ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 39 minutes ago, Xd the great said: It needs airliner-like safety. is it a god idea to give it so much instability? Again, "instability" refers to stability when flying like a plane. It is not flying, it is falling at terminal velocity. The f;laps aren't supposed to generate any lift. If this was a airplane,that would be bad. This is not an airplane. The most "unstable" configuration is the most stable for these purposes. 11 minutes ago, Raven Industries said: I think the airline comparison breaks down more often than we'd like. Space travel is inherently more dangerous than air travel, and vehicles meant for the space environment may need to break a few rules that airlines hold to. I'm gonna have to agree on this, I don't think they'll ever get quite *that* good (safer than other vehicles, maybe, but not airliner-safe). However, SpaceX certainly doens't think this, or else they wouldn't be talking about P2P. Just now, Xd the great said: Personally, I think starship needs to be able to survive a malfunctioning winglet. Aircraft can't always survive a malfunctioning engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 16 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: Again, "instability" refers to stability when flying like a plane. It is not flying, it is falling at terminal velocity. The f;laps aren't supposed to generate any lift. If this was a airplane,that would be bad. This is not an airplane. The most "unstable" configuration is the most stable for these purposes. So, can it fall in a "stable" manner? That is what I am worried about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Industries Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, Xd the great said: Personally, I think starship needs to be able to survive a malfunctioning winglet. That's a fair enough criticism, but airline levels of safety in any vehicle that has to go through re-entry is not something I think is possible in the foreseeable future. The nature of re-entry is not very gentle. If you lose pressure in an aircraft, the oxygen masks drop and the pilot dips down to safer altitudes. You lose pressure in a re-entry vehicle, your passengers are dead, and you're lucky if the ship lands in less than 10,000 pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacke Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, Raven Industries said: You lose pressure in a re-entry vehicle, your passengers are dead, and you're lucky if the ship lands in less than 10,000 pieces. If there are no other major failures, losing pressure during reentry is likely survivable as all crew and passengers will at least have sufficient gear to provide breathing gas down to landing. The failure of Soyuz 11 saw to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Xd the great said: Personally, I think starship needs to be able to survive a malfunctioning winglet. That's an LOCV scenario in both fixed and rotary wing aircraft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Xd the great said: Personally, I think starship needs to be able to survive a malfunctioning winglet. Having four means that if one becomes locked, the other three can compensate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 How many wings can fall off a 777? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Just now, tater said: How many wings can fall off a 777? Loss of control of control surfaces, is one of the most common sources of airliner LOCV, right after controlled flight into terrain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Hopefully we have an n of 1 in the not too distant future (one way or another). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, sevenperforce said: Having four means that if one becomes locked, the other three can compensate. A fin locked at max/min will affect the drag coefficient a lot, and basically your passengers experience a heck ton of gees. (good for kerbal contracts.) If the stuck fin is upper fin, you might not be able to maintain a high enough angle of attack that the heat shield works. Basically, it will burn. Edited October 29, 2019 by Xd the great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Perhaps military safety norms are better suited for spaceships than civilian ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, tater said: How many wings can fall off a 777? Well, we know an F-15 only needs one wing. https://www.wingsnews.org/israeli-air-force-pilot-landed-an-f-15-with-only-one-wing/ Edited October 29, 2019 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Well, we know an F-15 only needs one wing. https://www.wingsnews.org/israeli-air-force-pilot-landed-an-f-15-with-only-one-wing/ There was a US one, back in the late 80s or so, that landed the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, mikegarrison said: Well, we know an F-15 only needs one wing. https://www.wingsnews.org/israeli-air-force-pilot-landed-an-f-15-with-only-one-wing/ I just landed a same plane similarly. In KSP. It crashed, but the kerbal walked away unharmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 6 hours ago, mikegarrison said: Well, we know an F-15 only needs one wing. https://www.wingsnews.org/israeli-air-force-pilot-landed-an-f-15-with-only-one-wing/ badS = True Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 11 hours ago, Xd the great said: A fin locked at max/min will affect the drag coefficient a lot, and basically your passengers experience a heck ton of gees. (good for kerbal contracts.) If the stuck fin is upper fin, you might not be able to maintain a high enough angle of attack that the heat shield works. Basically, it will burn. The actual math is rather extraordinarily complicated, but a back-of-the-envelope approach suggests that even with any one control surface locked at max/min, the other three have sufficient authority for sustainable roll and pitch control, and yaw can be handled with thrusters. The only edge case might be an aft flap (or Plasma Deflector Shields as I prefer to call them) locked in the full-forward position...that's tricky. In such a situation (e.g., the port aft PDS locked in full-out position), the SS might need to roll the entire vehicle to starboard to effectively "flap" that fixed surface back. For aerodynamic purposes, having both port flaps full-out and both starboard flaps full-back is not very different from having all flaps feathered halfway back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Weird how they haven’t installed the flaperons before stacking, like they did previously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Just now, RealKerbal3x said: Weird how they haven’t installed the flaperons before stacking, like they did previously... I don't think they are stacking it. I think they are moving it. (either to the launch site area, or someplace else to facilitate putting the flaps back on definitively) PS-meaning move it in 2 parts. Tall enough as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Spoiler With one fin locked in max/min they will just lock in max/min other fins and screw into the air like a propeller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 Interesting indeed... Is there any reason why they couldn’t be there together? IIRC the second IDA has already been installed. If nothing else, it would make for one BadS photo op. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 They might be testing legs, I suppose, as well. 2 of the legs are under the fin hinges, right? Might want to test before those get installed. They can try setting it down with the crane as support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: If nothing else, it would make for one BadS photo op. It would be like ‘passing on the baton’ from Dragon 1 to 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Industries Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 15 hours ago, Jacke said: If there are no other major failures, losing pressure during reentry is likely survivable as all crew and passengers will at least have sufficient gear to provide breathing gas down to landing. The failure of Soyuz 11 saw to that. That was a valve failure, I'm thinking more along the lines of a hole in your fuselage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacke Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Raven Industries said: [ Soyuz 11 ] was a valve failure, I'm thinking more along the lines of a hole in your fuselage. I agree. But when it's just stated as loss of pressurization, I think the difference needs to be emphasized. Losing pressurization with minimal other effects is survivable. Damage affecting the aerodynamics and/or allowing hot reentry gases into the airframe are almost always going to result in LOCV. 12 hours ago, mikegarrison said: Well, we know an F-15 only needs one wing. https://www.wingsnews.org/israeli-air-force-pilot-landed-an-f-15-with-only-one-wing/ I think the F-15 had a few things in its favour. One, the ruggedness of a military airframe also with a greater range of thrust and control. Two, the amount of body lift meant even after losing a wing, restoring lift sufficiently was within the range of thrust. And three, a design close to neutral stability (like all military jets) meant that the remaining control surfaces had enough authority to maneuver sufficiently. Still, an awesome display of piloting. Edited October 29, 2019 by Jacke 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.