anyone who cries foul when they think a perfectly clear photo has been doctored, then gets excited about the highly distorted black swan photo has lost all credibility in my eyes.
And the black swan supporters likely havent watched the original video by bmlsb69 dated october 2016. Bmlsb69 is a flat-Earther but he filmed the rigs under both non-refractive and refractive conditions, resulting in an excellent self-debunk.
Having been in a few car accidents, it's worthy to note that afterwords I typically find the rear-view mirror laying in the floor. Yep, they are just glued to the windshield and can easily break off with heavy vibrations or extra g-forces. It makes total sense why they'd remove it. Same with the visors.
Heh, they can just fall off, without hard impacts, when a car is old due to temperature changes over the years. They are not bolted on, they are glued. Glue does not last forever.
You'd have to catch and use ALL of them in order to come up to weight. There is also the air in their heads needing to be deflated prior to launch as well.
@@KonradTheWizzardThe payload is not secured to the fairings which are jettisoned as soon as the rocket reaches an altitude with a density low enough to not cause issues with the payload.
This has to be one of the biggest straws flerfs have grasped. I guess they're going to say "we're just asking questions!" but aren't there bigger questions they could be asking? What a colossal waste of time even for them.
I just assumed that, while the plastic of the mountings was perfectly adequate for normal planetside use, several day/night cycles in a vacuum would make it friable and the fittings would eventually just snap off under thermal stress anyway.
Something to keep in mind: If the start shakes the blinds and mirrors loose, it might look stupid if they dangle around. If they actually break off, having them float away into space creates a risk to satelittes. You don't want your publicity stunt to backfire by having some satelitte get smashed by a pointless rearview mirrior hitting it at 8km/s.
I wondered about the glue that normally holds on mirrors freezing to near zero C and detaching, but the vibrations shaking it loose/off is a good reason for sure. I wonder if they measured the vibration on previous flights and removed or bolted down nearly everything that could break off.
@@h.a.9880reducing space junk seems like the most likely reason. You have probably 6g of acceleration on launch, plus the vibration, it's gonna fall off, be bouncing around until fairing separation, then it's space junk.
@@phillyphakename1255 Don't quote me on it, but I think most such rockets go somewhere between 2 and 3G (that's at least the acceleration manned spaceflight aims towards).
Flatzoid was one who declared it was CGI because the reflections of earth in the helmet were wrong and how easy it is to animate such scenes. When I pointed out how the reflections work out exactly, he demand that I tell him the name of the software they used to animate it, But I had never said or implied it was animated, it was real. Lol.
"The reflections are wrong and it's easy to CGI!" -"No, they match up exactly." "What software did they use, if you're so smart!" -"Um... are you asking me to tell you what software they used to fake something that I said was actually real?" Is that how that went down? I don't know if I could deal with that level of stupid in a conversation.
Both left and right rear view mirrors are still attached to the car. If they didn't want any unwanted rear views in the center mirror, why keep both side mirrors on? Whitsit is clutching at straws more and more, could it there are no real arguments left (if ever there was one).
I personally tracked the Falcon Heavy second stage with the Tesla attached to it out to a distance almost 8 times greater than the distance of the moon, over multiple nights for over a week after the launch, using telescopes around the world on the iTelescope network. I solved for the orbit just using my own tracking of the object and confirmed it traced back to the final burn of the second stage that sent it out of earth orbit. That burn was also observed from the ground and could be seen in at least one all-sky camera.
I thought that flerfers didn't believe a rocket could get past "the firmament." If that's the case, then there would have been no need to remove the mirror, because you're just going to fake everything anyway, and faking a reflection in a mirror would be a pretty trivial task for an effects artist to pull off. Speaking of effects artists, I'd like to know, where are the offices for the massive army of effects artists that would be needed to do all of this CGI work in order to fool the public? NASA would have to have a crew of effects workers that would rival the one Disney has for making Marvel movies. And then you'd have to have similar groups working for SpaceX, ESA, JAXA, etc. So, where do these effects artists work? What buildings are they in? Where do they source their hardware? What schools do they recruit from? Where do they post their job openings? How do they find another job doing CG effects work, since presumably they would be unable to use their work faking space imagery in their portfolios and demo reels? These are all things I'd like to know.
These questions, amongst other similar versions, have all been asked before. The consensus answers are usually “…”, or “ it’s all compartmentalised and NASA spends $100 trillion every minute to keep them on a retainer”.
To get a job at LucasFilm, you just need to have a massive gap on your resume. Everybody in the industry knows what it means, and the bigger the gap, the better an artist you are!
The conspiracy can only ever be as smart, skilled, etc. as the idiots uncovering it. So they're able to produce these highly detailed hoaxes but they always have obvious flaws.
"I have imagined a scenario where something could have been faked. Do I have evidence of this fakery? No. I just said I imagined it and that's as good as being true. Why do you ask?"
Yeah, there's a camera pointed straight behind the car from the front that shows way more than that little mirror would ever show , so I'm not sure how removing the mirror would be hiding anything .
@@kernicterus1233 Even if it was filmed in a studio , my point would still be valid and removing the mirror to try and hide anything would make zero sense .
I think if you take a random sample of "normal" people and tell them you are going to send a Tesla into space and you want them to work as a group to list a number of things you might remove or changes you might make, the sort of things like battery, brake disks, loosely attached/moveable items would come up. I'd think seatbelts too - I don't think you'd want those potentially flapping about and catching in/damaging things. Obviously you might expect a group of aerospace engineers to come up with more items for more sophisticated reasons. I guess they'd design a support system to hold the car against the very high forces it will experience during ascent and release it when required. I'd suspect they might want to remove shock absorbers (fluids inside?) and springs (which permit movement), so that the suspension is essentially rigid. The things the flat earthers are complaining about seem rather obvious in that context, and they seem unable to think themselves into the perspective of other people.
@@SloverOfTeuth with how much they claim perspective is the reason stuff vanishes bottom-up, despite perspective starting as an art technique to mimic 3d reality on 2d canvas, it makes sense they're unable to think themselves into the perspective of other people. they're also unable to think in 3d.
@@5peciesunkn0wn Yes, more than just a play on words. They all seem to suffer from an inability to visualise things that are, to them, abstract, including geometry and scale. I wonder if they simply lack the ability to form internal "models" of the world around them which are consistent with all the knowledge they are exposed to, and their thought processes are correspondingly inconsistent.
They are saying “unmodified car” like this adds any value. Sure the “unmodified” qualifier adds a lot of value for a record attempt of a production car, like speed records, or track records. So we often hear this phrase in media. But here they are using it like this is a requirement here as well:) Nobody cares if it is unmodified, nobody claims it is unmodified. Most people fully expect modifications to prepare it for a space launch, which is obviously not what the car was designed for.
I specifically remember seeing an article talking about the modifications that had to be made, including deflating the tires, draining all of the fluids, and removing the battery pack.
At the time of the launch, I wanted to try and verify this was actually happening. What I did was look closely at the globe in the background, and tried to figure out where we were - at the time I tried this, the background showed the area around the Indian ocean. I then went looking for weather satellite images from various other sources on the internet, and found an Indonesian TV channel that had hour-by-hour images of the cloud patterns for the weather of that day, taken by some geostationary satellite. The images from the Tesla launch and the weather satellite used by the Indonesian TV station matched very closely - I could see the same cloud spiral and patterns above the same areas. So these were two quite independent sources that matched up - it would be pretty hard for SpaceX to create a hoax that also involved all weather satellites in use to show the same cloud patterns.
Ah, the Flerfer would counter: those weather satellites are not there either as that would prove you can send an object high above the atmosphere. Sometimes you cannot win.
@@ianstopher9111 or they claim the satellites are just balloons. Despite the fact balloons cannot travel predictable courses like satellites, nor are the balloons holding them aloft invisible. Aaaaand there's the fact that satellites are much too big for balloons, bigger than balloons, and since they're nigh impossible to see outside 'shiny light' or whenever they cross the moon or sun and certainly not visible during the day (unlike a certain balloon that flew over the US), they cannot be balloons.
Yeah, rear view mirrors do come off pretty often. Wouldn't want that rattling around in the compartment as it launches. And taking it off does give a better view. Love the wheel details though. I mean they must have watched that video of the pre-flight uncovering and skipped right by that part to get the shot of the right front tire in their mime. Incompetent, or deceitful. You decide.
@MrJustinOtis With that car he also doesn't seem like a fan of being able to open your damn car without power, or safety and efficiency too(quite ironic for someone said to care so much about Earth)
The quality of your debunking is awesome. I respect your ability to find footage that specifically negates the flerf claims. I have no idea how you find time to do that.
vibrations and numerous forces during take off would have undoubtedly jarred the rear view mirror into some obscure position. That may have ended up in such a position to cause unwanted glare which ruins what would have been a very nice shot. The visors would almost certainly ended up in some funky positions that would have looked awful on a publicity shot. sure could have perhaps glued them in a set position but why run the risk, just remove them . simple’s!
Saw a flat earther showing a glitch in the Livestream as proof. Saying "why'd the earth glitch and not the car?" I'm not even a professional, and I can tell the specific glitch happening is showing the data differences between two frames in the video. Common in livestream video of any kind. So: 1) The earth only glitches because it's the only part of the image moving or changing. 2) The car DOES glitch. The shadows move and change slightly. Just much less, because it's centered and stabilized in frame. The difference between frames for the car is minimal.
The "shakey shakey during liftoff makes the mirror a dangerous object" was the 1st thing I thought of and is so obvious, too. Seriously, these flat Earth folks are just so sad.
I doubt that too, but I think it would be viewed as an unnecessary risk, so more likely, the valve cores were removed so that the tires would not hold pressure. It's not like they have any need for them, anyway, cause where they're going, they won't need roads.
I like how you don't just TOTALLY DISREGARD the opposition but rather explain it plainly. We have TOO MUCH FIGHTING as is, so it's nice to see someone with a different opinion explaining it without being a dick!! You're awesome!!
In addition, anything that had ever held fluids was also most likely removed because of out-gassing in a vacuum. Even oils not designed for vacuum operation will out-gas and coat optics in space.
It would be impossible for me to do what Jeran and Witsit do and face my family and friends. Either they’re easily fooled or (more likely) they are con artists. Either is embarrassing.
@mjjoe76 Which is why Chris, CC from... does his vids in his car after his wife called him pathetic. But WHO wouldn't have edited that out? Idjurs like him!
Just a point of note, that roadster was not fElons, it was the car promised to Marc Tarpenning, and Elon yeeted it to spite him. -EDIT- My mistake, it was in fact Martin Eberhard's roadster that fElon yeeted into space.
2 reason for the mirror and the visors: First, everything on the windscreen is usually designed to harmlessly break off. This is good given the alternative is implantation. Second: the mirror contains a sealed cavity, forming a prism, so you can put it in anti blinding mode at night. The visors usually have their upholstery ultrasonically welded together, giving a quick, cheap, dirtproof and neat seam. As such they are also sealed cavities. This could have been solved by drilling holes in them, but that wouldn't solve the massive vibration and acceleration problems. Removing them seems way easier and less intrusive than other solutions, especially given that this was done on one of Elongated Muskrats famous whims.
The mirrors were removed for the second reason you listed. They would have 100% fallen off during the launch and once that fairing opens it would have jettisoned said debris into space. Something that size isn’t trackable by NASA or any agency either, it’s the same reason we have to be extra careful not to drop small items while out on EVA around the space station.
6:00 Ah yes, they removed the small planar mirror to prevent reflections of the earth, but of course didn't have to worry about the massive reflective compound surfaces all over the thing.
The third option for the rear view mirror is that it was sealed and bringing it into space would have caused a pressure differential similar to the tires.
Mirrors are glued to a windshield and might not stick on with launch vibrations. There is also the chance that any air bubbles stuck in said glue would make it even more likely to pop off. I have no idea how roadster visors attach but if it was like they could move to random positions or detach that is a valid reason for removal.
I doubt the tires would have exploded. The difference in pressure between sea level and space is 14.6 psi. The tires would have been as if they were 14.6 psi overinflated. That shouldn't make a tire explode.
I agree that the tires shouldn't explode. However, what would be gained by not letting some air out? And would you like to be the safety engineer who must write a document explaining why it's OK to have tyre pressures above the manufacturer-specified maximum pressures and the air shouldn't be let out? It seems quicker and easier to just let some air out.
Oh boy, oh boy, isn't it the best time ever when you come home from work, hungry, and the first thing you see on youtube is another Dave McKeegan video?!!!
The mirror is attached by a mastic that might not have been able to withstand the launch g-load and remain attached. Why is the Earth the only flat object yet every other body is a sphere except asteriods.
The tires wouldn't have exploded. I'm kind of disappointed in your statement. Tires are pressurized to 2atm, which is actually 3atm because it's measured in relation to the atmosphere on the surface. In space they'd experience true 3atm. Go to a gas station and pump your tires to 3atm. They won't explode. Not with 4atm, not with 5atm either.
You are failing to take into account temperature differences with will affect the performance of the tire's materials. Can a tire withstand the pressure differential when it's cooled down to very low temperatures when facing away from the sun? Can it withstand them when being heated directly by the sun? If you're an engineer preparing the car, you don't want to find out *during* the flight, so you don't take any risks and cut the valves off. Especially since there's no point in them being inflated in the first place. The explanation makes perfect sense.
@@Javalar I don't argue with the idea of deflating the tires. I just don't think the quick hand wave explanation of 'they would've exploded' is a good one.
I mean, it's valid if overly simplistic explanation. I think the engineers looked at the tires, and figured that accounting for how they might or might not work under pressure in space was not worth the effort or risk, and opted to play it safe. Could they have exploded? Maybe, maybe not, but it couldn't be easily ruled out.
I wonder if its TFoot or CSS that came up with the idea that the Roadster belong to Eberhard? Can't figure out where they got that idea. The launch was 10 years after the Roadster was released. Eberhard was removed from the company before then.
Slightly unrelated but I’ve just heard about the Ocean Globe Race on the news and the fact they have to use sextants to navigate and no GPS. Worth a video on how they could achieve this on a flat earth maybe.
The whole premise is ridiculous. If you're adding the globe in cg, you would need to create a CG car to render the reflections in anyway and then composite them over the real car, in which case, it's easier to just create a fully CG scene. No modified car required. 😂
@@clivedavis6859 Well as it's a rag top I guessed didn't have AC, And the Electric Motors have sealed bearings, But if it has wet lubrication system it would need draining.
@@dogwalker666 you mean like an auto version of the ones you used to manually twist a knob? Yeah there's electronic ones that have a liquid that reacts to the current and darkens.
@@DaveMcKeegan 01:30 the disk not there (as clearly seen in your video just before and after) so they stopped and took it out before the launch why? I donk know how you missed that! with musks habitual lies of what hes done you are silly to trust anything he claims!
I watched it live and even as it was broadcasting flerfs were trying to debunk it as greenscreen. I took screenshots and highlighted parts that show a) it can't be greenscreen, and b) no lens distortion to make the Earth look curved.
Your first sentence reminds me of the Iridium 4 launch in California several years back. In case you don’t remember, that was one of the first launches in California for some time that had the “twilight effect” occur - meaning the plume was visible from several states. I remember people were freaked out about the plume and tried to claim the explanation of “it was a rocket” was a coverup. I pointed out that not only had I see the launch live, but I knew this launch would occur for several days ahead of time. Quite impressive to cover up an event that hasn’t happened yet by planning a rocket launch to occur at the same time
I imagine they think the entire industry of satellites is somehow fake. Companies paying a hundred million dollars or so for a satellite and launch are really supposed to be balloons, lol.
AFAIK about everything that could move or break was removed, the rest was glued firmly. There was no time to qualify the car for space in a proper manner. So, the tires: yes they likely could handle the pressure, but either you spend a few hundreds of thousands on testing that (vacuum chamber, solar light heating, etc.) to be sure (the launch costed likely in the hundred millions range, and failing it because a tire explodes despites "it should handle it" and fragments break a vital part of the rocket is not something one wants), or you just cut the valves. They choose. That logic was applied everywhere.
I actually learned something today. I didnt know it was for test flight. Also,for some reason i though it's toy car and not full scale car. Everything makes sense now. Cheers.
Dave, at about 04:30 in this video... *_"So SpaceX needed a dummy payload to give a more accurate representation of a typical launch."_* Putting a bunch of FLAT EARTHERS would have made a better _dummy payload._ 😉
I do so love 2001 a Space Odyssey(1968) when I see the scene at the start with the hairy proto humans hitting each other the head with animal bones I shout look "Flat earthers"
Also fits the scene in History of the World, Part One, where the hairy proto-humans gain enlightenment, stand up on two legs...and immediately sit back down.
I wondered if they were inspired by the opening scene from Heavy Metal, that car does not have a rear view mirror nor visors. They should have played "Radar Riders" by Riggs.
Although true, I'm not sure you should have said the tires would explode, albeit only likely. I've had similar discussions with many of flerf. They tend to think that vacuums are "powerful" bc they watched tankers implode on youtube U or whatever not realizing its only the outside pressure itself doing the crushing. Anyway, an ordinary tire inflated to 35 PSI in a vacuum(- the 14 PSI) is the equivalent of inflating it to 49 PSI which is only a little(5ish PSI) above such a tires recommended max pressure for safe usage but, still that should be nowhere near definitely popping instantly(if ever) like flerfs say. It is true however that with such extreme temperature/radiation fluctuations as there indeed is in space, the tires materials would VERY likely fail, & rather quickly. So it is a correct statement, just not for the reason of being in a 💪 vacuum like many flerfs claim.
My favorite flat Earth dismissal of the Roadster is when they see footage of the rocket fairings separate and sunlight suddenly fills the camera, they think it's a glitch. No, that's the camera going from a dark interior to a bright environment as the fairings get blown away.
@mikemallon1065 So "they" are so clever that they fake everything with CGI, but are so incompetent that they leave in glitches that any fule can see? Which is it? And oddly enough, those glitches are exactly like the glitches in realtime videos I see on my phone.
Hello Dave. I am not sure about your claim with the tires in space exploding. The rear tires of a Tesla Roadster have are filled up to 40 psi (2.75 bar). The atmosphere itself provides 14.5 psi (1 bar). So we have a difference of 25.5 psi (1.75 bar). In space it is the full pressure (40 psi in our example). Tires can be pressured up to three, four or five times the normal pressure until exploding (or slipping of the rim). So we had 120 psi minus the atmospheric pressure of 14.5, 105.5 in total.
You're failing to take into account the material changes the tire would experience as the temperature fluctuates violently as the car goes from sunlit to shadowed.
@@sorceryfarm6535 sure. They will likely get really hot and really cold. But tires are designed for wildly fluctuating temps. Yes they would eventually fail but perhaps due to outgassing (making the rubber brittle) on not temperature. You would be surprised by what can withstand being dunked in liquid nitrogen.
I just watched a video that took this car as one possible reason, why no alien has shown up on earth. When they see someone using a convertibel in space, they may think: "No, those guys are not clever, we better move on to the next system!"
Its all just weight reduction. They had a figure for the ballast load and someone (probably Musk) had a lightbulb moment that it was pretty close to the weight of his car. So, they trimmed it down until it made weight.
Flat earthers asking for a space lunch with multiple cameras on, capturing footage from various angles, then bitching about it when they get what they asked for…
Occam's razor... anybody with common sense would and/or should jump to the conclusion that the visors in the mirror would be removed because they could easily become detached... flailing around etc...
The mirror may have been removed because the Sun's rays reflecting in the mirror may have been hot enough to melt parts of the car's interior. The shades may have been removed because, as you say, there are some pretty strong vibrations during lift off and they may have flipped down and looked a bit annoying once the car was free in space.
It's obvious they removed them to maximise the camera view through the windscreen...& you're in space ffs so the only thing 'behind' you would be the Earth or the Moon 😂
I honestly think maximizing the view was secondary. With the intense acceleration and vibration of a rocket launch, you really, really, really don't want anything to be loose in any way. The mirror would have easily been ripped off by the launch, and probably the visors as well, those forces are intense.
The problem I have with FE is that it is so damn lazy. They will jump at anything and try to plant suspicion without putting in the effort required to substantiate their own claims… like simply googling footage from before the launch, which Dave did. You want to prove FE? Get together and collectively build your own rocket. Hopefully it will have gone better than the last guy that tried it…
What makes this particularly hilarious is that the flerfers did not bother to mention, or didn't notice, the side view wing mirrors. They're still there, and still reflective. Also, they don't address the obvious issue of the fact that there are cameras pointed in opposite directions. It is ridiculous to believe that the mirror would show things it shouldn't, when there is an entire camera aimed in that direction. Plus, my opinion is that if there was any sort of conspiracy, there would be no SpaceX. Why would you have faked livestreams? Why would you have so many launches? If you were trying to keep a secret, having this much fake stuff would be needless risk. Every bit of faked footage has the potential of having something go wrong, and blowing the whole thing wide open. So, you'd try to minimize the amount of footage. Obviously, the flatbrains think that the footage is riddled with errors, when it isn't, but fail to ask the far more important questions. Incidentally, no Flat Earthers have tried to fake anything, to show how it could be done. Actually, I think that somebody like Elon should try and fake a launch, just to see what it would take. I don't think it could work. CGI is amazing, but I don't think it would be possible to fake a launch with it.
They took off unnecessary items to reduce the weight, and altered it for safety and space travel, therefore the video is fake? Thank you for doing the thinking through that these two flerfs should have done themselves.
No where near too heavy. Falcon Heavy was the most powerful rocket on the planet by far at the time. Even with recovering all three boosters, which they attempted, it could still launch around 5tons to TMI, where the car was headed. The Roadster only weighs 1.5t.
The simple answer is mundane. The airbags were removed as they'd get set off. Afaik the loom across the top of the windscreen means someone given this job would unplug that branch of the wiring harness, remove the things on it from the body (shades + mirror) then slap the cover back on.
Have you seen Back To The Future II? They also removed a rear view mirror from Biff’s 1955 car in one scene in a garage where old Biff meets young Biff. The scene was a split screen shot with camera looking at the actor sitting in the car through the windshield with the camera on the hood of the car. The mirror was removed because it was distracting in that shot, partly blocking the performance. Probably the same reason here.
I wonder what Flat Earthers would say about this ... "The next close approach to Earth is expected to happen sometime in 2047 at a distance of 5 million kilometers. Eventually, Musk's Roadster will likely crash into either Earth, Venus or the Sun, according to estimates by Hanno Rein, an astrophysicist at the University of Toronto in Canada."
NASA has often used concrete as a test payload. Musk's roadster in space (inspired by the cult classic animated anthology film, "Heavy Metal") was far more interesting.
From what I remember on Falcon 1 they used a wheel of cheese. Although some also choose the option of some dummy masses and the "hey I can get few smaller satellites to space cheap, but not guaranteed that it will entirely work".
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a rear-view mirror attached to the glass by means of a suction cup? As in: for exactly the same reason they let the air out of the tires so they would not explode in a vacuum, the mirror would not stay attached through the means of the vacuum which the suction cup provides?
@@critthought2866 yes, what I accidentally did was rely on the google search result, I forgot to google for information that could explain the facts to me. Which ended up with me being wrong. The first view 1000 search results were mostly car shops trying to sell cheap replacement mirrors. The actual facts about rearview mirrors told me they are indeed glued. And that annoyed me, because I am constantly upset with people who think Google is a: "the correct answer machine" Instead of a "search engine". And now I did the same..
Another possibility for the removed windshield accessories is that they may have been held to the glass only with adhesive. (Not sure on the visors, but many rear view mirrors on cars are simply glued to the windshield). In space, the much harsher solar radiation would destroy the visually "exposed" adhesive and the parts would have fallen off anyway, and to reduce a small bit of space junk they have control over, opted not to keep them on. The windshield itself is also glued onto the car frame, but windows always have that blacked out border to protect it.
There is a chance they replaced the glass with something like Polycarbonate to prevent it from being cracked on tack off. Then never remounted a mirror. Cause why?
It could still fall off. The glass is an issue, but the mirror structure itself along with the sun visors could’ve fallen off their mounts during launch
There is an awful lot of time and energy being expended debunking flat earthers. All you need to do is give them a sweetie, pat them on the head, and say, "don't worry, mummy will explain it to you when you grow up."
that's a good joke, but in fact, all flat earthers are CROOKS, and motivated entirely by MALICE. in other words, they know exactly what they are doing, and the insanity defence won't work.
They have also complained that the rear facing camera should show the top of the rocket, not the Earth, not understanding that the Roadster is mounted at an angle rather than pointing in the same direction as the rocket. A thirty second Google search would have shown this to them but that's too much to ask.
put an object that is reflective almost all sides, and some stupid comes and tells they removed a mirror because it would reflect something. what a great discovery.
On the rear-view mirror and the sun visors, having worked in the space industry, I suspect they probably put the 'payload' car on a shake table and just tightened anything that was coming lose or chucked anything they couldn't. Pretty standard to do so in the industry, although the car isn't a standard payload. They probably didn't want random pieces of debris floating about in the shot or damaging any of their sensors. In an interesting note I would say the batteries were removed more due to expansion of the electrolyte, lithium batteries are 'wet' cells so always expand to some extent. For satellites they use the soft cell type so they can expand without breaking the casing, they also add a bit of leeway to connectors to allow for the expansion.
A few notes on the logic here: The mirror being removed does not prove that its presence would have unveiled some secret knowledge. Musk/SpaceX lying about the car being modified does not prove that the launch was faked. The launch being faked does not prove that the earth is not a globe. I can absolutely understand how it feels like all of these things logically follow from each other, but they do not, because other explanations exist that may be true instead. When you're expected to take this many unjustified leaps in logic, the conclusion may not be as rock-steady as they feel like they are. It's motivated reasoning, trying to find a path to the conclusion you want to draw. And all of this is ignoring that the "car wasn't modified" comment was taken out of context and made to appear like it said more than it actually did. So in addition to strained logic, it's built on a lie (or mistake) from the ground up. It fails at every level.
It is highly doubtful whether the tyres would have exploded in space. If they were inflated to 30 psi then that is all they have to withstand in space, a very small pressure for road tyres.
I think they removed the stuff for the latter option. Don't forget on launch the stuff gets put under several g of accelleration. Stuff that is only connected by tiny pieces of plastic has a high risk of breaking off.
Almost correct. You are wrong about tires exploding in vacuum. In vacuum you have only +1 atm pressure diif compared to ground level. Tires easly will live with that.
I think it's more likely they didn't want the lithium battery blowing up or igniting inside the Falcon heavy during flight. The environmental effects of one battery, dissipated in the upper atmosphere would be minimal compared to the number of Tesla batteries that have burned to the ground in populated areas. Also, more weight requires more fuel, and the battery is the heaviest part of those cars.
Tyres exploding? A typical tyre pressure is 30-38 psi so why not just let out 14.7 psi? I think we might also find that many weight saving and space debris prevention measures were taken.
3:37 Correction: The tyres wouldnt have exploded in space. Google says the rear tyres are normally at 40psi so the pressure difference on Earth is 40-14=26 psi. In space that would increase to 40-0=40psi. This is equivalent to over inflating the tyres to 54psi on Earth. Apparently the tyres could withstand that but they let some air out anyway.
anyone who cries foul when they think a perfectly clear photo has been doctored, then gets excited about the highly distorted black swan photo has lost all credibility in my eyes.
They didn't lose any credibility. You can't lose something that you never had.
Edit to correct a misspelling.
And the black swan supporters likely havent watched the original video by bmlsb69 dated october 2016. Bmlsb69 is a flat-Earther but he filmed the rigs under both non-refractive and refractive conditions, resulting in an excellent self-debunk.
"Lose." @@Kualinar
@@Deletirium «lose» = American English.
«loose» = British/Canadian/international English.
Hint, I'm not an Unistater.
? Its lose in britain too 😂@@Kualinar
Having been in a few car accidents, it's worthy to note that afterwords I typically find the rear-view mirror laying in the floor. Yep, they are just glued to the windshield and can easily break off with heavy vibrations or extra g-forces. It makes total sense why they'd remove it. Same with the visors.
Til you watch videos relating to flat earth. That's interesting!
Heh, they can just fall off, without hard impacts, when a car is old due to temperature changes over the years. They are not bolted on, they are glued. Glue does not last forever.
They are intended to break off easily to reduce injury in case an unbelted passenger flies into one.
wow it's a small internet after all
Mine just fell off on day while driving. Nothing caused it, just fell off.
4:32 if SpaceX needed a "dummy payload", why didn't they just send a flat earther?? 🤔
You'd have to catch and use ALL of them in order to come up to weight. There is also the air in their heads needing to be deflated prior to launch as well.
@@chrismaverick9828 I think it is more because they are too dense and would blow out the payload limit.
The dummy payload for a rocket needs to be properly secured to the fairing. Flerfs are just too damn insecure, no matter how much you try. 🤪
@@KonradTheWizzardThe payload is not secured to the fairings which are jettisoned as soon as the rocket reaches an altitude with a density low enough to not cause issues with the payload.
@@finesse49 Sorry, rocket superstructure then? But then again if the "payload" is flerfs maybe they should be jettisoned with the fairings.
This has to be one of the biggest straws flerfs have grasped. I guess they're going to say "we're just asking questions!" but aren't there bigger questions they could be asking? What a colossal waste of time even for them.
they "ask questions" people answer them, they ignore the answers. lather, rinse, repeat.
Is it really? The biggest straw? More like the shortest/weakest if you ask me
@@t0rg3 I guess the analogy works both ways
Only if that's the ashes of a broken straw... Set in loose sand... And it's the shadow... Seen using a few mirrors.
The colossal waste of time generates them publicity (even bad publicity is good), and that generates them revenue.
I just assumed the mirror and visors were removed to give an unobstructed view through the windshield for the camera.
I just assumed that, while the plastic of the mountings was perfectly adequate for normal planetside use, several day/night cycles in a vacuum would make it friable and the fittings would eventually just snap off under thermal stress anyway.
Something to keep in mind: If the start shakes the blinds and mirrors loose, it might look stupid if they dangle around. If they actually break off, having them float away into space creates a risk to satelittes. You don't want your publicity stunt to backfire by having some satelitte get smashed by a pointless rearview mirrior hitting it at 8km/s.
I wondered about the glue that normally holds on mirrors freezing to near zero C and detaching, but the vibrations shaking it loose/off is a good reason for sure. I wonder if they measured the vibration on previous flights and removed or bolted down nearly everything that could break off.
@@h.a.9880reducing space junk seems like the most likely reason. You have probably 6g of acceleration on launch, plus the vibration, it's gonna fall off, be bouncing around until fairing separation, then it's space junk.
@@phillyphakename1255 Don't quote me on it, but I think most such rockets go somewhere between 2 and 3G (that's at least the acceleration manned spaceflight aims towards).
Flatzoid was one who declared it was CGI because the reflections of earth in the helmet were wrong and how easy it is to animate such scenes. When I pointed out how the reflections work out exactly, he demand that I tell him the name of the software they used to animate it, But I had never said or implied it was animated, it was real. Lol.
If it is so easy why doesn't he do it himself?
Another gotcha question from a flerfer. Life goes on... Rgr
"The reflections are wrong and it's easy to CGI!"
-"No, they match up exactly."
"What software did they use, if you're so smart!"
-"Um... are you asking me to tell you what software they used to fake something that I said was actually real?"
Is that how that went down? I don't know if I could deal with that level of stupid in a conversation.
@@chrismaverick9828 Yes, that's how it went. After that, I was one of the victims of his first purge.
@@clivedavis6859poor Flatdumb,you’ve clearly hurt his feelings 😢
Both left and right rear view mirrors are still attached to the car. If they didn't want any unwanted rear views in the center mirror, why keep both side mirrors on?
Whitsit is clutching at straws more and more, could it there are no real arguments left (if ever there was one).
He loves to ignore everything that answers his questions dude is as dishonest as they come.
"mirrors ?, where we're going we don't need mirrors" Excellent Debunk as ever Dave
They should have sent a Delorean up.
I personally tracked the Falcon Heavy second stage with the Tesla attached to it out to a distance almost 8 times greater than the distance of the moon, over multiple nights for over a week after the launch, using telescopes around the world on the iTelescope network. I solved for the orbit just using my own tracking of the object and confirmed it traced back to the final burn of the second stage that sent it out of earth orbit. That burn was also observed from the ground and could be seen in at least one all-sky camera.
That's freaking epic
"Nu-uuhhhhh!"
(typical Flerf response to ANY evidence)
I often refer the flerfs to your videos as "Proof" of rocket propulsion in a vacuum (another thing they deny)
How to flerf:
1. Find something you don't understand
2. Publicly claim that thing proves flat earth
3. Wait until challenged
4. Double down
5. Goto 3
If all else fails, 6. Lie
Let's not forget number 6. A book suggests the earth is flat so the earth is flat
Don't forget the part where you have to grift your viewers for donations and merch purchases.
If we could harness the infinite flerf confirmation bias loop, we'd have a clean (environmentally) source of free energy.
You missed the step where they try to discredit the person that challenged them with personal insults and attacks.
I watched just for the dog.
I miss mine; four weeks now R.I.P.
Sorry that your dog died. RIP
🐕💔
Ya Rusty is a great dog. So sweet
Springer spaniel? My mom had 5 or 6 sequentially, my daughter has her first. Sweet dogs.
Sorry man :(
I thought that flerfers didn't believe a rocket could get past "the firmament." If that's the case, then there would have been no need to remove the mirror, because you're just going to fake everything anyway, and faking a reflection in a mirror would be a pretty trivial task for an effects artist to pull off.
Speaking of effects artists, I'd like to know, where are the offices for the massive army of effects artists that would be needed to do all of this CGI work in order to fool the public? NASA would have to have a crew of effects workers that would rival the one Disney has for making Marvel movies. And then you'd have to have similar groups working for SpaceX, ESA, JAXA, etc.
So, where do these effects artists work? What buildings are they in? Where do they source their hardware? What schools do they recruit from? Where do they post their job openings? How do they find another job doing CG effects work, since presumably they would be unable to use their work faking space imagery in their portfolios and demo reels? These are all things I'd like to know.
These questions, amongst other similar versions, have all been asked before. The consensus answers are usually “…”, or “ it’s all compartmentalised and NASA spends $100 trillion every minute to keep them on a retainer”.
sod those questions, I just want to know how I get hired for that job (mind you in a few years it will all be AI generated stuff :( oh well)
To get a job at LucasFilm, you just need to have a massive gap on your resume. Everybody in the industry knows what it means, and the bigger the gap, the better an artist you are!
The conspiracy can only ever be as smart, skilled, etc. as the idiots uncovering it. So they're able to produce these highly detailed hoaxes but they always have obvious flaws.
Flerfer's Default Setting : "It's Fake"
C! G! I! 😉😂
That's the status of their mind.
Science is skepticism morons 😂😂😂
"I have imagined a scenario where something could have been faked. Do I have evidence of this fakery? No. I just said I imagined it and that's as good as being true. Why do you ask?"
Yep, then just gotta find something as the "reason" why they think that. Of course ignoring everything aside from that.
Yeah, there's a camera pointed straight behind the car from the front that shows way more than that little mirror would ever show , so I'm not sure how removing the mirror would be hiding anything .
Aaah, yes, that is probably a second car in studio 2 …
@@kernicterus1233 wow, good thing they have several dozen annexes at Area 51 ;)
@@kernicterus1233 Even if it was filmed in a studio , my point would still be valid and removing the mirror to try and hide anything would make zero sense .
@@TheOmegaXicor Do they ? How do you know ?
@@kernicterus1233 That's why they took the plates off the cars too, so people wouldn't realise it was several different cars.
Flat Earthers really forget to compute the consequence of their claims and reject basic consistency.
They don't forget; they just don't care... 🤪
Flat Earthera don't have a brain in order to think at all.
I think if you take a random sample of "normal" people and tell them you are going to send a Tesla into space and you want them to work as a group to list a number of things you might remove or changes you might make, the sort of things like battery, brake disks, loosely attached/moveable items would come up. I'd think seatbelts too - I don't think you'd want those potentially flapping about and catching in/damaging things. Obviously you might expect a group of aerospace engineers to come up with more items for more sophisticated reasons. I guess they'd design a support system to hold the car against the very high forces it will experience during ascent and release it when required. I'd suspect they might want to remove shock absorbers (fluids inside?) and springs (which permit movement), so that the suspension is essentially rigid. The things the flat earthers are complaining about seem rather obvious in that context, and they seem unable to think themselves into the perspective of other people.
@@SloverOfTeuth with how much they claim perspective is the reason stuff vanishes bottom-up, despite perspective starting as an art technique to mimic 3d reality on 2d canvas, it makes sense they're unable to think themselves into the perspective of other people. they're also unable to think in 3d.
@@5peciesunkn0wn Yes, more than just a play on words. They all seem to suffer from an inability to visualise things that are, to them, abstract, including geometry and scale. I wonder if they simply lack the ability to form internal "models" of the world around them which are consistent with all the knowledge they are exposed to, and their thought processes are correspondingly inconsistent.
They are saying “unmodified car” like this adds any value. Sure the “unmodified” qualifier adds a lot of value for a record attempt of a production car, like speed records, or track records. So we often hear this phrase in media. But here they are using it like this is a requirement here as well:)
Nobody cares if it is unmodified, nobody claims it is unmodified. Most people fully expect modifications to prepare it for a space launch, which is obviously not what the car was designed for.
right? what’s more plausible- reknowned liar elon musk is lying about this one car, or lying about the shape of the earth
I specifically remember seeing an article talking about the modifications that had to be made, including deflating the tires, draining all of the fluids, and removing the battery pack.
@@barb0za0 He isn’t lying about this car. The car is exactly as stated.
@@juzoli i meant this from the perspective of the doubters, they assume his “lies” mean the earth is flat and not that he “lied” for PR
@@barb0za0 true
Oh, those darn FACTS...🤦♂️
At the time of the launch, I wanted to try and verify this was actually happening. What I did was look closely at the globe in the background, and tried to figure out where we were - at the time I tried this, the background showed the area around the Indian ocean.
I then went looking for weather satellite images from various other sources on the internet, and found an Indonesian TV channel that had hour-by-hour images of the cloud patterns for the weather of that day, taken by some geostationary satellite.
The images from the Tesla launch and the weather satellite used by the Indonesian TV station matched very closely - I could see the same cloud spiral and patterns above the same areas.
So these were two quite independent sources that matched up - it would be pretty hard for SpaceX to create a hoax that also involved all weather satellites in use to show the same cloud patterns.
those weather sats are also what Dave used in a previous video about one of the ISS livestreams lol.
@@roh_son I mean. Launching a car into space as a test launch/publicity stunt is pretty out there.
Ah, the Flerfer would counter: those weather satellites are not there either as that would prove you can send an object high above the atmosphere. Sometimes you cannot win.
@@ianstopher9111 or they claim the satellites are just balloons. Despite the fact balloons cannot travel predictable courses like satellites, nor are the balloons holding them aloft invisible. Aaaaand there's the fact that satellites are much too big for balloons, bigger than balloons, and since they're nigh impossible to see outside 'shiny light' or whenever they cross the moon or sun and certainly not visible during the day (unlike a certain balloon that flew over the US), they cannot be balloons.
for a group that screams at everyone to do your own research, they really don't do much of their own do they
Their "research" consists entirely of watching CZcams videos.
@@alvin2021 That in itself is not so bad. The problem is they don't watch _educational_ videos.
@@Yehan-xt7cwdo hospitals put profits over patients?
Same bell used for anti-vaxxers...
"Do your own research," translated from Conspiracy Babble, means "find something that looks like it agrees with you, then stop there."
Wait. Another great video, Dave.
But I HAVE to ask -
These people actually TRIED to debunk a publicity stunt? A publicity stunt.
Come on!
Good point. And if The Illuminati wanted a Space Lord to fool us, Bezos would be a bit less troublesome than Musk.
The takeaway pizza is also missing from the passenger seat.
Yeah, rear view mirrors do come off pretty often. Wouldn't want that rattling around in the compartment as it launches. And taking it off does give a better view. Love the wheel details though. I mean they must have watched that video of the pre-flight uncovering and skipped right by that part to get the shot of the right front tire in their mime. Incompetent, or deceitful. You decide.
And Elon isn't a fan of rearview mirrors anyway. They've made it very easy to remove them in the Cybertruck in favor of using the backup camera.
OK, then I decide it´s both... Rgr
A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
@@Fred2-123 I see things. Sometimes it's in a rearview mirror. Sometimes it's in a backup camera.
@MrJustinOtis With that car he also doesn't seem like a fan of being able to open your damn car without power, or safety and efficiency too(quite ironic for someone said to care so much about Earth)
The quality of your debunking is awesome. I respect your ability to find footage that specifically negates the flerf claims. I have no idea how you find time to do that.
vibrations and numerous forces during take off would have undoubtedly jarred the rear view mirror into some obscure position. That may have ended up in such a position to cause unwanted glare which ruins what would have been a very nice shot.
The visors would almost certainly ended up in some funky positions that would have looked awful on a publicity shot. sure could have perhaps glued them in a set position but why run the risk, just remove them .
simple’s!
Amazing to see that Jism is still on the go! You might have thought that as every time he tries to debunk the globe earth, he ends up proving it! 😂😂😂
He does a pretty good job with his debate moderating and these days seems to be a rather charitable and decent guy. He's still an idiot.
Interesting
@@allgrainbrewer10 🤣🤣🤣👍
Your dog was totally not in the mood to be awake for the video xD.
Saw a flat earther showing a glitch in the Livestream as proof. Saying "why'd the earth glitch and not the car?" I'm not even a professional, and I can tell the specific glitch happening is showing the data differences between two frames in the video. Common in livestream video of any kind. So:
1) The earth only glitches because it's the only part of the image moving or changing.
2) The car DOES glitch. The shadows move and change slightly. Just much less, because it's centered and stabilized in frame. The difference between frames for the car is minimal.
The "shakey shakey during liftoff makes the mirror a dangerous object" was the 1st thing I thought of and is so obvious, too. Seriously, these flat Earth folks are just so sad.
3:34 I very much doubt the tires would explode when you add essentially 14.7psi to them.
I'd have lowered the pressure by just that amount... and would not be surprised if that's exactly what they did.
I doubt that too, but I think it would be viewed as an unnecessary risk, so more likely, the valve cores were removed so that the tires would not hold pressure.
It's not like they have any need for them, anyway, cause where they're going, they won't need roads.
@@saberwing7930 I'm sure you're right, I just wanted to note that being in space just added only one atmosphere of pressure to the tyres.
@@andysmith1996 it would also reduce the weight
I like how you don't just TOTALLY DISREGARD the opposition but rather explain it plainly. We have TOO MUCH FIGHTING as is, so it's nice to see someone with a different opinion explaining it without being a dick!! You're awesome!!
In addition, anything that had ever held fluids was also most likely removed because of out-gassing in a vacuum. Even oils not designed for vacuum operation will out-gas and coat optics in space.
It would be impossible for me to do what Jeran and Witsit do and face my family and friends. Either they’re easily fooled or (more likely) they are con artists. Either is embarrassing.
They're grifters. Always have been.
@mjjoe76 Which is why Chris, CC from... does his vids in his car after his wife called him pathetic. But WHO wouldn't have edited that out? Idjurs like him!
Or every single one of their friends and family members have the same IQ or even lower...
Actually you need to grow a pair
@@IANHANDS what you say implies ipso facto that you don't already have a pair in the first place...
Just a point of note, that roadster was not fElons, it was the car promised to Marc Tarpenning, and Elon yeeted it to spite him.
-EDIT-
My mistake, it was in fact Martin Eberhard's roadster that fElon yeeted into space.
Was just gonna mention that :-)
Lol that sounds very Elon. Hindsight makes everything about Elon just that little bit worse.
“The 2010 Roadster is personally owned by and previously used by Musk for commuting to work.”
What a Chad move.
@@TJ-WI've checked the reference used to make this claim and it actually doesn't say that. It only claims that it's from his personal collection.
2 reason for the mirror and the visors: First, everything on the windscreen is usually designed to harmlessly break off. This is good given the alternative is implantation. Second: the mirror contains a sealed cavity, forming a prism, so you can put it in anti blinding mode at night. The visors usually have their upholstery ultrasonically welded together, giving a quick, cheap, dirtproof and neat seam. As such they are also sealed cavities. This could have been solved by drilling holes in them, but that wouldn't solve the massive vibration and acceleration problems. Removing them seems way easier and less intrusive than other solutions, especially given that this was done on one of Elongated Muskrats famous whims.
The mirrors were removed for the second reason you listed. They would have 100% fallen off during the launch and once that fairing opens it would have jettisoned said debris into space. Something that size isn’t trackable by NASA or any agency either, it’s the same reason we have to be extra careful not to drop small items while out on EVA around the space station.
6:00 Ah yes, they removed the small planar mirror to prevent reflections of the earth, but of course didn't have to worry about the massive reflective compound surfaces all over the thing.
The third option for the rear view mirror is that it was sealed and bringing it into space would have caused a pressure differential similar to the tires.
Mirrors are glued to a windshield and might not stick on with launch vibrations. There is also the chance that any air bubbles stuck in said glue would make it even more likely to pop off. I have no idea how roadster visors attach but if it was like they could move to random positions or detach that is a valid reason for removal.
@@bagofholding I agree with you. I think the vibration theory is more likely than my theory.
I doubt the tires would have exploded. The difference in pressure between sea level and space is 14.6 psi. The tires would have been as if they were 14.6 psi overinflated. That shouldn't make a tire explode.
@@frenat add up all the surface area of the tire, then multiply that by the pounds per square inch (psi). That's a lot of force.
I agree that the tires shouldn't explode. However, what would be gained by not letting some air out? And would you like to be the safety engineer who must write a document explaining why it's OK to have tyre pressures above the manufacturer-specified maximum pressures and the air shouldn't be let out? It seems quicker and easier to just let some air out.
One small correction, the Bowie song playing was “Starman”, not “Space Oddity”
No? It was “Life on Mars” IIRC
Oh boy, oh boy, isn't it the best time ever when you come home from work, hungry, and the first thing you see on youtube is another Dave McKeegan video?!!!
The mirror is attached by a mastic that might not have been able to withstand the launch g-load and remain attached. Why is the Earth the only flat object yet every other body is a sphere except asteriods.
Dave I can't get enough of your channel. Big fan!
The tires wouldn't have exploded. I'm kind of disappointed in your statement. Tires are pressurized to 2atm, which is actually 3atm because it's measured in relation to the atmosphere on the surface. In space they'd experience true 3atm. Go to a gas station and pump your tires to 3atm. They won't explode. Not with 4atm, not with 5atm either.
You are failing to take into account temperature differences with will affect the performance of the tire's materials. Can a tire withstand the pressure differential when it's cooled down to very low temperatures when facing away from the sun? Can it withstand them when being heated directly by the sun? If you're an engineer preparing the car, you don't want to find out *during* the flight, so you don't take any risks and cut the valves off. Especially since there's no point in them being inflated in the first place. The explanation makes perfect sense.
@@Javalar I don't argue with the idea of deflating the tires. I just don't think the quick hand wave explanation of 'they would've exploded' is a good one.
I mean, it's valid if overly simplistic explanation. I think the engineers looked at the tires, and figured that accounting for how they might or might not work under pressure in space was not worth the effort or risk, and opted to play it safe. Could they have exploded? Maybe, maybe not, but it couldn't be easily ruled out.
The flerfers pushing this particular conspiracy should get together with that Thunderf00t guy. They seem like they'd get along well.
That's a meeting I'd love to see. TF has debunked a lot of flerf nonsense too.
@@Scudboy17 That's pretty interesting given that he's a guy who's stock in trade is peddling complete BS about Tesla and SpaceX.
I wonder if its TFoot or CSS that came up with the idea that the Roadster belong to Eberhard? Can't figure out where they got that idea. The launch was 10 years after the Roadster was released. Eberhard was removed from the company before then.
@@MrJustinOtisWhat does he say that’s BS? It sounds to me like it’s Elon that peddles BS about full self driving and when Tesla’s cars will be ready
Slightly unrelated but I’ve just heard about the Ocean Globe Race on the news and the fact they have to use sextants to navigate and no GPS. Worth a video on how they could achieve this on a flat earth maybe.
The whole premise is ridiculous. If you're adding the globe in cg, you would need to create a CG car to render the reflections in anyway and then composite them over the real car, in which case, it's easier to just create a fully CG scene. No modified car required. 😂
And I assume Tesla must already have full CGI models of all their vehicles anyway, for marketing and engineering purposes.
@@SloverOfTeuthand nasa provides textures and heightmaps for projecting the earth onto a 3d globe. A full cgi video would be so much easier.
So they removed the mirror so you couldn't see something behind the car and had a rear facing camera?
The batteries and hydraulic systems would have too be removed fir safety.
and cooling, lubrication and hydraulic systems.
@@clivedavis6859 Well as it's a rag top I guessed didn't have AC, And the Electric Motors have sealed bearings, But if it has wet lubrication system it would need draining.
Guess what else contains liquid, auto dimming rear view mirrors.
@@Stonemonkie1 really? Mine is solenoid.
@@dogwalker666 you mean like an auto version of the ones you used to manually twist a knob?
Yeah there's electronic ones that have a liquid that reacts to the current and darkens.
Thanks Dave and Rusty,
But Dave the problem is...
you use logic 🙃🙂
My mistake, although some flat Earthers can handle logic ... Granted, as you know, those people aren't flat Earthers for long 😉
@@DaveMcKeegan 01:30 the disk not there (as clearly seen in your video just before and after) so they stopped and took it out before the launch why? I donk know how you missed that!
with musks habitual lies of what hes done you are silly to trust anything he claims!
@@DaveMcKeegan Are you deleting comments that destroy god pretender who are far worse than flat earther?
Flerfs have no concept of reflection, they think rocks can't reflect light after all
No flat earther has ever claimed that. Lying pos
@@AndySmith4501 Yes they have little lad, many times over. Do keep up with what your circus friends are claiming.
@@leftpastsaturn67
Whatever, silly geriatric
@@AndySmith4501 Oh bless... :D
@@leftpastsaturn67
Touching that you're so obsessed with me 😎😂
I watched it live and even as it was broadcasting flerfs were trying to debunk it as greenscreen. I took screenshots and highlighted parts that show a) it can't be greenscreen, and b) no lens distortion to make the Earth look curved.
Your first sentence reminds me of the Iridium 4 launch in California several years back.
In case you don’t remember, that was one of the first launches in California for some time that had the “twilight effect” occur - meaning the plume was visible from several states.
I remember people were freaked out about the plume and tried to claim the explanation of “it was a rocket” was a coverup. I pointed out that not only had I see the launch live, but I knew this launch would occur for several days ahead of time. Quite impressive to cover up an event that hasn’t happened yet by planning a rocket launch to occur at the same time
I imagine they think the entire industry of satellites is somehow fake. Companies paying a hundred million dollars or so for a satellite and launch are really supposed to be balloons, lol.
Tell that to who lunches balloons in a sky every day 😂
your dog is totally at peace with you. he was in lala land while dad was laying down some logic.
thank you for the content.
AFAIK about everything that could move or break was removed, the rest was glued firmly.
There was no time to qualify the car for space in a proper manner.
So, the tires: yes they likely could handle the pressure, but either you spend a few hundreds of thousands on testing that (vacuum chamber, solar light heating, etc.) to be sure (the launch costed likely in the hundred millions range, and failing it because a tire explodes despites "it should handle it" and fragments break a vital part of the rocket is not something one wants), or you just cut the valves. They choose.
That logic was applied everywhere.
You should ask your opponents to explain the David Taylor model basin. 😉
I actually learned something today.
I didnt know it was for test flight.
Also,for some reason i though it's toy car and not full scale car.
Everything makes sense now.
Cheers.
Dave, at about 04:30 in this video...
*_"So SpaceX needed a dummy payload to give a more accurate representation of a typical launch."_*
Putting a bunch of FLAT EARTHERS would have made a better _dummy payload._ 😉
I do so love 2001 a Space Odyssey(1968) when I see the scene at the start with the hairy proto humans hitting each other the head with animal bones I shout look "Flat earthers"
Also fits the scene in History of the World, Part One, where the hairy proto-humans gain enlightenment, stand up on two legs...and immediately sit back down.
I wondered if they were inspired by the opening scene from Heavy Metal, that car does not have a rear view mirror nor visors. They should have played "Radar Riders" by Riggs.
Although true, I'm not sure you should have said the tires would explode, albeit only likely. I've had similar discussions with many of flerf. They tend to think that vacuums are "powerful" bc they watched tankers implode on youtube U or whatever not realizing its only the outside pressure itself doing the crushing. Anyway, an ordinary tire inflated to 35 PSI in a vacuum(- the 14 PSI) is the equivalent of inflating it to 49 PSI which is only a little(5ish PSI) above such a tires recommended max pressure for safe usage but, still that should be nowhere near definitely popping instantly(if ever) like flerfs say. It is true however that with such extreme temperature/radiation fluctuations as there indeed is in space, the tires materials would VERY likely fail, & rather quickly. So it is a correct statement, just not for the reason of being in a 💪 vacuum like many flerfs claim.
"You can tell it's real because it looks so fake" 😭
My favorite flat Earth dismissal of the Roadster is when they see footage of the rocket fairings separate and sunlight suddenly fills the camera, they think it's a glitch. No, that's the camera going from a dark interior to a bright environment as the fairings get blown away.
Have these people never turned on a light in a pitch black environment?
@mikemallon1065 So "they" are so clever that they fake everything with CGI, but are so incompetent that they leave in glitches that any fule can see? Which is it?
And oddly enough, those glitches are exactly like the glitches in realtime videos I see on my phone.
@@Fred2-123 The OP is mocking flat earthers claims and lack of understanding. Do keep up and don't knee-jerk a comment without thinking.
@@leftpastsaturn67 Yes, I know. Sarcasm doesn't always come across in comments.
Hello Dave.
I am not sure about your claim with the tires in space exploding.
The rear tires of a Tesla Roadster have are filled up to 40 psi (2.75 bar). The atmosphere itself provides 14.5 psi (1 bar). So we have a difference of 25.5 psi (1.75 bar). In space it is the full pressure (40 psi in our example).
Tires can be pressured up to three, four or five times the normal pressure until exploding (or slipping of the rim). So we had 120 psi minus the atmospheric pressure of 14.5, 105.5 in total.
Yes. A normal car tire filled to 35 PSI at sea level would not burst in the vacuum of space.
You're failing to take into account the material changes the tire would experience as the temperature fluctuates violently as the car goes from sunlit to shadowed.
@@sorceryfarm6535 sure. They will likely get really hot and really cold. But tires are designed for wildly fluctuating temps.
Yes they would eventually fail but perhaps due to outgassing (making the rubber brittle) on not temperature. You would be surprised by what can withstand being dunked in liquid nitrogen.
@@stuartgray5877 The moon rovers with the last 3 Apollo missions had tires at 4 psi
@@rickkwitkoski1976 I often tell these skeptics that a human could survive the vacuum of deep space inside a mylar birthday balloon filled to 5 PSI.
I just watched a video that took this car as one possible reason, why no alien has shown up on earth.
When they see someone using a convertibel in space, they may think: "No, those guys are not clever, we better move on to the next system!"
Its all just weight reduction. They had a figure for the ballast load and someone (probably Musk) had a lightbulb moment that it was pretty close to the weight of his car. So, they trimmed it down until it made weight.
"I don't understand how its possible so it's fake" -every flat earther ever
Only a flat earther would be dumb enough to believe this was fake.
Flat earthers asking for a space lunch with multiple cameras on, capturing footage from various angles, then bitching about it when they get what they asked for…
also not a single photo of the flat earth
I like to call this the "quantum goal post"
“There is not even a single photograph of Earth from space”
“Here’s one”
“That one is fake”
Insert something about a pigeon on a chess board here
Mate that is why they asked lol what is wrong with you?
Occam's razor...
anybody with common sense would and/or should jump to the conclusion that the visors in the mirror would be removed because they could easily become detached... flailing around etc...
The mirror may have been removed because the Sun's rays reflecting in the mirror may have been hot enough to melt parts of the car's interior. The shades may have been removed because, as you say, there are some pretty strong vibrations during lift off and they may have flipped down and looked a bit annoying once the car was free in space.
Jeran thinks it's fake? Interesting.
It's obvious they removed them to maximise the camera view through the windscreen...& you're in space ffs so the only thing 'behind' you would be the Earth or the Moon 😂
I honestly think maximizing the view was secondary. With the intense acceleration and vibration of a rocket launch, you really, really, really don't want anything to be loose in any way. The mirror would have easily been ripped off by the launch, and probably the visors as well, those forces are intense.
@giin97 of course though I am sure they could have made them stick if they really wanted to
Tesla in space is stupid, not fake.
The problem I have with FE is that it is so damn lazy. They will jump at anything and try to plant suspicion without putting in the effort required to substantiate their own claims… like simply googling footage from before the launch, which Dave did. You want to prove FE? Get together and collectively build your own rocket. Hopefully it will have gone better than the last guy that tried it…
What makes this particularly hilarious is that the flerfers did not bother to mention, or didn't notice, the side view wing mirrors. They're still there, and still reflective.
Also, they don't address the obvious issue of the fact that there are cameras pointed in opposite directions. It is ridiculous to believe that the mirror would show things it shouldn't, when there is an entire camera aimed in that direction.
Plus, my opinion is that if there was any sort of conspiracy, there would be no SpaceX. Why would you have faked livestreams? Why would you have so many launches? If you were trying to keep a secret, having this much fake stuff would be needless risk. Every bit of faked footage has the potential of having something go wrong, and blowing the whole thing wide open. So, you'd try to minimize the amount of footage. Obviously, the flatbrains think that the footage is riddled with errors, when it isn't, but fail to ask the far more important questions.
Incidentally, no Flat Earthers have tried to fake anything, to show how it could be done. Actually, I think that somebody like Elon should try and fake a launch, just to see what it would take. I don't think it could work. CGI is amazing, but I don't think it would be possible to fake a launch with it.
It's a shame they didn't send the car up with Musk in the drivers seat & Jeran and Witless as passengers.
They took off unnecessary items to reduce the weight, and altered it for safety and space travel, therefore the video is fake? Thank you for doing the thinking through that these two flerfs should have done themselves.
Of course they didnt launch an operable ev. Too heavy. Pull batteries, brakes, motors, anything heavy
FH can deal with more than a few grams of payload.
Yeah, not too heavy, but quite a waste to do so.
It was intended as a dummy payload; they adjusted the weight to whatever the test required.
No where near too heavy. Falcon Heavy was the most powerful rocket on the planet by far at the time. Even with recovering all three boosters, which they attempted, it could still launch around 5tons to TMI, where the car was headed. The Roadster only weighs 1.5t.
The simple answer is mundane.
The airbags were removed as they'd get set off. Afaik the loom across the top of the windscreen means someone given this job would unplug that branch of the wiring harness, remove the things on it from the body (shades + mirror) then slap the cover back on.
Have you seen Back To The Future II? They also removed a rear view mirror from Biff’s 1955 car in one scene in a garage where old Biff meets young Biff. The scene was a split screen shot with camera looking at the actor sitting in the car through the windshield with the camera on the hood of the car. The mirror was removed because it was distracting in that shot, partly blocking the performance. Probably the same reason here.
Witsit never gets it.
I wonder what Flat Earthers would say about this ...
"The next close approach to Earth is expected to happen sometime in 2047 at a distance of 5 million kilometers. Eventually, Musk's Roadster will likely crash into either Earth, Venus or the Sun, according to estimates by Hanno Rein, an astrophysicist at the University of Toronto in Canada."
NASA has often used concrete as a test payload. Musk's roadster in space (inspired by the cult classic animated anthology film, "Heavy Metal") was far more interesting.
From what I remember on Falcon 1 they used a wheel of cheese.
Although some also choose the option of some dummy masses and the "hey I can get few smaller satellites to space cheap, but not guaranteed that it will entirely work".
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a rear-view mirror attached to the glass by means of a suction cup?
As in: for exactly the same reason they let the air out of the tires so they would not explode in a vacuum,
the mirror would not stay attached through the means of the vacuum which the suction cup provides?
Pretty sure all the mirrors I've had on my cars are attached with an adhesive rather than a suction cup.
@@critthought2866 yes, what I accidentally did was rely on the google search result,
I forgot to google for information that could explain the facts to me. Which ended up with me being wrong.
The first view 1000 search results were mostly car shops trying to sell cheap replacement mirrors.
The actual facts about rearview mirrors told me they are indeed glued.
And that annoyed me, because I am constantly upset with people who think Google is a: "the correct answer machine"
Instead of a "search engine".
And now I did the same..
@@sandoumir4348 It's all good. It happens to all of us. Only reason I know is I've had to have more than one replaced.
Another possibility for the removed windshield accessories is that they may have been held to the glass only with adhesive. (Not sure on the visors, but many rear view mirrors on cars are simply glued to the windshield).
In space, the much harsher solar radiation would destroy the visually "exposed" adhesive and the parts would have fallen off anyway, and to reduce a small bit of space junk they have control over, opted not to keep them on.
The windshield itself is also glued onto the car frame, but windows always have that blacked out border to protect it.
There is a chance they replaced the glass with something like Polycarbonate to prevent it from being cracked on tack off. Then never remounted a mirror. Cause why?
It could still fall off. The glass is an issue, but the mirror structure itself along with the sun visors could’ve fallen off their mounts during launch
You definitely nailed the reasons, both for aesthetic reasons and also in case they worked loose and damaged something critical.
There is an awful lot of time and energy being expended debunking flat earthers. All you need to do is give them a sweetie, pat them on the head, and say, "don't worry, mummy will explain it to you when you grow up."
that's a good joke, but in fact, all flat earthers are CROOKS, and motivated entirely by MALICE. in other words, they know exactly what they are doing, and the insanity defence won't work.
They have also complained that the rear facing camera should show the top of the rocket, not the Earth, not understanding that the Roadster is mounted at an angle rather than pointing in the same direction as the rocket. A thirty second Google search would have shown this to them but that's too much to ask.
The starman lanuch was epic to be honest.. best footage ever from space.
put an object that is reflective almost all sides, and some stupid comes and tells they removed a mirror because it would reflect something. what a great discovery.
On the rear-view mirror and the sun visors, having worked in the space industry, I suspect they probably put the 'payload' car on a shake table and just tightened anything that was coming lose or chucked anything they couldn't. Pretty standard to do so in the industry, although the car isn't a standard payload. They probably didn't want random pieces of debris floating about in the shot or damaging any of their sensors. In an interesting note I would say the batteries were removed more due to expansion of the electrolyte, lithium batteries are 'wet' cells so always expand to some extent. For satellites they use the soft cell type so they can expand without breaking the casing, they also add a bit of leeway to connectors to allow for the expansion.
A few notes on the logic here:
The mirror being removed does not prove that its presence would have unveiled some secret knowledge.
Musk/SpaceX lying about the car being modified does not prove that the launch was faked.
The launch being faked does not prove that the earth is not a globe.
I can absolutely understand how it feels like all of these things logically follow from each other, but they do not, because other explanations exist that may be true instead. When you're expected to take this many unjustified leaps in logic, the conclusion may not be as rock-steady as they feel like they are. It's motivated reasoning, trying to find a path to the conclusion you want to draw.
And all of this is ignoring that the "car wasn't modified" comment was taken out of context and made to appear like it said more than it actually did. So in addition to strained logic, it's built on a lie (or mistake) from the ground up. It fails at every level.
It is highly doubtful whether the tyres would have exploded in space. If they were inflated to 30 psi then that is all they have to withstand in space, a very small pressure for road tyres.
I think they removed the stuff for the latter option. Don't forget on launch the stuff gets put under several g of accelleration. Stuff that is only connected by tiny pieces of plastic has a high risk of breaking off.
Not that they aren't already scraping the bottom of the barrel... but this realllllllly feels like scraping at the bottom of the barrel for something.
Almost correct. You are wrong about tires exploding in vacuum. In vacuum you have only +1 atm pressure diif compared to ground level. Tires easly will live with that.
I think it's more likely they didn't want the lithium battery blowing up or igniting inside the Falcon heavy during flight. The environmental effects of one battery, dissipated in the upper atmosphere would be minimal compared to the number of Tesla batteries that have burned to the ground in populated areas. Also, more weight requires more fuel, and the battery is the heaviest part of those cars.
Tyres exploding? A typical tyre pressure is 30-38 psi so why not just let out 14.7 psi? I think we might also find that many weight saving and space debris prevention measures were taken.
Even a standard car tire filled to 35 PSI at sea level would not burst in the vacuum of space.
3:37 Correction: The tyres wouldnt have exploded in space. Google says the rear tyres are normally at 40psi so the pressure difference on Earth is 40-14=26 psi. In space that would increase to 40-0=40psi. This is equivalent to over inflating the tyres to 54psi on Earth. Apparently the tyres could withstand that but they let some air out anyway.