totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[SOXBLOX]

11 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

At least they take more care when transporting their engines then with goosenecks and scissor lifts.

 

10 hours ago, .50calBMG said:

Yeah, transporting engines on a truck out in the open is such a terrible idea. Clearly nobody would be crazy enough to do that. It would make those engines unreliable and bad.

LOL. That takes care of that.

[JcoolTheShipbuilder]

Yea... 1000 people in E2E flight is a bit much. Yes the flight will be about an hour, but still.. hmm, also to fit that many people, wouldn’t some in the middle need a screen to watch what’s going on outside? Still really cool, but probably a bit less than 1000 is good. Also, 100 for interplanetary trip? That’s.. hmm a bit much for months, but is possible

[SpaceFace545]

3 minutes ago, JcoolTheShipbuilder said:

Agreed... also it would be really hard and expensive to launch people to space until the storm passes, that it would be easier to evacuate via planes that carry more, or cars, or amphibious vehicles lol.

and planes are just cheaper and safer, and more efficient, and can carry more. Regular humans aren't able to just go into space, they pass out and go unconscious. It takes years of training to withstand the rigors of high g loads but it takes years more to go into space. Any civilians taking a trip on a rocket is a pipe dream and starship earth to earth can't happen because of this, along with the carbon impact of launching rockets at the same frequency as planes.

[Lukaszenko]

22 hours ago, .50calBMG said:

 

Please delete.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Lukaszenko
Personal attack in original post.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

3 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

and planes are just cheaper and safer, and more efficient, and can carry more. Regular humans aren't able to just go into space, they pass out and go unconscious. It takes years of training to withstand the rigors of high g loads but it takes years more to go into space. Any civilians taking a trip on a rocket is a pipe dream and starship earth to earth can't happen because of this, along with the carbon impact of launching rockets at the same frequency as planes.

Everyday Astronaut actually did a video on rocket pollution, you should check that out. 
 

Also, spaceX is producing its own fuel from CO2 in the atmosphere. It might not be carbon neutral, but it’s better than using fossil fuels.  

[SpaceFace545]

Just now, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Everyday Astronaut actually did a video on rocket pollution, you should check that out. 
 

Also, spaceX is producing its own fuel from CO2 in the atmosphere. It might not be carbon neutral, but it’s better than using fossil fuels.  

I watched both that and thunderfoot's video, launching starships at the frequency of airplanes has zero benefits other than being fast, but future supersonic and hypersonic transport would greatly rival that.

[JcoolTheShipbuilder]

7 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I just have a lot of experience with gooseneck trailers and telehandlers, both of which tip over in the wind.

Even when they are loaded with heavy rocket engines?

[SpaceFace545]

1 minute ago, JcoolTheShipbuilder said:

Even when they are loaded with heavy rocket engines?

yeah, telehandlers steer with all four wheels and their wheels turn a huge amount so they can spin on a dime but like this their base becomes very small. Especially if is carrying a heavy mass like a rocket engine, this sticks out the front so they naturally like to pitch forward. And for goosenecks they are connected to the flat bed of a pickup truck so during turns they roll back and fourth, good for gardeners and horses but bad for rocket engines.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

And yet it seems to work 

[SpaceFace545]

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

And yet it seems to work 

oh yeah it works, but it just isn't good. Its not a sustainable system and there is a lot of error when improperly transporting something as intricate as a rocket engine.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

oh yeah it works, but it just isn't good. Its not a sustainable system and there is a lot of error when improperly transporting something as intricate as a rocket engine.

I'm not a rocket scientist - but I'm pretty sure one or two of the guys at Boca Chica are.  

 

On the other hand, I am a former Tanker and the Marine Corps let us swap turbine engines outside.  Pretty sure turbines are intricate, even if they are not rocket engines. 

 

What's the difference? 

[YNM]

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

oh yeah it works, but it just isn't good. Its not a sustainable system and there is a lot of error when improperly transporting something as intricate as a rocket engine.

idk, since they're steel IMO it's a lot better than moving giant concrete panels around, like this - they're heavier, yet a lot more fragile (brittle).

[SpaceFace545]

10 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm not a rocket scientist - but I'm pretty sure one or two of the guys at Boca Chica are.  

 

On the other hand, I am a former Tanker and the Marine Corps let us swap turbine engines outside.  Pretty sure turbines are intricate, even if they are not rocket engines. 

 

What's the difference? 

cause its a rocket engine on a goosneck. But i guess there really isnt any difference.

2 minutes ago, YNM said:

idk, since they're steel IMO it's a lot better than moving giant concrete panels around, like this - they're heavier, yet a lot more fragile (brittle).

I don't have expiernce or much knowledge about how concrete or construction but we shouldnt be building rockets like buildings, right?

[wumpus]

9 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm not a rocket scientist - but I'm pretty sure one or two of the guys at Boca Chica are.  

On the other hand, I am a former Tanker and the Marine Corps let us swap turbine engines outside.  Pretty sure turbines are intricate, even if they are not rocket engines. 

What's the difference? 

I'm pretty sure the shock and vibe issues for a tank are significantly higher for the tank than the rocket engine (ok, *vibe* might be harder for the rocket engine with lots of nearby rocket engine and a significantly less sturdy vehicle, but shock requirements for the tank pretty much involve anything that doesn't immediately kill the crew).

And such military applications require explicit specs (MIL-STD 810) and less formal tests, like when an Army reserve officer/mechanical engineer mentioned that they took his landmine detecting device (mounted in front of a tank) and proceeded to knock down enough trees to satisfy the tankers that it was strong enough.  I worked for a company that made RADAR consoles for the Navy, and they had an internal required test (thanks  to an unfortunate story staring the man who hired me) requiring the lead mechanical engineer stand on the bullnose (? whatever they called where the controls are).

[tater]

Elon's kooky Mars plans are not 1000 people per Starship. It's 1000 Starships per launch window, each with 100 people.

SS is fairly large, but still smaller than my house in crew volume. I have had well over 100 people in my house, and indeed most are in the public areas not the bedrooms, so basically in about the size of SS... and it's not someplace I would want to spend 9 months, much less a few years. SS would be awesome for a Mars mission with even 20 people, but I'd not want to be in there with 99 other people.

How they haul rocket engines is completely fine. It works fine, and they are not cheap, but they are not $100M, either.

 

[Spaceman.Spiff]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

they are not cheap, but they are not $100M, either.

cough *RS25* cough

 

[Lukaszenko]

12 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

cause its a rocket engine on a goosneck. But i guess there really isnt any difference.

I don't have expiernce or much knowledge about how concrete or construction but we shouldnt be building rockets like buildings, right?

I don't think we can be sure, we're not rocket scientists - but I'm pretty sure one or two of the guys at Boca Chica are.  

[YNM]

1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I don't have expiernce or much knowledge about how concrete or construction but we shouldnt be building rockets like buildings, right?

Given that the construction project I interned in had a few 2x1 m, 100 mm thick concrete panels just sitting outside that's cracked (out of a few dozens more those that don't), and SpaceX has probably made more Raptor engines than there were concrete panels when I was there, I think their methods are fine. Steel is a much tougher material than concrete anyway.

Would have said no but if we end up having a rocket design that requires much less knowledge and specialties to manufacture than we have had to I'd say we're successful. Mass-produced rockets would be like mass-produced cars but for space I guess.

<snip>

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

27 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

we shouldnt be building rockets like buildings, right

Why not? 

From 1886 to 1908 automobiles were largely bespoke creations.  To become a ubiquitous part of the economic and technological background noise of the world we must move past treating rockets as special, fragile one-offs, and make them nothing more than machines we use whenever we need them 

[adsii1970]

This thread has been locked for maintenance.

There have been several posts edited and some removed from this thread. The OP of the thread defines this thread's topic as SpaceX discussion. One of the ways you can help make the forum a better place is to make sure your posts contribute to the topic of the thread. Do not resort to personal attacks, sarcastic comments which could cause other forum members to post out of anger or frustration.

The posts that were removed either did not add meaningful content or could be considered as either hostile or personal attacks on fellow forum members. Please do not do this as it is against the forum guidelines (Forum Guidelines 2.2d, 2.2n, and 2.2o).

In brief:

• Please continue to discuss Elon Musk, SpaceX, and the related topics on this thread as much as you desire.
• Leave out the personal attacks, the sarcastic comments, and comments made to and about other forum members that are provocative in nature.

Thanks for helping us keep this forum friendly, entertaining, and educational for all!

[YNM]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

• Please continue to discuss Elon Musk
• Leave out the personal attacks

*coughs*

But anyway.

On 5/7/2021 at 10:47 PM, SpaceFace545 said:

This whole starbase stuff needs to stop. spacex needs to get their own land.

Maybe a bit of a late reply, but they actually conducted Environmental Impact Study for the whole thing back in 2014, and FAA approved all of it. Includes a word from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

[KSK]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

Would have said no but if we end up having a rocket design that requires much less knowledge and specialties to manufacture than we have had to I'd say we're successful. Mass-produced rockets would be like mass-produced cars but for space I guess.

<snip>

The Big Dumb Booster concept has been around for a while. As I recall, the idea was to mass produce rockets out of cheap materials (say steel pipe for example), the idea being that they would compensate for reduced efficiency in terms of mass fraction to orbit by being a) dirt cheap and b) really big. Need more payload on orbit? No problem, just fire another oversized steel tube into the sky. Doesn't much matter that said steel tube is dreadfully inefficient if you can launch three or four of them for the same price as a more conventional engineered-to-the-bleeding-edge rocket.

It's great that somebody is finally doing this for real. It's even better that they plan to reuse the big steel tubes!

Edit:  Wikipedia probably puts it better than I can, so here you go.

Edited May 12, 2021 by KSK

[kerbiloid]

But the Big Dumb Boosters were using Big Dumb Engines.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

It's great that somebody is finally doing this for real. It's even better that they plan to reuse the big steel tubes!

Well, fingers crossed...

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

Maybe a bit of a late reply, but they actually conducted Environmental Impact Study for the whole thing back in 2014, and FAA approved all of it. Includes a word from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The FAA does not approve EISs. Do you mean the EPA?

(OK, I just read your link. It seems the FAA made the EIS, and sent it to the EPA for approval.)

Edited May 12, 2021 by mikegarrison