CatastrophicFailure
-
Posts
7,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by CatastrophicFailure
-
-
On 4/15/2024 at 2:29 PM, Ultimate Steve said:
Given the MSR news... I'm not saying this is a good idea and I'm not saying it will happen, but proposing a manned Starship mission to complete Mars Sample Return is a completely on brand thing for SpaceX to do.
Would be quite the plot twist but the 21st century of space exploration has been filled with so many plot twists already that I doubt anything would surprise me at this point.
Only if they bring back Spirit & Opportunity too.
-
12 hours ago, darthgently said:
That would be a very large, and massive pallet. If the sun were directly overhead one could easily get a momentary nice eclipse effect with boat positioned directly underneath it.
For anyone else who’s brain absolutely will NOT let them rest until this useless knowledge is known…
that wood be a pallet approximately 135x82x11ft and weighing 18,750 tons, and is either half the annual production of pennies or all the pennies in circulation as of 2012 depending on which nonsense interwebz source you trust.
so yeah, splash. BIG splash.
-
Finders keepers.
-
7 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:
Not sure how to get better information than articles actually interviewing Tesla owners…
No, I did not simply read the headline and take it as fact.
It is highly unlikely this was a politicized article. I didn’t clarify in the original post, but the article stated this was happening to ALL electric cars, not just Teslas.
I think the idea of any electric pickup truck- Cybertruck or any future attempts from Ford- are not going to be good ones.
Cybertruck is actually different insofar as it isn’t necessarily billed as a replacement for farm equipment. For urban citizens it should be just fine. It’s only in freak weather it would have issues.
Sadly, nothing related to Tesla is ever unpoliticized for free from bias, either way. Such articles are nearly always missing important context, like the fact that most of the people caught in that mess hadn't bothered to precondition their cars prior to going to charge, which makes a huge difference. Or mention all the people who can't start their gas cars due to... dead batteries. Note you don't hear about issues like this in places like, say, Norway, or even Minnesota, where such subzero (F) weather is fairly normal and people know how to handle it. There's more than that, of course, so if you really want to discuss it I'd suggest taking it over to the relevant Tesla thread.
22 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:Summer burns. The first thought is a trauma response to the burns these things gave. because i know no kid my age that does not know this burn. Cybertruck is no difference. Now before i rant more im out.
Now that you've ranted, how about listening?
It's hit over 100 a few times here, but I've never had to get into a burning hot car, because it's always cooled down remotely by the time I get in there.
Also, nudge nudge...
11 hours ago, magnemoe said:How does this happen? Yes i know the redneck grill idea of tipping an shopping cart over, make an bonfire inside it and use the upper side as an grill as grilled on them. But this is an plastic one and it looks like the kid was kind of hot.
Er... socioeconomic factors and, shall we say, heavy use of alternative pharmaceuticals...
-
On 4/5/2024 at 7:09 PM, SunlitZelkova said:
Teslas had a lot of problems in the Great Lakes and Northeast when the winter storms hit in January, IIRC.
On 4/5/2024 at 7:16 PM, AlamoVampire said:@SunlitZelkova the cyber truck has a terrible crash rating and where i am regularly reaches 100+ degrees
I’m just gonna say this: if you truly wish to have an informed opinion about Teslas in X climate, or anything really, listen to people who actually own them, not what some rando on social media or newscaster sensationalizing for ratings/clicks says.
-
1 hour ago, tater said:
Mars needs steaks.
How many spherical cows can fit in a 13m ShawtyStarShip?
Also keep in mind, they are still planning for ≈18m SS/SH in the long future…
I see it like this: the first Starships to Mars (or a proper lunar colony) will be one-way, with wide, one-use LSS-style legs under heat shields (Martian EDL less demanding?). They’ll carry robots that will build level, solid, Mars-crete landing pads for the next, reusable Starships with stumpy-legs, which will bring the crews to finish assembling the mini-Mars-Mechazillas (MMMs) catch towers, 3D-printed in situ, to start using “standard” Starships.
-
30 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:
I’d like to see them get some actual payload to orbit, even if it’s inert like water or liquid nitrogen.Bob Clark
They should follow precedent and send a Cybertruck to Jupiter.
-
And then there’s this:
The TL:DW:
-
I had to grab the fire extinguisher and put out a flaming shopping cart.
Spoiler
Wen your job’s not literally a dumpster fire, but close enough.
Sadly the shopping cart, and some dude’s drawers, were a total loss.
-
-
3 hours ago, darthgently said:
Still, consider advances in doppler radar and a steady stream of ground station generated 3D realtime data of wind vectors in the landing path volume being fed into landing AI as the booster descends.
Maybe instead of RTLS on an open pad, land in a large open topped box as tall as the booster that would provide a wind break during the final moments and afterwards. Drone ship landings during hurricanes will likely remain intractable problems however
Or just land it in a massive underground silo like a proper Bond villain.
But speaking of all this, sort of, interesting thread here from a very astute person who IFT-3 Superheavy's return. Counter to Falcon 9 boostbacks, which actually glide a good ways, it basically came straight down. That could certainly explain why it didn't appear to slow down nearly enough, and points to grid fin issues again:
-
2 hours ago, Exoscientist said:
Common Sense Skeptic, a well-known critic of SpaceX
CSS is a discredited hack who hate-mongers for clicks and has been proven wrong pretty much every step of the way. Not really a good “source” to call back.
Oh, and also a media thief.
jus sayin…
-
1 hour ago, DDE said:
MS-25 second stage reentry over Vladivostok, previously believed a Chinese piece of space junk
So would that be the core or (final) upper stage?
-
19 minutes ago, DDE said:
Apparently the chemical battery was somehow related to PZUs. Complete ignition failure.
Is this one of those one-time-use “missile batteries” that can sit around for ever but once it’s activated, it’s done?
-
Also, I'm not saying it was this, but neither can this be ruled out at this point either...
Spoiler
-
10 hours ago, Exoscientist said:
Is it confirmed the hot gas RCS worked on the booster but not on the Starship? If so, then the propellant transfer test may have caused a fuel leak preventing the RCS from operating.
Bob Clark
10 hours ago, RCgothic said:No, the causes of the losses of control on both booster and ship are unconfirmed.
Unconfirmed, yes, tho something like this does appear to be the case. The booster was under complete control via thrusters until the grid fins "kicked in." If you watch it sped up the control actually looks quite crisp, for a much larger and more massive vehicle vs an empty Starship. It looks to me like it wasn't a case of the SS thrusters not working well enough towards the end, they didn't seem to be working at all. Possibly with a leak of some sort adding in that uncontrolled roll. It's far too early to say if the boiloff-based thrusters work or not at this point. Tho I bet SpaceX themselves already know the solution.
8 hours ago, CBase said:I am curious how SpaceX will change the ship for IFT-4.
If I had this playing Kerbal, I would probably integrate an overkill of control thrusters and accept temporarily a reduced payload. Any payload to destination is better than none. When piloting is mastered, I would reduce thrust limits to see what I actually need and then refine build to match actual demand for control.
If I had this playing Kerbal, I'd rage quit for a few hours, come back, build an even BIGGER rocket, BRAKE IT TO A COMPLETE STOP 100km above KSC, bring it down under power the entire descent and land it directly on top of the VAB just to stick it to the game, laughing maniacally the whole time.
...Then rage quit again when it ever-so-slowly tips over and explodes literally everything.
-
2 hours ago, Codraroll said:
On the other hand, we are talking about Starlink satellites, which are approximately as expendable as non-expendable payloads get. They've launched almost six thousand of the little fellas by now, about a thousand per year. They reported building six Starlink satellites per day back in 2020. It would not be a bank-breaking gamble to put a few on the next Starship flight, if only to test how well Starship can carry and dispense them. If it works, hey, bonus Starlinks in orbit! And if not, well, they can probably afford to lose a few.
First Starlinks deployed NEED to have cameras tho. Just to make this a thing:
Spoiler
-
1 hour ago, darthgently said:
While it would add complexity, they could circulate heat from engine components into a sink and use that to deice the cold gas thrusters. Maybe
There’s big ol’ Tesla batteries on board to power the grid find, TVC, etc. Tesla butt warmers work pretty good. Just sayin…
1 hour ago, Codraroll said:Quite aside from the whole re-entry thing, what Starship just did was to bring more mass to orbit than SLS ever could, at a vastly lower cost than even the side boosters of SLS, and there's a mass production line of these already up and running. It wouldn't take much adaptation of the already proven concepts of Starship to far outperform everything SLS dreams of doing. Even when treated as an expendable two-stage rocket, with all the waste it implies, Starship still does more than SLS does, for less.
I get into this on that other platform all the time. Artemis needs Starship to work. But the moment Starship does work, even partially, SLS becomes obsolete.
-
1 hour ago, AckSed said:
Oh, nothing, just a spacecraft the size of a building went through reentry.
Indeed.
RIP my inbox.
-
I just woke, up, something happen?
-
48 minutes ago, tater said:
Wonder where the platform is?
Prolly just gonna use that island with the old abandoned airfield for now…
-
On 3/9/2024 at 8:12 AM, DDE said:
90th birthday
Wow… so much to digest on one page…
-
17 hours ago, sevenperforce said:
This is mostly speculative, but it's possible that they will be putting it into the original trajectory from IFT-2, then executing a radial-in burn to ditch in the Indian Ocean instead. Alternatively they may do an acceleration burn just before re-entry.
I’m thinking not, since there’s no precautionary TFRs in the Pacific, at least not yet. My impression is they’re staying well suborbital, then burning normal/antinormal, prograde dive, etc, in such a way not to move the entry corridor much, specifically because they don’t want it coming down over Australia or such if the engine burn fails for any reason. First light of a Raptor in space & all.
Now I’m wondering if that engine burn might be what actually moves the fuel transfer, too.
-
5 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:
and there was a open letter by some people at NASA talking about using starship and that NASA need to start to dream big).
Came here to say this (linky no worky
) in reference to:
10 hours ago, AckSed said:If you'll allow me a little rant here, no-one is prepared for what's coming when both StarShip reuse and in-orbit refuelling is proven out. No-one. Not. A. Soul.
Largely I'd agree, but there ARE people entrenched within the bureaucracies who are, maybe even their superiors are, but everyone's had a bit too much "we've-been-here-before" over the decades about what's surely coming just over the next hill that never actually arrives (NASP anyone?). So they're afraid to seriously talk about it, as if even that much attention might make it all vanish like a dim star just in your periphery when you try to really see it, as so many have before. When Starship really and truly is here, the floodgates will open.
17 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:Someone would have to run the numbers, and it would be a delicate balance, for sure. A shorter trip would mean a much longer insertion burn, or more powerful (heavier) engines. Would it still have the dV for a shorter trip, with all that extra fuel/engine mass? Many trade-offs, to be sure. At least it wouldn't need as many RTGs, maybe.
IIRC an old UA-1205 Titan booster is around 250 tonnes. Expendable Starship can send 300 tonnes to just about anywhere. That's a whole lotta reliable, storable when-I-say-WHOAH-I-MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAN-WHOAH!!! once it gets there. With mass left.
Just sayin...
) in reference to:
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted · Edited by CatastrophicFailure
Good article with some equally interesting discussion down in the comments. TL:DR due to potential delays with Starship, Orion’s heat shield, et al, NASA may be considering an Apollo-9-esq mission of putting Orion into LEO to dock with a stripped-down Starship for habitability and other tests.
Or, if you believe the conspiracies, a “camel’s nose under the tent” to obviate SLS entirely…
iwanttobelieve.gif
derp… here’s the article…
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/04/nasa-may-alter-artemis-iii-to-have-starship-and-orion-dock-in-low-earth-orbit/?comments=1&comments-page=1