sevenperforce Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 1 minute ago, tater said: There's still the interface with the tank/hull, even if the gear fairings are 1 piece. The renders you're talking about are lunar Starship, right? I was talking about the original bilateral-symmetry stainless steel renders, the ones currently on the SpaceX website. My proposal keeps the same outer mold line. Note also how there's space between each cargo bay and RVac for these "stiletto" legs to fold out. Let's see if it catches Elon's fancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 15 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: The "high heel" or "stiletto" has no hydraulics in it; just a spring and a crush core. The pistons on the outer fairings have hydraulics and crush cores. The only actuated part in the "stiletto" is the hinge itself. The pistons do all the auto-leveling and the springs in the "high heel" will compensate automatically. Bonus points for the stiletto. It gives the project it a sexy rocky horror/70s Buck Rogers vibe, rather than the squarish 30s/40s Buck Rogers . How wide are the feet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Nightside said: Bonus points for the stiletto. It gives the project it a sexy rocky horror/70s Buck Rogers vibe, rather than the squarish 30s/40s Buck Rogers . How wide are the feet? Probably as wide as will fit, considering where they have to get clearance around the RVacs. They were inspired by this folding leg concept: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 Still waiting on my Starship model water bottle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 So this is the top-down view of the header tank. Did...did the top just come off? Or does it fly like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_c Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 Given how it crashed, that's pretty good survival of a part that they'll probably want to take a good look at. I would have thought, for next time, activate the landing legs based on altitude AGL rather than speed, so that even more stuff survives if a similar anomoly with the final approach speed occurs. (Much) later on, I'd imagine they'll look at variable-height landing legs, to cope with uneven terrain. If they can do a hoverslam landing, they can do a hover or slowdown to give enough time to do some kind of radar survey of the ground below and set the legs, or possibly even translate sideways to find a flatter landing area. They'll need to do that, surely, for Moon or Mars landings? Fun stuff ahead..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Nightside said: its the Kerbonacci Sequence! You win one internet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, sevenperforce said: I was talking about the original bilateral-symmetry stainless steel renders, the ones currently on the SpaceX website. So I like your high heels idea - but what is with the Adam & Eve style of the purple Mars entry rendering? Edited December 12, 2020 by JoeSchmuckatelli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Gotta love the synergy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 12 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Gotta love the synergy Gotta slightly question how far this could go before violating a whole bunch of anti-trust laws and SEC rules about self-dealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Did...did the top just come off? Or does it fly like that? Looking at it closer and in better light, I think the tank cap did, indeed, pop off. If you look close, you can see the scalloped weld line just before where the metal ceases to exist. Actually a really good sign, since it doesn’t look like the weld failed at all even after such a catastrophic event, the base metal is what tore free. Ever drop a beer soda bottle straight down so that it lands upright on its bottom and shoots up a fountain? Looks like similar happened here, only that “fountain” took the tank cap along with it. 36 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Gotta slightly question how far this could go before violating a whole bunch of anti-trust laws and SEC rules about self-dealing. I think that would be a hard case for the SEC, et al to argue, at least in case of electric motors. Using a Tesla motor means it’s a product those in the loop understand very well, have near-direct access to every bit of data about how it performs under X condition, and have a level of trust in the quality of the product they won’t have with a random contractor (remember those pesky upper stage COPV struts?). It seems like an absolutely logical decision to go with Tesla motors here, even if it’s also very convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said: I think that would be a hard case for the SEC, et al to argue, at least in case of electric motors. Using a Tesla motor means it’s a product those in the loop understand very well, have near-direct access to every bit of data about how it performs under X condition, and have a level of trust in the quality of the product they won’t have with a random contractor (remember those pesky upper stage COPV struts?). It seems like an absolutely logical decision to go with Tesla motors here, even if it’s also very convenient. None of that makes any difference, as far as I know. What matters is whether SpaceX pays open market prices and whether other buyers would have the same access to buy the same motors. I mean, think about it -- Tesla is a public company. If they were to, for instance, give away motors for free to SpaceX, that would clearly be a case of Tesla stockholders basically being forced to hand money to the private owners of SpaceX. That would clearly be illegal. Now I'm not at all saying that's what happened here. I certainly hope SpaceX made an open market purchase of motors that any other buyer would also have had an equal opportunity to buy. But I'm just pointing out that many of the "synergies" you refer to are in fact probably not legal if Musk is simply self-dealing between his companies. But I assume they have made use of their lawyers and are doing this correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_c Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 I don't see why its illegal. Its an internal transaction within the wider group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, paul_c said: I don't see why its illegal. Its an internal transaction within the wider group. Tesla and SpaceX are two completely different companies. They are not in a "group". Tesla is a public company, meaning its shares are traded on the stock market. Musk is the biggest single shareholder, and he owns about 20% of the shares. SpaceX is a private company. Its shares are not traded on the stock market. Musk owns over 50% of it and has close to 80% of the voting rights. ------------ And I didn't say SpaceX got those motors illegally. I assume they entered into a typical supplier/customer business arrangement and bought the motors from Tesla. But my point is that I thought some people were making the assumption you just made, that Tesla and SpaceX are somehow "part of the same group" and so this would be "an internal transaction" or an example of "synergy". But it can't be (legally, anyway), because the two companies have no legal connection except that Musk happens to be the CEO of each of them. He can't just hand Tesla assets (including technical information) to SpaceX. That would be giving away property that is 80% owned by other people to a company that he privately owns more than 50% of. Edited December 12, 2020 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Bluto/Tankzilla is coming to SN9's aid (on LabPadre Lab Cam): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: He can't just hand Tesla assets (including technical information) to SpaceX. That would be giving away property that is 80% owned by other people to a company that he privately owns more than He can sell and license stuff from one company to the other, however - and that is perfectly legit. SpaceX might get public funding for certain launches - but I do not think that the Starship program is... So I don't understand why you think there might be rules against self dealing when building prototypes. Lockheed Martin certainly did not have to go through any public bid process when building a prototype to offer for sale to the government - but once purchased and ordered - that kind of thing might change Edited December 12, 2020 by JoeSchmuckatelli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: SpaceX might get public funding for certain launches - I do not think that the Starship program is... So I don't understand why you think there might be rules against self dealing when building prototypes. Starship has received funding partly through the NASA HLS contract, I suppose ? I mean, if anyone want to waste money, time and effort, and go sue Tesla and/or SpaceX, please go ahead, but I'm not your guest nor you're my guest. Edited December 12, 2020 by YNM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: SpaceX might get public funding for certain launches - but I do not think that the Starship program is... Starship development is getting some money from NASA for the Artemis lunar lander contract, but most of its funding still comes from SpaceX. Edit: ninja'd by @YNM Edited December 12, 2020 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Well - I'm not a government contract expert - but I do know that the rules are different when something is built for and sold to the government under contract vs when the government offers development grants. I'd guess it would come down to the program rules under which the funds were approved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I'd guess it would come down to the program rules under which the funds were approved Either that or a lawsuit or two... Lots of cans are often left unopened, and you're never really sure how people will try to open it and interpret the contents. I'd still take opening the cans being a waste of effort. But yeah. I'd honestly let it slide off. It's not like your average Tesla owner is trying to build a belly-flopping flying grain silo. Edited December 12, 2020 by YNM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Crane in there. Hopefully they get it sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NH04 Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 22 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said: It doesn't apply in all cases, but I can see a pattern emerging here Well, let's hope it is just a coincidence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 Just now, NH04 said: Well, let's hope it is just a coincidence... *crosses fingers for SN11* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: He can sell and license stuff from one company to the other, however - and that is perfectly legit. SpaceX might get public funding for certain launches - but I do not think that the Starship program is... So I don't understand why you think there might be rules against self dealing when building prototypes. Lockheed Martin certainly did not have to go through any public bid process when building a prototype to offer for sale to the government - but once purchased and ordered - that kind of thing might change This, the battery packs engines and their control systems are spare parts. Now making an version who will work in space probably don't involve Tesla much as its not their expertise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted December 13, 2020 Share Posted December 13, 2020 If they can use stock battery packs and motors on the orbital Starships, they can add “Space-rated powertrain” to their Tesla specs 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.