Covering another selection of questions from my supporters on Patreonwww.patreon.com/posts/47522787(this is going to take a while isn't it)
With regard to the flat Earthers, I think it's best to remember the saying "When someone tells you who they are, believe them". Whatever nonsense may stem from it, they will tell you that they do not trust the word of authority. Given how messed up the world has become under the guidance of the Neoliberal worship of "experts", I can understand the sentiment. Another thing to remember is that half the population is below average intelligence. Although there are different types of intelligence (which can make one more or less rational regardless of overall intelligence), one must remember that many of these people are incapable of understanding the world. They must choose what to believe, their every day experience or the word of experts. Choosing to believe in experts can lead to a lot of confusion and frustration, so I can understand that a good chunk of these people choose to believe their every day experience
Uh, spoiler :( That was unexpected...
If the earth is flat, then where are the pictures from the underside?
Scott Manley I have 2 interesting questions: - why you say having several engines is a safety maker on StarShip, while Nasa spend billions to make ginormous test rigs to développe the Vulcan engine in order to have only 5 engines on the Saturn 5 ? Meanwhile, the Soviet N1 failed precisely because it had 30+ engines among which, one was always falty, flanking the flight. - why is it not possible to have a reentry profile so smooth and long, that no shielding is even needed (saving precious payload capacity)?
parachutes? how many plane crushes... +today another submarine down. 53 people
"unless I see opposite with my own eyes, I'll believe the earth is flat'
Great job thanks Scott. 👍
On the flat earther and the religion thing. That’s a legitimate reason, I’ve had more people who claim to be Christian that believe in flat earth for that reason of science making god less or some bs like it, which makes sense because there’s a lot of Christians that basically make it a cult like deal and block off the rest of the world and go against reason. It’s still a bogus reason but religion and IQ do have some ties together so...yeah. I’m not saying everyone who is religious is dumb, but a lot of the time you’ll find that you have to make exceptions in logic and reasoning to believe things in religion.
There is a big conspiracy against us, and it's called physics.
Hay mate I have a question that I put to my wife who is a physics but she just dismissed it with the usual NO that I normally get with my super interesting questions Is there enough water on the earth to make a dip in the sun's output?
Sliding sideways? If you can slide down in stupidity and gullibility from flat earth, it's to Qanon. That's even dumber. Chemtrails is probably on par with flat earth.
Crew/Cargo Dragon capsules now have solar panels lining the outside of the vehicle. Starship is to have one entire side covered in a similar way by heat-shield tiles. Would it ever be possible to develop heat-shield tiles that could double as solar panels?
Perhaps when Starship is heavier, it’s landing will be conducted with more engines firing, so if one fails, there will be reserve already active to throttle up. Or maybe they can use Dragon for passenger reentry.
13:48 "Or-or maybe there is space junk incydent" **Planetes flashbacks intensifies**
One thing to consider here Scott, they might have needed to stay in the orbits they were in courtesy of needing to get shuttles to and from the surface... Just a thought
Has spacex considered the Bernoulli lock effect with short legs and rather flat based starships. Could be major risk to both take off and landing
the flat earth thing must be a meme. it must be.
Great answers, Scott. I can only imagine in the "after times" spending an afternoon with you and discussing "space".
Sorry, but thrust to mass ratio does not change. What does is thrust to weight, which is dependent on the local gravity.
i am a bad ass god i made the universe way too bigger than you have measured. also there is new physics to be discovered, your predictions on the muon g-2 is a lot off by the value i have set.
I totally believe in NASA. Just be a dear Scott and talk NASA into a single camera shot from launch to docking with the space station. (No cut aways, that's not too hard just turn it on and leave it) That will stop the debate about the whole thing.
In the 70s reading books about the Bermuda Triangle, alien abductions, and bigfoot was all in good fun. People enjoyed the tall tales in the same way as people enjoy pro wrestling. They pretend its real, but deep down they know it's all fake. It's all in good fun. And then one political party decided that climate change would be too costly, so they amped up their age old war on intellectualism. Suddenly you've got a whole 'news' channel devoted to telling people that scientists are idiots, and can't do practical things. You reap what you sow.
Regarding the expanse thing, they could not just dump all their delta v up front, since the rail gun took 4 (I think) minutes to reload and top up its capacitors, so it had to be gradual. I'm more confused about if it really makes sense hang out in an orbit so low that it decays to dangerous levels in mere days. this comment might be using info from the books, can't really remember how much detail was in the show.
He's lived in the USA so long he's lost the ability to use a hard A (patreon/pAtreon)😁 oh well the UK still loves it's sons no matter how wayward😋
12:54 Your *TAX* dollars pay for this.... Oh I'm sorry, I seem to be predicting the future.
About 76 of your tax dollars per year if you're an average taxpayer... And that's all of NASA combined, not just a single program.
8:43 I did not watch this video for 5 days. Because of the Thumbnail. This stupid nonsense stirred by the Attention Seeking Media Retards (incidentally known as, ASMR) has to stop.
Okay, I guess I should become a flat-earther, since I'm disappointed between my perception of my abilities and my observed outcomes. Although, still, it seems to a lower correction factor to assign the mismatch to primate dominance behavior rather than a conspiracy regarding scientific observations and analysis. OTOH, still, global climate change claims are hard to explain away using primate dominance behavior!
Good answer on the "flat-Earther" question, I think. One of the attractions of that point of view is that it makes Earth, and therefore humanity, of central importance in the order of the universe. If we're just tiny biological specks on one of "billions and billions" of planets orbiting "billions of billions" of stars in one galaxy out of "billions and billions" of galaxies, then how special are we, really? What makes flat-Earther's so willing to slip over into the "Q-Anon" brand of harmful delusions comes from the same sort of thing. The culture of the world is changing rapidly, driven by economic changes triggered by technological innovations. So, you have a bunch of people who don't understand technology, and don't want to, who have begun to perceive that what they considered "their world" has started to wash away from them. To them, *all of reality* feels like sand beneath their feet when the waves come in. Now then, most people understand that, in a complex world filled with people doing their own things, for their own reasons, there are people who delight in scientific research. Moreover, many of them (even most of them) *don't care* if what they discover is either not taken into consideration by Bronze Age or Iron Age mythologies, or the ethical codes of conduct developed during that time. In addition to the challenges to traditional beliefs and world-views, scientific discovery *also* drives technological innovation. Those technological innovations, in turn, drive economic change -- which can then result in structural unemployment as old jobs disappear and new jobs require skill-sets few have had time to develop. How people make a living is the single largest determinant (although not the only one...) in their understanding of what life *should* be, and how people *should* live, so economic change also drives social and cultural changes. Economic, social and cultural change, in turn, drives political change. Politicians seldom initiate anything -- governance is almost always *reactive*. The space program and other supported scientific research are exceptions to that rule (but look how much money that gets...). Now then, that pace of change is pretty tough for some people to wrap their minds around, and the faster the pace of change, the more people struggle harder. But, here's the thing that really messes them over, and terrifies the crap out of them: *** NONE OF THIS IS PREDICTABLE *** NOBODY KNOWS, ahead of time, what scientists will uncover. NOBODY KNOWS, ahead of time, how engineers and inventors will make use of the discoveries. NOBODY KNOWS, ahead of time, how those innovations will affect the economy. And that means NOBODY KNOWS how those discoveries will affect the lives of any particular individuals or groups, or the culture and society in which they grew up. Moreover, given the vastness and complexity of the universe, itself, NOBODY KNOWS when the next dinosaur-killer will hit the Earth, or if a huge solar flare will knock out our power-grids, or if a nearby super-nova will release enough radiation to sterilize this world, or if a quantum singularity will wander through the planet and eat it. Nobody knows anything about any of that, really. Most of us are able to recognize the remoteness of the possibilities, while others (including many of Scott's subscribers, I'd imagine) look at technological innovation as fun -- and great opportunities. But to some people, the notion their lives could be so profoundly altered by the sheer *randomness* of reality is so utterly terrifying, it feels like somebody shoved an icicle up their arses. Others simply cannot accept the notion at all. Their minds won't go there. They just... won't. So, they make up beliefs that give them the illusion that *somebody* is in control, and their very existences and the lives of those they love, aren't actually subject to the whims of random chance in a universe inherently incapable of giving a single damn, about them. Is there a sekrit cabal in charge of everything? No. Of course not. The very notion is absurd and childish. But it's more comforting to believe that *somebody* is "in charge" and "In control" -- even an "evil someone" -- than it is to accept that NOBODY is in control, and that chaos theory describes the world better than conspiracy theory. Or even Scripture. Chaos that threatens entire ways of life, for no reason anybody can really understand or predict, so thoroughly disorients and terrifies some people, they just reject that reality, outright. So, they embrace comforting delusions that make them feel more significant than anybody actually can be, given the size and complexity of the universe, and the willingness of some people to push past boundaries and fundamentally alter entire societies, entire cultures, in unpredictable ways. Aaaand, that's a huge wall of text. Sorry about that, but the mindsets of the bizarrely delusional are, to me, fascinating train-wrecks. I did like Scott's little plug for Stowaway, at the end. :)
As much as I’ve been following the Starship saga I have nagging doubts about it’s viability. We’ve seen two catastrophes with the space shuttle. Can you imagine the outcry if a Starship with 100 people on it crashed?
It occurs to me about Starship: The sea bottom is littered with the wrecks of wooden ships. Now hundreds of years later losses at sea are all but unheard of. But we never would have gotten here waiting for the Queen Mary to be constructed. We don't need to be completely reckless, but if we're going to get anything done we probably need to be a little more risk-tolerant again.
The only problem with that argument is that there is/was no snowball effect at sea. Yet, if one unlucky satellite blows up just the right way and causes a chain reaction in near earth orbit we might lose alot or all satellites and also might not be able to go to space for a very, very long time. That would be quite catastrophic.
I think the SpaceX vertical landing for Starship is sketchy at best. I can't see the day when this vehicle is approved to carry people. Sorry.
Hmm... Air Force asking for long payload bays? Wonder if this is "Rods from God" Project Thor finally being put into place. Would explain the secrecy and the strange dimensions
Cost of launch vehicle tankage varies approximate with volume. Using higher density propellant mixtures like kerosine-HTP reduces that cost--as well as both being room temperature liquids--but there's also loss of performance. In some cases, that can work. But in most cases, the performance improvement from replacing the propellants with lower density liquids with higher Isp more than makes up for the higher cost of the launch vehicle and its handling.
Wow, I'm taking gas dynamics right now and we just learned about choked flow
I don't think insurance companies would even touch anything to do with space, christ it can be near impossible to try and get insurance on a house in a flood plain area in some cases let alone do satellites 😂
Scott, you missed a couple of points: - Recycling & scientific research could be (possibly even without deorbiting). We have upwards of 70 years of materials science experiencing entropy in orbit, could be some good fodder for analysis comparing materials in museums to materials left in orbit for the same time. - Maybe less valuable, but it's possible that less-developed players might quietly steal dead satellites to look at the old IP within.
Orbital cleanup: where you need a PhD to be the garbage guy.
@SpaceJunk: IIRC, SkyLab deorbited onto Australia and local mayor there issued a ticket for littering. The USA / NASA did not take responsibility and did not pay that. Only after some 30 years some listeners to local American radio station chipped in to pay.
Another reason for all kinds of conspiracy theories is that it’s an easy way to find social acceptance. No matter who you are, if you just believe the same strange thing, you immediately get accepted as “one of us”. Being an accepted member of a group is a strong drive for humans, and some need to resort to conspiracy theories to fulfill that need.
The dislikes are from flat Earthers
People believe in conspiracies like flat earth because they sence that there is someting wrong and injust with the world they live in, but have not been able to adequatly figure out what exactly causes that injustice. Thus comming up with bizare and outlandish solutions to the problem. I think simply stating that they merely believe in weird conspiracies to make up an excuse as to "why they are such a failure in life" is very short-sighted and individualistic. It is quite easy and even self-flattering to believe that, if you are somewhat comfortable and sucsessfull under the current societal conditions, that this is because we live in a meritocracy and your sucseses can be attributed wholly to your own merit. Often enough people who are suspecting that someting is injust in the world we live in are accused by people who benefit from the status-quo of living in a "victimhood mentality" and just have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. For sure, it is importiant for people who live in destitution not to just passively lie down and cry, but try to do someting about their situation. However it is also importiant for people who do have somewhat comfortable and sucsesfull lifes under the current conditions to not just dismiss the downtrodden merely as losers, but recognise that the capitalist world we live in does have at least some problems that puts the thumb on the scale for both their own sucses and the failure of others. If one does not recognise that the world we live in has fundamental problems that cannot just be simply attibuted to the failures of individuals but are much more systemic, one only futher alienates those who have drawn the short straw. I think it is imperative that we try to figure out what those inherent systemic problems are, lest we condemn ourselves to endless cycles of people comming up with the incorrect ideas about why it is their life and the world sucks, and as a result try to propose and implement unworkable or even counterproductive solutions to these problems.
About that manned Starship, i believe what makes it so different compared to other crewed vehicles, is that any failure would kill people right down on earth. I know it sounds wrong, but any other parachute landing, (except for the precious moon landings) was probably more prone to fail on hypersonic reentry and not the landing itself, since parachutes can be and are always twice or thrice redundant. If your vehicle fails on reentry, there's nothing you can do in that moment, you get what you prepare for. Same with starship, but starship adds the increased threat of loosing control after reentry, which sounds like a step back. If you think about it though, parachutes have always been and still are really hard to get right, yet when have we last heard of major issues with parachutes on the latest missions? Watching lots of sojus and spacex landings i never fear they would fail to deploy, because they are so heavily tested. The question is, how can starship's active landing system, that is engines and landing-software, be tested for all it's eventualities, when the system is so much more complex than any parachute packing and mortar. I think once starship lands intact, spacex will push on human transportation and promote the safety and redundance of the design, like they did on dragon. Today, with every sn going up in flames is surely not the best point in time to promote possible safety features. Still, remember they already have a lot of good data on switching between engines on ascent and also how to adjust for a engine out on descent, so the only big problem now is the fuel system not working as intended.
Thank you for being respectful Scott. Thank you. :)
Scott acting like he's been sniffing that powder
After the belly flop, why don't they use the flaps and jets to put the Starship vertical and THEN start the engines? Last-moment vertical descent would put the liquids at the bottom of the tanks again and solve the sloshing problem, no?
It would be awesome if they could make a hybrid engine with a small electric pump system just for short term situations where they want to have very fine throttling.
9:42 No, no such conspiracy exists.
Scott: Fly safe Elon: We're *TRYING!!*
11:06 No one ever who when playing kerbal space program
I build a water bottle rocket in my jr. year of high school and it was the record holder for height and it was the first to successfully land and be reused, I made helicopter rotors at the top with a skateboard bearing and a bottle cap, some lego hinges and rubber bands so after the peak of the flight the tensions would unfold the blades which I made from styrofoam plates and thin cardboard in layers with super glue and also wrapped in electrical tape: I also carved an airfoil along the leading edge to start to auto rotate when the blades sprung open and air passed by, and by the end of reaching 400 feet with 2, 2 liter bottles of air and water it would auto rotate back down at lest than 1 mph, and the rotors would snap off the hinge and you could re attach them for the next flight. this was 2004 and my science teacher kept my rocket as his own and I was even invited to see it in 2006 to see it fly again, and there it was still flying and successfully landing years later and out of my hands. :)
Yup . . . Tethers! Would be great if Scott would do a presentation on the uses of, and dynamics of, tethers.
SN will Never be an intercontinental transport vehicle.
13:50 I like how scott accidentally recounted the plot of Wanderers
Scott - would love to hear your thoughts on SpaceX cancelling the faring catching program and selling off Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief
you can think one- or two dimensional, for the people, who prefer that kind of thinking, the earth is flat. it is pretty simple after all. :-)
14:45 I don't watch the TV show but in the book they use the rail-gun for thrust. That might change the answer.
Nitpicking: Thrust-to-mass doesn't depend on gravity. Thrust-to-weight does.
Hello Scott, I was wondering if you would be able to shed some light/clarification on the SLS vs Saturn V debate. I was looking at the payload for both the Saturn V and SLS and apparently the Saturn V had 41-45 metric tons to TLI whereas SLS Block 1 can take 27tons to TLI and Block 1B crew and Block 2 crew can take 38 and 43 tons respectively. Why is this? Is it to do with the capability of the upper stages and does that 45 metric tons of the Saturn V TLI payload include the S-IVB?
I can answer the last one. The 45 metric tonnes didn't include the S-IVB. The total weight of the Apollo spacecraft (minus launch escape tower) plus the empty S-IVB was the following for the Saturn Vs sent to the Moon: Apollo 8: 53.6 tonnes Apollo 10: 58.2 tonnes Apollo 11: 58.9 tonnes Apollo 12: 59.2 tonnes Apollo 13: 59.3 tonnes Apollo 14: 59.7 tonnes Apollo 15: 62.1 tonnes Apollo 16: 62.0 tonnes Apollo 17: 62.0 tonnes
Conspiracy theorists, and flat earthers believe they possess "special knowledge" that is secret/suppressed/ridiculed by "the ruling class". This means that the conspiracy theorists are special, smarter and better than the "sheeple". And it also creates a "them" that governs the world/universe, this is VERY comforting to many people as randomness is so unfair and it is a convenient scapegoat for all your failures. You aren't rich,"them" wants you to be poor. Your career isn't going well, "them" are sabotaging you for exposing "the secrets". This thinking is extremely resistant to change as any contrary argument/evidence is just an agent of "them" trying to "get" the conspiracy theorist. And yes there is HUGE overlap between fundamentalist Young Earth Creationists and flat earthers.
When we live in society where we are forced accept lies about almost everything or be ostracized, it’s a small leap to believe that something as accepted as the shape of the earth could also be a lie. Truth, Love, and Beauty all died within my lifetime.
That's complete and utter nonsense. I bet even the Egyptians or even older civilizations had conspiracy theories. You are just getting older and understand more. Understanding that the universe is a complicated and pretty unsafe place is difficult to cope with. Also, accepting that everything in life has a pro and a con is a very difficult revelation one only understands when one leaves the teenage years and maybe even the twens.
If those rs-25s can throttle down to 10% we should give them to Elon to land instead of letting NASA dump them in Ocean. Do you think SLS will ever launch with new rs-25s? I bet its canned once the shuttle engines are gone.
I am one of the "Shits and Giggles" flat earthers, I in-reality know the earth is a near spherical shape
If you want to refute/debate a flat earther, go check out Greater Sapien's channel (aka Jerry Williams.) He's really good at it.
I have another space question. How do Starship and Space Shuttle initial idea compare?
Watch Stowaway :hint hint: ;3 God did make a pretty nice universe for us, didn't he? Gonna be great exploring it once we're immortal.
That gas choke condition explainer was super helpful. Makes a lot of sense that it kicks in after you cross the speed of sound, but I'd never heard anyone explain it that clearly before.
The problem with start ship is that there is no failure mode that is not catastrophic. I love that someone with influence is saying it.
Being "In the know" or understanding something is significant in the psychology of all humans. It's just easier to get that with conspiracy theories, than actual knowledge and understanding. That's why low achieving people flock to them to increase their self worth.
Also high concentration peroxide slowly decomposes over time producing oxygen + water and can decompose explosively under several circumstances so it's a bit of a bugger to handle and store.
What do you think about bsic hacking tutorial video series? I hope you will do it someday in future.
12:17 Air Force, Scott? Wouldn't that be the Spaaaaaaaaaaace Fooooooooorce?
Have you ever applied to become an astronaut?
"If you've had trouble achieving success, it helps to be able to blame it on a cabal..." in other words, they're losers.
Hi Scott. Ref the 'throttling' problem. Are rocket engines scalable? For instance, could you use an engine plus and engine a little smaller and one a little larger ? Engine 1 and 2 giving say 90% , 2 and 3 giving 110%, (all 3 being the norm) and the appropriate combination selected? There will be a weight penalty, but would this be minimal when compared to propellent weight?
But in an Osprey . . . your options are limited.
If we build a self conscious AI and it believes in Flat Earth/religions/Santa Claus, have we failed or succeeded?
10:47 Hello! I'm Snott Handley. :) jk
Teslas electric rockets are almost here!
That’s called ARCA and it’s an utter failure
Clicked because of the cat being a cat... Ultimate Click Bait thumbnail!
*looks at modern passenger aircraft* Imagine telling someone in 1908 that one day tens of thousands of people would fly....daily.....long distances....and the safety rate is 99%. Imagine that.
History is full of people saying something isn’t possible and then witnessing that very thing happening.
Waste Management Rocketry
If throttling is an issue. Multiple engine of various size / appeture and use the "engine" of appropriate size never using just one...
9:43 I've found this to be super accurate. Love that you explain this so well!
Please someone tell me what the pencil “anime” drawing is on the wall behind Scott. Thanks
We know the world isn't flat. If it was, cats would knock everything off it.
Space junk should be pushed into a large blob somewhere in orbit. By now it would large enough to be able to mine for supplies.
11:00 15° per/hour...cheers Bob 😂😂
Have a question & local to bay area. How does gas bubbles affect rocket propellant used by starship. Would adding ultrasonic transducer to the tank or inline somewhere help remove say air bubbles from lox or methane? And could that be an issue for space X to consider with the issues they are having with the raptor engines. Love your NOprojects channel from the Northbay & a scientist. Hence this question because I work for drug company & we have to degas out mobile phases run on an HPLC. Seems like it should be done on rocket propellants too.
Hi Scott. I have a question for a future episode: If an astronaut opened a jar of water in space, what would happen to the liquid, what would we see? Is there footage of interesting or reactionary substances in the vaccume of space?
Bernouli's equation work only with incomprehensible fluid flows
Your LEGO Saturn V is right next to my own beside my TV! 👁️👁️
2:50 thrust to mass is the same everywhere, I assume you meant thrust to weight and it still applies...?
I would think it is more stealing money from the hopelessly conspiratorially deluded, than just trolling.
I invoked your name when I saw a post saying something like, 'Why blast your enemies into the sun when it takes significantly less Delta V to launch them clear of the solar system?' I said, "Scott Manley Approves this message"
SpaceX is not wanting to put legs on the new booster and use the tower to catch it, how about building an aircraft type elevator as used on aircraft carriers just bigger, all it has to do is drop when the booster is coming in for the landing, it can have a solid or a grid surface.
The real question is, WHEN will Starship be used commercially for global transport? What backups do commercial airliners have? relatively none, you just have to get the technology to the point where it's reliable. I am fully convinced we will see 100 passengers flying on starships regularly from continent to continent.
@(S)-Riley Dunn Perhaps I am being too optimistic, but I don't think I am. I do agree that the acceleration will likely be an interesting and difficult problem to solve
@Reasonably Logical Did you not hear how Starship is supposed to cost $2 million per launch? And that’s extremely optimistic. It costs $3 million just to refurbish a Falcon 9 booster, and you think a spacecraft an order of magnitude _more_ complex will cost an order of magnitude _less?_ Nah, $100,000 is ridiculous. Even SpaceX doesn’t try to claim anywhere close to that figure. No, people really aren’t going to pay inordinate amounts of money just to be in a place faster. Going off of SpaceX’s stated numbers, the seats would have to be $20,000 each just to break even, probably $25,000 to turn a significant profit (and that’s still a very optimistic estimate). Maybe if this was developed 50 or 60 years ago, before the Internet, it could work. But people really don’t want fast transit anymore, because it’s just not necessary. You don’t need to be halfway around the world in 30 minutes to talk to your boss when you can just join a Zoom call or something. This is still the exact reason the Concorde failed: Companies think people want it fast, when they really want it cheap. This doesn’t even take into account how the quality of the flight would be much worse. Nobody traveling for business wants to experience 2g acceleration and nausea-inducing weightlessness on their way to work.
@(S)-Riley Dunn I dont see why $100,000 a flight won't be achievable. Also even if it were 5x the price of a normal flight people are still going to pay that to travel to the other side of the planet in an hour lol
@Reasonably Logical It works even less if you use Shotwell’s fantasy figures. Lets say an average first-class international ticket is $1000. Multiplied by 100 passengers, that’s $0.1 million. Starship is supposed to cost $2 million per launch, a number that I believe is still highly optimistic. Without Superheavy, maybe that gets cut in half, but it doesn’t get anywhere near low enough to be profitable (and the range is significantly decreased). The fact that Starship E2E is extremely unprofitable will mean either seat prices go up sharply, or the program gets cancelled. It just doesn’t add up.
@(S)-Riley Dunn SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell said a starship ticket would cost less than a first class flight ticket. Starship will be able to do London to Hong Kong in 34 minutes, compared to current times of 14+ hours. The Concorde still took 3.5hours to do NY-LDN which is a 7 hour flight now. Very big difference there I'm sure you can understand. Concorde also cost about $1000(inflation adjusted) for a NY-LDN ticket so was vastly more expensive.
Valami bajod van velem ? Megbántottalak ? Hát akkor mit akarsz?
Good questions about operating on low thrust while landing. Why not keep the thrust at full blast BUT simply partially redirect the thrust out the sides until the craft is safely landed? Similar to the way commercial jets reduce speed when landing. Perhaps this has already been tried? If not, someone out there should get some sort of minor credit for the idea :-)