@@SterlingArchimedes In business, you always want to over promise expediency because, while people don't like delays, they really don't care that much. If you're 100% honest about everything, then you'll just demoralize people right off the bat and, since most people think you're being untruthfully optimistic, they'll just assume reality is far worse than it really is. If Musk promises you a Mars landing in 10 years but does it in 15, then its no big deal. If he promises you a Mars landing in 15 years and does it, then you'll spend those 14 years assuming that it'll take 20 years instead.
It's more and more of an epic waste. Wasteful environmental disaster. Apollo engineers designed their ship to perfection and landed on the moon in their 5th flight. Starship hasn't done a full orbit or survived reentry. Best believe reentry dynamics returning from the moon are much more severe than a sub orbital flight.
The nose dive is probably the single most important capability to make ship catches possible. Without some ablility to use the atmosphere to navigate to their target, there simply wouldnt be enough control authority to get the precision needed to approach the tower. Remember booster is not going anywhere near as fast when its in space so the gridfins and chines dont need to compensate for the very large error margins you get from traveling mach 23 with almost no control. Shuttle acheived it because it was a big ass glider. The wings dominated the craft to make targeted landing possible.
I would guess its more important to overshoot the tower in the case of landing abort, becuase it was quite acurate the last time as well, but i am not sure.
@schmijo That probably depends on how much they are able to vary the overall drag coefficient of the vehicle for targeting, given that a portion of the flaps range of motion is likely constrained to solely maintain stability. EG, without some flap action, the ship would dive butt first.
Yes there's atomic oxygen in Earth's ionosphere, but that's not the point. As I understand it, the point is that Mars is mostly CO2, so when you break everything into simple ions you have 2/3 oxygen, atoms (ions), whereas in Earth's 78% N2 atmosphere, the atomic species are only 20% oxygen atoms. @1:30
If they decide to place a tanker in orbit, they may want to include solar panels and multiple Ionic thrusters to keep it stable and to adjust for better connections in transferring the fuel (oxygen & methane). A permanent Starship-sized tanker could be refilled with Falcon 9 in increments or an additional Starship. Having a permanent tanker orbiting would greatly assist in future endeavors.
I guess the pushed back flaps and the shorter chopsticks will help with the catch. The flaps would be in the way during the decend and the chopstick would make the problem even harder. So both could also have to do with the catch and not only with inertia and heat. It might serve both purposes.
That stainless steel buckling and wrinkling did not look good for reuse. It gives confidence that the vehicle will make it down. Going back up again is a different story tho.
It seemed like the best option to me. Going out and dismantling an old can in the middle of the tower would be disastrous. May the fish benefit from it.
I dont think anyone thought the nose down maneuver would actually break up the ship... we watched the first ship do 3 endos after having a massive hole blown in it 😅 after it made it easily through reentry anyone whos been paying attention was like hey it was successful
If the tower’s beacon is on that antennae that slanted over 5 10 feet, that could very easily have caused the abort. If Mission Control picks up that the tower isn’t saying that it is where it’s supposed to be saying that it is I would abort the catch too
The big question is “Can Space X and Blue Origin complete their NASA Human Landing System Contracts and safely land NASA astronauts near the lunar South Pole before China’s lands their first crewed mission at the lunar South Pole?”
Basically, nothing went wrong, elonmusk said that they lost coms on the tower, so out of abundance of caution, they redirected heavy for a soft water landing
Well in a sense stuff did go wrong (such as the coms loss) but that just means they know the problem exists and can work to fix it in future missions 😃
The ship was meant to, they wanted to land it in the ocean without recovering it. It would obviously explode due to the mixture of hot steel and cold water. This was known. The booster had to abort, but in the case of an ocean landing, that was expected too, for the same reason.
@Skye-Was-Taken How about the pace of SpaceX? They promised early 2024 for the first dry run moon landing. I don't expect them to be ready till at least 2027, bc so much left to be worked out. Their design process is completely unlike NASA's. First time the Space Shuttle flew, it was human flight, and it wasn't part of a lengthy series of experiments to get it right. They did the research on the ground, and it worked. SpaceX have applied agile rapid development but the technology needs better incubating.
Actually, a minimum of 15 launches might be needed to execute a full Artemis III lunar landing (just for HLS alone), including the necessary refueling in Earth orbit before heading to the Moon. Several Starships are required to maintain a launch schedule to prevent burn-off of the fuel. One starship as an orbital fuel depot, and several more required to refuel and yet another to leave on the Moon. What a stupid idea. Meanwhile, SLS has already been to the Moon and back in one, single, successful launch.
I agree, would it not be more logical to develop space based construction of ship components so you don't need to send this behemoth into orbit with all the associated issues?
Troll, let me dare to feed you, as i explain the difference that you so conveniently ignore. SLS CAN ONLY TAKE A SMALL CAPSULE. Tiny, insignificant, four people at max. Exactly the minimum food requirement, maybe a rover (still in doubt) and a couple thousand pounds for tools, water, experiments etc. That's in ONE launch. To take enough material to build (much less maintain) a base there you need a minimum of 120tons per launch. SLS to moon is just over 49 tons and that isn't accounting for the capsule and orbiter. Thats 2.3 billion for a single use rocket with a two year turnaround time to launch a new one. STARSHIP can take over 140 tons to the moon (possibly more with v2) with orbital refueling, having expended all its fuel initially to make orbit cause earth gravity is a biatch. Something SLS cant do in part because of the different materials and fuel type it uses. Starship is planned to be reusable, much shorter and less expensive turnaround time. 15 launches of starship, vs 40 ish launchs of SLS for the same cargo volume to the moon. Starship costs a max of 400mil to construct and is mostly reusable meanwhile SLS is 2-3 billion to launch once. SLS is a rocketry achievement to be sure (especially with congress screwing up the entire program the whole way through) but starship is CURRENTLY the most efficient, technologically advanced, cost effective option on the table for long-term moon presence.
There are plenty of reasonably flat areas to land, remember there are high resolution topological scans of the surface now so finding a landing site is not hit and miss as it was back in the 1960's.
They don't really need a totally flat surface to land. I think there's going to be enough clearance, created by the extended/deployed landing legs, between the bottom of the ship and whatever surface they land on. Bottom of ship could be way higher than whatever boulder on the landing surface. Plus, having self-leveling, hydraulic-powered or electric-actuated legs could help in mitigating landing surface unevenness.
@@okirooju3787 If you think this thing can land on an incline of more than a few degrees with that narrow landing gear and not fall over you're out of you're mind.
@@schrodingerscat1863 How the fuck would you know? Have you ever looked at photos and topographic maps of the moon? And that's not even starting on the boulder issue.
@FranklinRatliff maybe I'm out of my mind, but certainly not the SpaceX engineers who obviously are a lot smarter than both you and me. I still stand by my earlier comment. Those landing legs are gonna get 'shoes' I can almost guarantee, will deploy to extend to an area wider than the ship by some meters.
SpaceX's sixth Starship test flight featured a compromised heat shield, new flight profile, and successful engine relight in space. The ship survived re-entry and performed a controlled water landing, paving the way for future orbital flights with the new Block 2 design.
Lame Stream Media said it ''Successfully Crashed into the Indian Ocean.'' Did it have crash dummies on board? Was it a crash test? India said, "What the Hell are you guys doing in our ocean?"
The 6th flight was a total failure flight that none of the crafts really survived. When they have no technical development or hitting bottleneck of development. They played this kind of trick to stall the progress to divert the focus of the public. They already did this kind of failure flights a couple times landing into the indian ocean for nothing.
@@georgeclooney5316 basically, they had 1 V1 starship left, but it wouldn’t be worth going for orbit because they’re moving to V2 after this and that works different, so they may as well put some risky experiments on it, such as the heat shield tiles. Next flight, they’ll likely go for a full orbit, catch the booster, then does it and land the ship off the coast of starbase, then on the flight after that, they’ll catch the ship if all goes well. For the ocean landings, the goal was never to recover them. The night recover the ship that lands off the coast of starbase tho
@@Skye-Was-Taken This thing looks very unreliable. Each time it reentered to the atmosphere. Its flaps always burned out. If it were manned missions. Shit could happen. Technically. this big-cock ship burnt out in all six flights. Never succeeded. It has just never landed once successfully. Still too far from completion. Logically, there's no point to let it keeps splashing into the Indian ocean without even landing it once safely for proofing its reliability first to the public. Therefore, there must have some technical difficulties behind for now. As a result, they can only keep splashing it into the indian ocean repeatedly and made up some excuses such as "testing its durability" or some sorts. They are just keep making excuses for the failure and the no-break-thru situations. That cock-ship couldn't land even once safely is what we see.
Good to have President-elect Donald Trump showing interest in SpaceX. Political will is necessary for the moon & Mars so the more interest by politicians, the better. He won the popular vote and it’s common knowledge that the Democrats used lawfare to try to stop him from winning the presidency so that “convicted felon” label falls flat these days.
@ Donald Trump was recently convicted in a New York court case related to the Stormy Daniels hush money payments, it's important to note that this case is far from over. Trump's legal team is appealing the conviction, and the sentencing has been delayed while the appeal process plays out. Given the resources and legal expertise at Trump's disposal, it's not unlikely that the conviction could be overturned. In fact, some legal experts have speculated that the case against Trump may be vulnerable to appeal on various technical grounds. So, while Trump has been convicted in this case, the final outcome is still very much in question,it is highly likely that he ultimately avoids a felony conviction. Since President elect Trump received a huge electoral victory recently and when the popular vote, most people either don’t care or don’t believe all of the court cases against Trump due to the Democrats obvious use of lawfare to try to prevent Trump from running.
Because he dared to not go woke and embrace values that don't agree with your views? He has a right to any political affiliation he so chooses, just like you. If we have to give up our rights so you can have yours, what would that make you? You guys on the other side are a bunch of manipulators and hypocrites.
Thank you to Perplexity for sponsoring this video! Check out Perplexity for all of your holiday shopping at perplexity.yt.link/QcyhLBp
Does this mean that Musk technically ownes the $10 000 000 000 000 000 dollar asteroid? LOL
I love how SpaceX aren't afraid to throw stuff up expecting it to explode and to show snd tell everything that is happening in real time
They know their audience. People want to see thing happen regardless of what it is. These are unmanned rockets.
@@ryelor123you have to break it to figure out how to strengthen it….in space you get one chance.
Loss of comms with tower was the reason for booster catch abort according to musk .
Musk has never been known to tell lies or embellish the truth 😂
Glad it wasn't a problem with the booster, fixing the comms should be quite easy I imagine
@@SterlingArchimedes Why would he lie about something that simple? Your Musk Derangement Syndrom is showing.
@@SterlingArchimedeswhat he said about the comm issue is probably true, considering the smooth accurate landing of the booster to the sea surface.
@@SterlingArchimedes In business, you always want to over promise expediency because, while people don't like delays, they really don't care that much. If you're 100% honest about everything, then you'll just demoralize people right off the bat and, since most people think you're being untruthfully optimistic, they'll just assume reality is far worse than it really is.
If Musk promises you a Mars landing in 10 years but does it in 15, then its no big deal. If he promises you a Mars landing in 15 years and does it, then you'll spend those 14 years assuming that it'll take 20 years instead.
Come, Mister Space ship, carry me banana. Daylight come and me wan' go home.
I love how the video is titled What exactly happened And then halfway through the video you say that you can't say what exactly happened.
One small step for a banana. One giant leap for bananakind.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Does this mean that Musk technically ownes the $10 000 000 000 000 000 dollar asteroid? LOL
wait is that for banana or for "a" banana?
Let me commission a 35 million$ study to find out (conclusively this time)!
monkeynana slumbernana reference?
Starship just keeps looking more and more epic!!! 😎
Just like your mother
In what way? The look has been pretty constant for a while.
It's more and more of an epic waste. Wasteful environmental disaster.
Apollo engineers designed their ship to perfection and landed on the moon in their 5th flight. Starship hasn't done a full orbit or survived reentry. Best believe reentry dynamics returning from the moon are much more severe than a sub orbital flight.
@@SterlingArchimedes What have you built in your life, loser?
@SterlingArchimedes not to mention Starship will require about 15 individual launches to get to the Moon 😂
The nose dive is probably the single most important capability to make ship catches possible. Without some ablility to use the atmosphere to navigate to their target, there simply wouldnt be enough control authority to get the precision needed to approach the tower. Remember booster is not going anywhere near as fast when its in space so the gridfins and chines dont need to compensate for the very large error margins you get from traveling mach 23 with almost no control. Shuttle acheived it because it was a big ass glider. The wings dominated the craft to make targeted landing possible.
I would guess its more important to overshoot the tower in the case of landing abort, becuase it was quite acurate the last time as well, but i am not sure.
@schmijo That probably depends on how much they are able to vary the overall drag coefficient of the vehicle for targeting, given that a portion of the flaps range of motion is likely constrained to solely maintain stability. EG, without some flap action, the ship would dive butt first.
Nothing went wrong. It was a test fight. An early test flight at that.
SN 042 on the landed Starship (renders), wow! Where are we now, 034?
Yes there's atomic oxygen in Earth's ionosphere, but that's not the point. As I understand it, the point is that Mars is mostly CO2, so when you break everything into simple ions you have 2/3 oxygen, atoms (ions), whereas in Earth's 78% N2 atmosphere, the atomic species are only 20% oxygen atoms. @1:30
And yet there is STILL stupid people that deny that space even exists........
If they decide to place a tanker in orbit, they may want to include solar panels and multiple Ionic thrusters to keep it stable and to adjust for better connections in transferring the fuel (oxygen & methane). A permanent Starship-sized tanker could be refilled with Falcon 9 in increments or an additional Starship. Having a permanent tanker orbiting would greatly assist in future endeavors.
I guess the pushed back flaps and the shorter chopsticks will help with the catch. The flaps would be in the way during the decend and the chopstick would make the problem even harder. So both could also have to do with the catch and not only with inertia and heat. It might serve both purposes.
Lolol starship season 1...so accurate
That stainless steel buckling and wrinkling did not look good for reuse. It gives confidence that the vehicle will make it down. Going back up again is a different story tho.
Welp, now they know to keep tiles there :)
It seemed like the best option to me. Going out and dismantling an old can in the middle of the tower would be disastrous.
May the fish benefit from it.
@@AttilioG exactly, plus it’s a “throwaway ship” because they’re ready for V2, so they may as well put some risky experiments on it
Journey before destination! Bridge Four!! Great series! lol
Great explanation 👌
Thanks for the info!
Your videos are so good
02:10 lol editing fail
and at 09:28 too
Something tells me they shouldn't have strapped the banana down from 4 points. You couldn't tell if it was actually zero g's.
If you look carefully you can see a bit of slack of the straps, but overall yeah I agree.
the camera isnt 360° it can go past camera
When do you think star ship will realistically reach operational phase
It was a problem with the tower/chopsticks that prevented the catch attempt
Communication problem with the tower
I dont think anyone thought the nose down maneuver would actually break up the ship... we watched the first ship do 3 endos after having a massive hole blown in it 😅 after it made it easily through reentry anyone whos been paying attention was like hey it was successful
If the tower’s beacon is on that antennae that slanted over 5 10 feet, that could very easily have caused the abort. If Mission Control picks up that the tower isn’t saying that it is where it’s supposed to be saying that it is I would abort the catch too
I like this channel. Great content, great insight.
The big question is “Can Space X and Blue Origin complete their NASA Human Landing System Contracts and safely land NASA astronauts near the lunar South Pole before China’s lands their first crewed mission at the lunar South Pole?”
This is awesome
Is it just me, or does the Block 2 Starship have an "Expanse" vibe going on there?
There will be a very smug engineer pointing out the heat buckling on the side of the ship occures exactly where they said there should be tiles.
I own Sennheiser headphones, I can wear them all day, and they still are comfortable, look at them.
Basically, nothing went wrong, elonmusk said that they lost coms on the tower, so out of abundance of caution, they redirected heavy for a soft water landing
Well in a sense stuff did go wrong (such as the coms loss) but that just means they know the problem exists and can work to fix it in future missions 😃
You don't JUST get to land on the Moon. You also get the Penthouse Suite!
A nice ICBM
If the booster fails then they can direct it to the ocean. But if starship fails what will they do if crew are on board?
Pretty sure it was a real banana I think they wanted to test how airtight the cargo they is
What's going to stop those ridiculous things from falling over if they do manage to land on the Moon after their 20 launches per lander?
What will they do if the elevators stop working on the moon?
What happens to all the starships that end up in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Western Australia? Are they retrieved or left to sink?
How can anyone call this a successful flight/landing? It tipped over and blew up!
The ship was meant to, they wanted to land it in the ocean without recovering it. It would obviously explode due to the mixture of hot steel and cold water. This was known. The booster had to abort, but in the case of an ocean landing, that was expected too, for the same reason.
So, at arrival, you is gonna have a precaurcause of a schip....?
I want to see the banana! Is it safe?
After the burning stopped, did starship remain afloat?
Doubtful, the starship split in two
Also is there any info from the tests that give us an indication of the price per pound? For the starship
~£13.77 for V2, ~£8 for V3. Assuming a £2,000,000 launch cost and a 150t capacity for V2 and a 230t capacity for V3
Does anybody know where Elon's secret cloning lab is?
I know
8:07 THEY WANT $75 FOR A STICKER
Starship block TUAH!
Elon worried to much about government and took his attention away from
Poll: HLS landing before 2028?
Demo? Yes. Artemis III? Maybe not, with the pace of NASA. Not their fault tho, budget and all that.
@Skye-Was-Taken How about the pace of SpaceX? They promised early 2024 for the first dry run moon landing. I don't expect them to be ready till at least 2027, bc so much left to be worked out. Their design process is completely unlike NASA's. First time the Space Shuttle flew, it was human flight, and it wasn't part of a lengthy series of experiments to get it right. They did the research on the ground, and it worked. SpaceX have applied agile rapid development but the technology needs better incubating.
SPAM, "What Exactly Happened On SpaceX's SIXTH Starship Test Flight!", U didn't know, shame on u, click baiter
the landing gear looks far to small for starship to land on the moon
Very low gravity on the moon so it doesn't need hefty landing legs. That said it will probably be much wider set to increase stability.
The sturdiness of the landing gear isn't the issue. The topple over lander concept is the real worry.
Rest assured, this will never land on the moon
lotsa less gravity
You’re gonna eat your words when it lands, buddy ;)
Actually, a minimum of 15 launches might be needed to execute a full Artemis III lunar landing (just for HLS alone), including the necessary refueling in Earth orbit before heading to the Moon.
Several Starships are required to maintain a launch schedule to prevent burn-off of the fuel. One starship as an orbital fuel depot, and several more required to refuel and yet another to leave on the Moon.
What a stupid idea.
Meanwhile, SLS has already been to the Moon and back in one, single, successful launch.
I agree, would it not be more logical to develop space based construction of ship components so you don't need to send this behemoth into orbit with all the associated issues?
Troll, let me dare to feed you, as i explain the difference that you so conveniently ignore. SLS CAN ONLY TAKE A SMALL CAPSULE. Tiny, insignificant, four people at max. Exactly the minimum food requirement, maybe a rover (still in doubt) and a couple thousand pounds for tools, water, experiments etc. That's in ONE launch. To take enough material to build (much less maintain) a base there you need a minimum of 120tons per launch. SLS to moon is just over 49 tons and that isn't accounting for the capsule and orbiter. Thats 2.3 billion for a single use rocket with a two year turnaround time to launch a new one. STARSHIP can take over 140 tons to the moon (possibly more with v2) with orbital refueling, having expended all its fuel initially to make orbit cause earth gravity is a biatch. Something SLS cant do in part because of the different materials and fuel type it uses. Starship is planned to be reusable, much shorter and less expensive turnaround time. 15 launches of starship, vs 40 ish launchs of SLS for the same cargo volume to the moon. Starship costs a max of 400mil to construct and is mostly reusable meanwhile SLS is 2-3 billion to launch once. SLS is a rocketry achievement to be sure (especially with congress screwing up the entire program the whole way through) but starship is CURRENTLY the most efficient, technologically advanced, cost effective option on the table for long-term moon presence.
they have different mission tho but hey just keep that out to justify your argument 😂
1.51 in and hit stop.
How come?
10:07
👒
😁
👕(red)
🩳
👡👡
The starship is doomed
That looks like five
love u
SO WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED????
Your title got me to click on what turns out to be a b.s. lie buddy.
Too much of a sponsor commercial this one is...
Human landding..., where are they gonna start testing this, and where are they planning to land...?, by when, next decade...?
Go get a aerospace engineering degree and help them then if your complaining 😂😂😂
👎
“What went Wrong”
Is a misleading title
Where is the other guy?
1 min ago! Lets see what great thing you made.
The idea there's a flat area on the moon with no boulders where they can land that thing without it falling over is delusional.
There are plenty of reasonably flat areas to land, remember there are high resolution topological scans of the surface now so finding a landing site is not hit and miss as it was back in the 1960's.
They don't really need a totally flat surface to land. I think there's going to be enough clearance, created by the extended/deployed landing legs, between the bottom of the ship and whatever surface they land on. Bottom of ship could be way higher than whatever boulder on the landing surface. Plus, having self-leveling, hydraulic-powered or electric-actuated legs could help in mitigating landing surface unevenness.
@@okirooju3787 If you think this thing can land on an incline of more than a few degrees with that narrow landing gear and not fall over you're out of you're mind.
@@schrodingerscat1863 How the fuck would you know? Have you ever looked at photos and topographic maps of the moon? And that's not even starting on the boulder issue.
@FranklinRatliff maybe I'm out of my mind, but certainly not the SpaceX engineers who obviously are a lot smarter than both you and me.
I still stand by my earlier comment. Those landing legs are gonna get 'shoes' I can almost guarantee, will deploy to extend to an area wider than the ship by some meters.
Alguém assistindo??🚀🚀🚀🚀
🇪🇪🇧🇷🇺🇲🇧🇷🇪🇪🇺🇲🇧🇷🇧🇷🇪🇪🇧🇷🇺🇲🇧🇷🇪🇪🇪🇪🇧🇷🇪🇪
Great 🚀 launch
SpaceX's sixth Starship test flight featured a compromised heat shield, new flight profile, and successful engine relight in space. The ship survived re-entry and performed a controlled water landing, paving the way for future orbital flights with the new Block 2 design.
Thanks for the spoiler. Bad bot
Starship is a joke. You need 15 launched to go to the Moon and up to 100 launched to go to Mars. What a joke 😃
@@willmurphy3012how’s the weather in China?
Lame Stream Media said it ''Successfully Crashed into the Indian Ocean.'' Did it have crash dummies on board? Was it a crash test? India said, "What the Hell are you guys doing in our ocean?"
Space X mission failed because they rushed the ship thus landed in water and exploded and starship landed in water and exploded
Nerd
The 6th flight was a total failure flight that none of the crafts really survived. When they have no technical development or hitting bottleneck of development. They played this kind of trick to stall the progress to divert the focus of the public. They already did this kind of failure flights a couple times landing into the indian ocean for nothing.
You’re new here, aren’t you?
@@Skye-Was-Taken I don't know if there's a group or side here.
@@georgeclooney5316 wdym
@@georgeclooney5316 basically, they had 1 V1 starship left, but it wouldn’t be worth going for orbit because they’re moving to V2 after this and that works different, so they may as well put some risky experiments on it, such as the heat shield tiles. Next flight, they’ll likely go for a full orbit, catch the booster, then does it and land the ship off the coast of starbase, then on the flight after that, they’ll catch the ship if all goes well. For the ocean landings, the goal was never to recover them. The night recover the ship that lands off the coast of starbase tho
@@Skye-Was-Taken This thing looks very unreliable. Each time it reentered to the atmosphere. Its flaps always burned out. If it were manned missions. Shit could happen. Technically. this big-cock ship burnt out in all six flights. Never succeeded. It has just never landed once successfully. Still too far from completion. Logically, there's no point to let it keeps splashing into the Indian ocean without even landing it once safely for proofing its reliability first to the public. Therefore, there must have some technical difficulties behind for now. As a result, they can only keep splashing it into the indian ocean repeatedly and made up some excuses such as "testing its durability" or some sorts. They are just keep making excuses for the failure and the no-break-thru situations. That cock-ship couldn't land even once safely is what we see.
What went wrong was the fact that tRump was there. Lets keep politicians ( especially felons ) and SpaceX separate.
Go take your TDS meds. 💩
Good to have President-elect Donald Trump showing interest in SpaceX. Political will is necessary for the moon & Mars so the more interest by politicians, the better.
He won the popular vote and it’s common knowledge that the Democrats used lawfare to try to stop him from winning the presidency so that “convicted felon” label falls flat these days.
A felon that you've spent the last four years looking for evidence to convict. And is he a felon? Where's his conviction then?
@@okirooju3787 He's guilt of being a meanie to the most evil group of people the world has ever seen.
@ Donald Trump was recently convicted in a New York court case related to the Stormy Daniels hush money payments, it's important to note that this case is far from over. Trump's legal team is appealing the conviction, and the sentencing has been delayed while the appeal process plays out. Given the resources and legal expertise at Trump's disposal, it's not unlikely that the conviction could be overturned. In fact, some legal experts have speculated that the case against Trump may be vulnerable to appeal on various technical grounds. So, while Trump has been convicted in this case, the final outcome is still very much in question,it is highly likely that he ultimately avoids a felony conviction.
Since President elect Trump received a huge electoral victory recently and when the popular vote, most people either don’t care or don’t believe all of the court cases against Trump due to the Democrats obvious use of lawfare to try to prevent Trump from running.
Your videos are always so funny and exciting! Thank you for your creativity and your ability to make us laugh!♂️😜🌑
Your videos are always original and of high quality. Thank you for your ability to inspire and surprise!🐹🚕🎋
Wow, I didn't even watch this one. The combination of launches becoming routine and my absolute disgust for Elon Musk has put me off following this.
No one cares.😂
NO ONE CARES, SO GOODBYE AND PLEASE NEVER COME BACK 🗿
Why are you here, no one is interested in your opinion.
Because he dared to not go woke and embrace values that don't agree with your views? He has a right to any political affiliation he so chooses, just like you. If we have to give up our rights so you can have yours, what would that make you? You guys on the other side are a bunch of manipulators and hypocrites.
@okirooju3787 you forgot the most important thing
Being WOKE means 🤢🤮🤮🤮
Really? Even I know what happened with lost Comm./ twr antenna- this channel needs to try HARDER.