PB666 Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 5 minutes ago, regex said: Who said it wouldn't make it off the pad? Seriously. I fully expect a successful launch and at least two successful landings from Space-X, they've certainly proven themselves in this arena and we're not talking about Cold-War era rush programs using untested technologies. None the less they probably should play some music suitable for crashing. At least we can hear that . . .up to a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, regex said: Who said it wouldn't make it off the pad? Seriously. I fully expect a successful launch and at least two successful landings from Space-X, they've certainly proven themselves in this arena and we're not talking about Cold-War era rush programs using untested technologies. Musk himself has been pretty frank about the risk involved. I think everyone really expects a successful launch, but this is the maiden flight of what is essentially a brand new launcher (massive core redesigns). There are simply things they can't simulate on the ground with any real accuracy (transsonic flow around 27 engines for one, IIRC). It's going to be a significantly riskier flight that most SpaceX flights, and most rocket launches in general because of the unknowns. So no, I don't think now is really the time to push the FH's lifting limits to the extreme. I think it's wise to stick to a low-mass, low-stress payload to verify the thing actually works once, then go pushing the limits. RocketLab's first launch attempt had no payload at all, as I recall. Just instruments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: I think it's wise to stick to a low-mass, low-stress payload to verify the thing actually works once, then go pushing the limits. That's cool but I also think it's wise to scoff at Musk and anyone else claiming Falcon Heavy is a "super-heavy launch vehicle" until it proves it. Definitively. E: And here's the thing, I WANT to see a new super-heavy LV, I want those payloads to start showing up. FH will make a fantastic GTO launcher for the near future, probably edge out everything else in cost, but it's the potential for those super-heavy payloads that really makes me excited. I WANT to see it prove itself. Edited December 24, 2017 by regex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racescort666 Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 1 hour ago, mikegarrison said: Cars *crush* during crashes. But a car should be able to handle a few gees without too many problems. Of the stuff I've worked on, 3g bump is a pretty serious bump but that's something you could easily experience driving around Detroit. Most cars should be able to take a 2-3 g bump without sustaining any damage. This is all vertical of course. For lateral and longitudinal 2 g is what most cars should be able to take without sustaining major damage. This loading is intended to act through the suspension but if you mount into the rigid structure of the car (like the Tesla's battery pack) then it should be able to sustain much higher accelerations. Your typical crash event sees peaks around 45 g but the way stuff is simulated could mean different requirements for how strong stuff needs to be. From my experience on electric vehicles, the battery mounting is probably one of the strongest parts of the car since it can't have electrolyte leakage during a crash event as dictated by FMVSS requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 Even with the windows up, and the fan vents closed, space oddity won't play for very long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 28 minutes ago, DAL59 said: Even with the windows up, and the fan vents closed, space oddity won't play for very long. Windows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Windows? Its a car... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Windows? Always figured Musk for more of a Mac guy myself... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 26 minutes ago, DAL59 said: Its a car... I'm just saying, in the pictures the top is down. So putting the windows up won't exactly do much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 Oh, its a convertible. I don't own a roadster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 (edited) See I nailed it, either that or Manley read my post agreed with me, and we both got it wrong. lol. So apparently the reason they splashed stage 1 is that it was the older block 4 design they did not want to use anymore, either that or they did not want to pay the other guys Navy to get permission to retrieve their stage. Anyway I think SpaceX was brilliant in the way they have created interest. I would be cool if the next time this happens they could spell their name in the Sunset, you'de have people calling 911 claiming that Elon Musk had bought the sky. lol. Edited December 25, 2017 by PB666 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrisjosh2711 Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 Merry Christmas my SpaceX people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 15 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Always figured Musk for more of a Mac guy myself... "It's a UNIX machine - I know this stuff." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrisjosh2711 Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 Working on this as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 On 12/24/2017 at 1:37 PM, DAL59 said: Launch is only a few gees. Cars withstand far higher acceleration during crashes. Can't the Tesla pull about 3 gees on its own? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 2 hours ago, cubinator said: Can't the Tesla pull about 3 gees on its own? The new roadster is going to be the faster car, so it can presumably survive slamming the breaks or swerving at that speed which might be 3 gees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) Will they put the Tesla-car on rails? It would run vertically just before the touchdown. Delta-V would be, say, 200 km/h, i.e. 50 m/s. So, it would be the first wheelbraking-assisted landing ever. (I mean, if send it on Mars, not just into orbit) Edited December 26, 2017 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 13 hours ago, cubinator said: Can't the Tesla pull about 3 gees on its own? I assume it can, I took a toyota over a railroad track once at 65 MPH and only broke one McPherson strut mount, The front wheel went about a foot off the ground since it plays about six inches that would have been about 3 gees on each of the two front tires. If you dropped a car from say six feet on the ground most everything would survive, but the following would suffer damage, most struts have a stop that prevents you from grounding out your vehicle, the pressure on the stop would warp the strut housing, go beyond that and you damage your muffler. If your gas tank if full the strap might break (i've seen this happen in an old chevy). If you drop a stretch limo from that height you would bend the frame at the center. Of course if you took a tacoma/hilux nothing would happen. Some production sports cars need to avoid railroad tracks and travel at low speed while crossing due to profile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeticulousMitch Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) I tried simulating this mount in BeamNG.drive to the best of my ability - it seems for a modern 2-door car a static load of around 10g should be achievable without any severe deformation. Of course, if the load is fluctuating wildly or if it goes into the 20+ g range, nasty stuff starts happening. Also probably worth considering that an average convertible would have somewhat lower overall rigidity than a coupe, due to lacking a roof. Edited December 26, 2017 by MeticulousMitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 21 minutes ago, MeticulousMitch said: I tried simulating this mount in BeamNG.drive to the best of my ability - it seems for a modern 2-door car a static load of around 10g should be achievable without any severe deformation. Of course, if the load is fluctuating wildly or if it goes into the 20+ g range, nasty stuff starts happening. Also probably worth considering that an average convertible would have somewhat lower overall rigidity than a coupe, due to lacking a roof. looks about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman4308 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 8 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Will they put the Tesla-car on rails? It would run vertically just before the touchdown. Delta-V would be, say, 200 km/h, i.e. 50 m/s. So, it would be the first wheelbraking-assisted landing ever. (I mean, if send it on Mars, not just into orbit) Would never happen. First, the planetary protection officer would have the launch cancelled. Second, it'd need a heatshield and Earth communication equipment and basically need to become an expensive probe, not an amusing mass simulator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 50 minutes ago, Starman4308 said: Second, it'd need a heatshield Of course. But after decelerating, instead of skycrane or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Of course. But after decelerating, instead of skycrane or so. How are you going to get the rails to the surface? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, cubinator said: How are you going to get the rails to the surface? A chute which would decrease the speed down to 50 m/s. Maybe even a heatshield would stay there until the car starts (as the trampoline base) Edited December 26, 2017 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.