Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Lurkst

A car in orbit

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Lurkst said:

Still trying to get my head round what I witnessed this evening...

starman%20live%20view%20falcon%20heavy%2

Think the car was just a bit of a publicity stunt. They needed to prove they could get a heavy object launched into orbit. Pretty sure they used a wheel of cheese last time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, debtlessmanc said:

forget the car- this was the important bit

 

 

Absolutely yes. NASA must be feeling very old school right now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lurkst said:

Absolutely yes. NASA must be feeling very old school right now.

 

(not really familiar w/ subject matter, but ...)

Why?

Cos he's added one more item to the ~18,000 bits of orbiting mm junk ?

Cos he didn't use a parachute to retrieve the boosters?

Cos the Falcon Heavy can only lift 1/2 of a Saturn V?

Cos the Falcon heavy isn't suitable for humans?

Cos Falcon Heavy burns more fossil fuel than Musk's cars save (whilst Sat V burnt H2, which at least in theory could have been made - eventually - like the electricity for Musk's cars,  in a renewable fashion)?

Cos it played Bowie's Space Oddity in the vacuum of space (where it will be inaudible)?

Cos  unlike NASAs Moon Buggies, the Tesla, even if it has an engine, won't be going anywhere under its own power, cos tyres don't grip in a vacuum?

OR

Cos nobody does marketing like Musk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sledgehead said:

(not really familiar w/ subject matter, but ...)

Why?

Cos he's added one more item to the ~18,000 bits of orbiting mm junk ?

Cos he didn't use a parachute to retrieve the boosters?

Cos the Falcon Heavy can only lift 1/2 of a Saturn V?

Cos the Falcon heavy isn't suitable for humans?

Cos Falcon Heavy burns more fossil fuel than Musk's cars save (whilst Sat V burnt H2, which at least in theory could have been made - eventually - like the electricity for Musk's cars,  in a renewable fashion)?

Cos it played Bowie's Space Oddity in the vacuum of space (where it will be inaudible)?

Cos  unlike NASAs Moon Buggies, the Tesla, even if it has an engine, won't be going anywhere under its own power, cos tyres don't grip in a vacuum?

OR

Cos nobody does marketing like Musk?

I don't think the Saturn V reference is relevant as it hasn't flown for 45 years.

The key, as debtlessmanc alluded to, is the reusability of the system and relative cost saving.  It's being acknowledged as a game changer. Although if this test paves the way for BFR, SpaceX will have a massive lead in launch capability.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-launches-falcon-heavy/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lurkst said:

I don't think the Saturn V reference is relevant as it hasn't flown for 45 years.

The key, as debtlessmanc alluded to, is the reusability

 

Think NASA got there first:

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kv

And that carried peeps.

Still wondering exactly what the big deal is.

I can see that the staff at the Beeb are impressed: "The boosters landed at exactly the same time!" marveled Huw (or whoever it was - AND hope that this was not the part debtlessmanc was impressed by).

Yeah, but they were released at exactly the same time. I'd offer to "release" Huw (or whoever) and his producer from the top of the Burj Khalifa "at exactly the same time" just to prove to them that a concurrent touch-down was no great miracle of modern tech, but simply an inevitability of physics. Language students: you've gotta love 'em, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

Still wondering exactly what the big deal is.

I can see that the staff at the Beeb are impressed: "The boosters landed at exactly the same time!" marveled Huw (or whoever it was - AND hope that this was not the part debtlessmanc was impressed by).

Yeah, but they were released at exactly the same time. I'd offer to "release" Huw (or whoever) and his producer from the top of the Burj Khalifa "at exactly the same time" just to prove to them that a concurrent touch-down was no great miracle of modern tech, but simply an inevitability of physics. Language students: you've gotta love 'em, eh?

Landing something that unstable-looking under control is quite impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Riedquat said:

Landing something that unstable-looking under control is quite impressive.

No it isn't. A segway or a drone has the same feedback loops. Cheap as chips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

No it isn't. A segway or a drone has the same feedback loops. Cheap as chips.

If so why is nobody else attempting it?

I agree there was a lot of gimmickry connected to this test but it's got people interested which I imagine was the intention.

The exciting take away from this is the potential on offer for the near future. I eagerly await the next development...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lurkst said:

Still trying to get my head round what I witnessed this evening...

starman%20live%20view%20falcon%20heavy%2

Lol he’s made a wrong turn somewhere! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sledgehead said:

No it isn't. A segway or a drone has the same feedback loops. Cheap as chips.

The same basic concept, sure, in the same way as a firework and this thing are both rockets that work on the same basic concept. A drone with four well-spaced rotors relative to its centre of mass is a rather more stable platform. Think for example what happens if the drone ends up side-on - should be fairly easy to recover from that, no chance for the rocket. There's a great deal less room for error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

Think NASA got there first:

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kv

And that carried peeps.

Still wondering exactly what the big deal is.

I can see that the staff at the Beeb are impressed: "The boosters landed at exactly the same time!" marveled Huw (or whoever it was - AND hope that this was not the part debtlessmanc was impressed by).

Yeah, but they were released at exactly the same time. I'd offer to "release" Huw (or whoever) and his producer from the top of the Burj Khalifa "at exactly the same time" just to prove to them that a concurrent touch-down was no great miracle of modern tech, but simply an inevitability of physics. Language students: you've gotta love 'em, eh?

No - the boosters on the space shuttle were giant fireworks and dangerous to boot. Recovering them saved little as they didn’t have engines. Falcon heavy should recover 3 large turbo pump powered liquid fuel rockets- complex engineered things. Without having to carry them all the way into orbit. As to the fuel - you are aware that the hydrogen fuel is made by reacting methane with water. The next space x rockets will simply burn the methane directly. That is More environmentally friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

Think NASA got there first:

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kv

And that carried peeps.

Still wondering exactly what the big deal is.

I can see that the staff at the Beeb are impressed: "The boosters landed at exactly the same time!" marveled Huw (or whoever it was - AND hope that this was not the part debtlessmanc was impressed by).

Yeah, but they were released at exactly the same time. I'd offer to "release" Huw (or whoever) and his producer from the top of the Burj Khalifa "at exactly the same time" just to prove to them that a concurrent touch-down was no great miracle of modern tech, but simply an inevitability of physics. Language students: you've gotta love 'em, eh?

Been there, done that.

lunar.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

No - the boosters on the space shuttle were giant fireworks and dangerous to boot. Recovering them saved little as they didn’t have engines. Falcon heavy should recover 3 large turbo pump powered liquid fuel rockets- complex engineered things. Without having to carry them all the way into orbit. As to the fuel - you are aware that the hydrogen fuel is made by reacting methane with water. The next space x rockets will simply burn the methane directly. That is More environmentally friendly.

First of all, you are conflating my posts, which is not fair. But I don't mind fighting with one arm tied on this one.

You are saying that the boosters on the shuttle were just cheap things, especially compared w/ the Falcon boosters. Then you make a big issue about cost savings. See the error there?

Then you say the Falcon used hydrogen. That is incorrect as I pointed out above. It uses RP-1, a highly refined kerosene.

Saturn V used hydrogen. One could easily argue that SV is thererfore much more enviro friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

The same basic concept, sure, in the same way as a firework and this thing are both rockets that work on the same basic concept. A drone with four well-spaced rotors relative to its centre of mass is a rather more stable platform. Think for example what happens if the drone ends up side-on - should be fairly easy to recover from that, no chance for the rocket. There's a great deal less room for error.

You say a drone platform is more stable. Get a table mat and drill a hole in its middle. Dangle from a string. Does it sit horizontally?

Next, take a bic biro and remove the cartridge. Insert a knotted string down the barrel. Now dangle from string.

Course, if you wanna make things difficult for difficulty's sake, you can try to balance the pen vertically on your finger.

But discussions about centre of gravity aside, why is landing so much more impressive than taking off?

How long have we as a species been doing that?

Don't think you've thought this through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

First of all, you are conflating my posts, which is not fair. But I don't mind fighting with one arm tied on this one.

You are saying that the boosters on the shuttle were just cheap things, especially compared w/ the Falcon boosters. Then you make a big issue about cost savings. See the error there?

Then you say the Falcon used hydrogen. That is incorrect as I pointed out above. It uses RP-1, a highly refined kerosene.

Saturn V used hydrogen. One could easily argue that SV is thererfore much more enviro friendly.

Sorry if the sense got garbled I meant that the Saturn 5 burnt hydrogen made from methane- actually the main stage of the Saturn 5 was Rgp as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was like a bizarre, slightly tacky mixture of Thunderbirds and Max Headroom, except it was all real.

Spacex are moving at an astonishing pace. Their next generation of spacecraft will use Methane which can be produced from Carbon Dioxide extracted from the Martian atmosphere, which sort of addresses the fossil fuel issue. Blue Origin probably won't be far behind.

I don't think that many people will want to live on Mars, given that more hospitable places like Siberia and Alaska have low population densities. On the other hand, if I was a politician, I'd be worried about what happens when people start landing on Mars and claiming ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, debtlessmanc said:

Sorry if the sense got garbled I meant that the Saturn 5 burnt hydrogen made from methane- actually the main stage of the Saturn 5 was Rgp as well.

Notwithstanding the main stage, the hydrogen burnt could now theoretically be made from solar electrolysis (though this I suspect, if proposed by Musk, would probably be only for the believers). Hence my suggestion that it could be "argued" that Sat V is a more eco-friendly tech.

Bristol Buyer's mention of the sabatier reaction (co2 to methane) is irrelevant, as this would occur on Mars (supposedly) - not a place anyone I know would consider part of our eco-system, and thus not technically speaking eco-friendly. Moreover, if Sabatier is so damn eco-friendly, why aren't we doing it here on earth? ;)

Don't get me wrong.

Musk is definitely more of a 'legend' than PewDiePie. He's definitely more of a genius than Suarez. And his rocket is indeed more 'amazing' than the winning submission in a Bake-Off "show-stopper-challenge".

But we seem to have regressed in our expectations of late. Maybe we've been so indoctrinated by our sycophantic media that we are simply unable to spot a king "in the altogether"? And maybe all the really amazing stuff is just too intangible, too small or so out-there, we simply fail to appreciate it.

Personally, for me, it's just a big rocket. Big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

Notwithstanding the main stage, the hydrogen burnt could now theoretically be made from solar electrolysis (though this I suspect, if proposed by Musk, would probably be only for the believers). Hence my suggestion that it could be "argued" that Sat V is a more eco-friendly tech.

Bristol Buyer's mention of the sabatier reaction (co2 to methane) is irrelevant, as this would occur on Mars (supposedly) - not a place anyone I know would consider part of our eco-system, and thus not technically speaking eco-friendly. Moreover, if Sabatier is so damn eco-friendly, why aren't we doing it here on earth? ;)

Don't get me wrong.

Musk is definitely more of a 'legend' than PewDiePie. He's definitely more of a genius than Suarez. And his rocket is indeed more 'amazing' than the winning submission in a Bake-Off "show-stopper-challenge".

But we seem to have regressed in our expectations of late. Maybe we've been so indoctrinated by our sycophantic media that we are simply unable to spot a king "in the altogether"? And maybe all the really amazing stuff is just too intangible, too small or so out-there, we simply fail to appreciate it.

Personally, for me, it's just a big rocket. Big deal.

Most revolutions are incremental Ray Croc didn’t invent beefburgers. Bill gates software etc. It’s really about having the right product at the right time. Perhaps space x will fail but that it is possible to launch stuff for 1000 dollars a kilo will not go away again now. 

I admit I buy it personally - it establishes possibility. Is he an emperor with no clothes- personally I don’t think any emperors have clothes but look at their serfs- his are clever hard working people and they are cheering him on, I suspect that George stephenson was the same. He has inspired and motivated people which is 99% of the deal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, debtlessmanc said:

Most revolutions are incremental Ray Croc didn’t invent beefburgers. Bill gates software etc. It’s really about having the right product at the right time. Perhaps space x will fail but that it is possible to launch stuff for 1000 dollars a kilo will not go away again now. 

I admit I buy it personally - it establishes possibility. Is he an emperor with no clothes- personally I don’t think any emperors have clothes but look at their serfs- his are clever hard working people and they are cheering him on, I suspect that George stephenson was the same. He has inspired and motivated people which is 99% of the deal.

 

True

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, debtlessmanc said:

Most revolutions are incremental Ray Croc didn’t invent beefburgers. Bill gates software etc. It’s really about having the right product at the right time. Perhaps space x will fail but that it is possible to launch stuff for 1000 dollars a kilo will not go away again now. 

I admit I buy it personally - it establishes possibility. Is he an emperor with no clothes- personally I don’t think any emperors have clothes but look at their serfs- his are clever hard working people and they are cheering him on, I suspect that George stephenson was the same. He has inspired and motivated people which is 99% of the deal.

 

Great post.

Personally since this launch I've never seen my kids so excited about the possibilities of space exploration. Reminded me of what I felt like in the 1970s. If that's replicated across the globe among their generation then that is a very positive thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

You say a drone platform is more stable. Get a table mat and drill a hole in its middle. Dangle from a string. Does it sit horizontally?

Next, take a bic biro and remove the cartridge. Insert a knotted string down the barrel. Now dangle from string.

Course, if you wanna make things difficult for difficulty's sake, you can try to balance the pen vertically on your finger.

But discussions about centre of gravity aside, why is landing so much more impressive than taking off?

How long have we as a species been doing that?

Don't think you've thought this through.

Dangle the mat from four strings, one on each corner. Balancing the pen vertically on your finger is the equivalent of what the rocket is having to do. Where the force is applied from makes a lot of difference - it's easier to drive an articulated lorry forwards than it is to reverse it for example.

Landing requires greater finesse of control than taking off. It's easy enough to make a firework that goes up. Now try to make one (cut down the charge for example) than you could light, drop out of a window, and will land upright.

I'm afraid I'm not the one who hasn't thought this through. When NASA wanted to recover the boosters from the shuttle why do you think they settled for parachuting them into the sea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 407 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.