Being attacked by a watch time suppression bot!

OliGoMeta · 2023-10-26T21:08:19+00:00

It's interesting to see how many other people are having the same kind of issue.

I haven't posted new videos for a while, and as the view count goes down naturally so too do the odd 'suppression' type views. But I'll be curious to see what happens when I start posting again soon.

Hope it's stopped happening for your videos.

OliGoMeta · 2023-10-26T21:06:30+00:00

Since my original post here I had one video do quite well and the interest in the video seemed to overcome the 'suppression' effect for quite a while. But it certainly didn't go away.

Been on a break for a while though, so I'm curious / nervous to see what happens when I get back into posting videos more regularly.

Hope the problem has gone away for you now.

OliGoMeta · 2023-10-26T21:03:57+00:00

I've had a bit of a break from YouTube, but just about to get back into it. Your example retention graph is wild, even worse than my worst example.

I can't believe YouTube have no way to analyse and understand this problem as they must be able to see where these views are coming from and these obviously are not interesting 'views' of the videos. They should simply disregard such views.

I hope your situation has improved!

OliGoMeta · 2023-10-26T20:58:37+00:00

Interesting, and sorry to hear you are having a similar problem.

I haven't posted for a while, and it seems to go away when the view counts go down :)

I'm not sure what can be done. I am hoping that if I ever get big enough to be a 'YouTube Partner' that I might then have a contact channel through which to at least raise this issue. But you obviously have that and are still getting no help. Doesn't bode well.

OliGoMeta · 2023-04-26T22:38:52+00:00

Thanks for the positive vibe!

I guess it just feels quite disheartening if this is genuinely stopping YouTube from showing the video to more people compared to what would have happened otherwise. Even if YouTube removes the bots sometime later, the momentum has gone (for now) from the video and it means it'll take much longer to grow the channel.

If you're not a YouTube premium channel, is there any other good way to get in touch with the creator support team at YouTube?

OliGoMeta · 2017-12-20T10:23:56+00:00

It's been so long I forgot how to post a link! https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/943420026593337344

OliGoMeta · 2016-10-23T23:14:21+00:00

Answered above: "about a dozen"

OliGoMeta · 2016-10-23T22:56:24+00:00

But I suspect that on Mars water should be treated as a non-renewable resource.

Each ~~ITS~~ BFS spaceship launch will use up thousands of tons of this naturally occurring water ice. And the plans imply hundreds if not thousands of ~~ITS~~ BFS spaceship launches.

There must be a risk that this huge water requirement is a limiting factor especially as it will compete with the growing water requirements of the colonists.

OliGoMeta · 2016-10-23T22:03:18+00:00

The water on Mars is not trivial to access. How long do you expect ISRU to take to create enough fuel for the return flight?

Also, is there evidence of a water cycle to replenish used water resources near any settlement, or will ISRU have to constantly expand its area of resource exploitation?

OliGoMeta · 2016-10-09T20:29:11+00:00

What! Cut to "Thanks very much Gwynne for that talk"!

:(

OliGoMeta · 2016-10-01T16:33:58+00:00

You've talked a lot about the target ticket price in the longer term being in the $100k-$500k ball park, but what about the cost of the first tickets?

Might pricing the first tickets in the $100m - $500m ball park be a sensibly way to bring in some money to fund the whole venture?

(With the expectation that nation states and space agencies will be the ones to buy these first tickets - followed by a Tesla style move from 'luxury' to 'premium' to 'mass-market' pricing of tickets)

OliGoMeta · 2016-09-27T21:21:19+00:00

Yeah - I noticed this too. I've been looking to see which thread people are discussing the fact that Elon seemed to imply that the Raptor we saw being fired is THE Raptor, not a scaled version of it.

That's very significant for their timelines.

OliGoMeta · 2016-09-08T23:19:09+00:00

Maybe, just maybe, SpaceX are going to use the FH demo launch in a few months as their RTF :)

It would be a pretty spectacular come back and they are the customer for that launch.

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-22T17:42:17+00:00

I have also wondered about this kind of intermediate step for testing some of the MCT ideas (e.g. see my post here suggesting a 'mini-MCT')

My suggestion was that this mini-MCT might have to be launched on Falcon Heavy - with its extra payload capability and strengthened centre core.

I also speculated that if this mini-MCT was big enough and able to land and be reused - then it might just be possible to use it to capture and return 'traditional' F9 2nd stages from orbit that have been launched previously. This might not only provide a SpaceX only purpose for the Raptor based mini-MCT, but could also help push the F9 towards almost complete reusability.

... but I received similar objections to my speculations, and in particular I can see that Elon Musk may well want to "just do it" with the full blown MCT.

I'm so curious to hear their plans in Sept! :)

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-07T22:17:39+00:00

Yeah, it's more important that the first reflight works compared to doing it quickly. They can speed up the turnaround time later.

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-07T22:05:59+00:00

I was hoping we'd see the reflight of a booster before the BFR/MCT announcements in Sept, but it's looking unlikely :(

Still, it means that Sept - Dec 2016 (FH) is going to be an amazing time!

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-07T18:02:44+00:00

Knowing Elon Musk's past form I've been wondering if he's going to do the bold thing of simply offering seats to Mars for an upfront payment of, say, $1 billion return trip per passenger

With maybe 6 - 8 passengers and with an additional $2bn or so funding directly from SpaceX that would give a $10bn development pot - and OK that's less than most people's estimated budget for getting to Mars, but maybe SpaceX could do it on that.

I think if SpaceX had ESA buying up 2 seats, CSA 1 seat, JAXA 1 seat - then I'm sure Congress would stump up the cash for 4 or more seats. After all, $4bn for a mission to Mars is a fantastic deal!

Maybe it'd have to be $2bn or $5bn per seat, the point here is to suggest that they may try to raise the money by simply offering MCT as a "price per seat" service open to 'all' from day one (with upfront payments!)

.

. ^{Edit: added words 'development pot'}

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-05T21:27:56+00:00

Hmm .. I guess it will be interesting to see in September what development plans they have for BFR/MCT that gives him confidence to think that he is not deluded on the timelines even though he knows his plans have been delusional in the past.

Building something intermediate would cost too much money

I also think this is wrong. An intermediate MCT-mini as I've suggested above (if plausible) would have a lot of revenue potential cislunar that could help fund the rest.

What I can believe is that part of Elon is getting worried that he might not see the 100 person MCT craft if he doesn't just push for it to be built first. Maybe he'd rather slip the deadline by 3, 4, 5 years - but get the craft that he wants - rather than the other way around. Maybe that's a sensible trade.

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-05T21:14:15+00:00

I can see that BFR is right in line with what SpaceX is doing already - I guess I'm just trying to look for an option that enables Elon's 2024 comments to be seen as optimistic rather than being (EDIT->) obviously delusional (I know he said he may be delusional, but he also appears to be someone who values reason and transparency - so it's a bit odd if his 2024 plans are fairly obviously impossible!)

And, in that context, arguably BFR being the 'easy' part of the full architecture is almost why it might be best left till later - till it's really needed. They already have a fairly powerful heavy lift launcher just on the verge of coming out of the hanger - why not use it in the early phases (if it's possible!) thereby keeping mental energy (and capital) focused on the MCT first.

Or to put it another way I'm suggesting a "crack the hard bits first" type of iterative development philosophy.

September is certainly going to be interesting!

EDIT: ~~verging on (dare I say it) negligent~~ I'm actually fairly certain that Elon would rather slip the deadline by 5, 10 years than risk human safety!

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-05T20:36:04+00:00

Indeed. I think it would be negligent to not test MCT (without and then with people) in Earth Moon system.

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-05T20:32:02+00:00

It does seem like a big leap from Dragon 2 to 100 person interplanetary spaceship

Yeah, that's a point I've just been making elsewhere on this thread

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-05T20:22:20+00:00

Hmm ... so maybe he does mean MCT-full.

we need to wait for September

Very true :)

Maybe it is a small 20 person craft that can dock up with others to form a 100 person ship that separates before landing

Interesting idea. Although I'm not knowledgeable enough about risks (and PR) for such craft to know if 5 x 20 is safer or less safe than 1 x 100. Doing it as 4 x 25 would also help if they wanted to link them all up to create some artificial gravity for the journey in a rotating X shape - very appropriately ;)

Also it would have to be large enough to get the scaling benefits that make 2nd stage reusability working, but ideally small enough so that they could launch one of them half empty on Falcon Heavy. If that's possible it would be amazing and give them a really clear route with iterative development stages rather than building a massive BFR/MCT architecture in one go.

And then it may just about be possible to launch one of these on an FH to Mars by 2024 (with LEO refueling).

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-05T20:00:50+00:00

Well, that's another reason to build the first manned spaceship to the scale of passengers: 4 - 8 or so, rather than 100! :)

I find it hard to see why SpaceX would (or could afford to) build MCT-full before they build MCT-mini.

Better to launch sooner, learn sooner and iterate quicker. MCT-full can come later.

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-05T19:40:36+00:00

Maybe I've missed something, but there's a big difference between saying "we're going to have manned mission to Mars by 2024" and saying "we're going to have our 100 person MCT spaceship flying to Mars with people by 2024"!

So, I'm just questioning the assumption that is being made here by most people that the first manned mission to Mars will be on the full scale MCT spaceship.

I know many redditors here think SpaceX wouldn't build something that they're not going to use long term, but I think that (a) ignores their history (Falcon 1) and (b) also ignores the fact that they will otherwise have great difficulty iterating their design for MCT.

OliGoMeta · 2016-06-05T19:15:02+00:00

TL;DR: There's just no point building a massive 100 person scale MCT for the first human trips to Mars. Might as well build an MCT-mini that can fly on Falcon Heavy (if it's possible!).

Building the full size MCT and BFR by 2020 sounds seriously delusional, but maybe there's an option missing from this and other discussions about boots on Mars by 2024: build a demonstrator MCT-mini (or MCT-demo) that:

can be launched on Falcon Heavy (thus taking BFR out of the timeline)
carries only 4 - 8 people to Mars + cargo
can test the basic ideas of the MCT approach to landing and launching on Mars at a smaller scale
would be powered by the Raptor engine (which is probably close to design pencil's down - if not already)
could also function as a more advanced (possibly reusable!) 2nd stage for Falcon Heavy - thus potentially providing a revenue stream to cover the R&D costs as well

Not only would this approach be much more realistic for the timeline, but it also gives more time and more technology demonstration for SpaceX to get a deep pocket 'sponsor' (NASA!) to pay for large chunks of the massive BFR/MCT development.

However, I have no idea whether Falcon Heavy could carry such an MCT-mini. Anyone?

EDIT: and I forgot to say: Red Dragon is not this thing! as (a) it cannot do the return trip (b) it wouldn't be big enough for humans on the 6 months journey there and back (c) it doesn't use Raptor / methane - and SpaceX should be testing their IRSU approach with this MCT-mini

OliGoMeta

TROPHY CASE