23b, so it was already operating at a lower cost in general from it's peak, which is strange considering the tech required to perform this feat. But then afterwards even after the budget cuts, it's not like they were out of money. Even their lowest point, they still had a cool ~$12b which is nothing to scoff at, and then their budget was still around that area up until the spike in the late 80s/90s, and you're somehow telling me that the price to space admission was just $13b more than what they had?
>B-buh muh inflation!
Shouldn't the price of technology required to do this task also go down though? SpaceX making recoverable rocket parts to reduce the price didn't happen until a private company started looking into this on their own, and honestly the way they handled it actually seemed pretty simple. "Why not just recover the shit we're using to lift off to reuse it?" That should definitely have been something they could have thought of in the 70s-80s. Why not until 2010+?
And then the idea that there's no money in space runs into 2 problems.
1. We don't know what all of what is in space yet, we need to explore it.
2. We KNOW there is money in space. A shit ton of it.
>B-b-buh it's not feasible!
Surely just the idea of it being there should have incentivized tons of people. We do we not see them try?
Page 1