Space X

This is the polite off topic forum. If you’re looking to talk smack and spew nonsense, keep moving along.

Moderators: mgil, chromoly

Post Reply
User avatar
aurelius
Grade A Asshole
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
Location: Dallas
Age: 43

Re: Space X

#81

Post by aurelius » Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:16 am

mikeylikey wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:42 am Looks like Elon is going to try another bellyflop manoeuvre today. Third time's a charm maybe. Ima very excite.
To be fair, the belly flop has been a success...recovering from the belly flop has been less of a success.

User avatar
mikeylikey
Rabble Rouser
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
Location: Coconut Island
Age: 40

Re: Space X

#82

Post by mikeylikey » Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:18 am

aurelius wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:16 am
mikeylikey wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:42 am Looks like Elon is going to try another bellyflop manoeuvre today. Third time's a charm maybe. Ima very excite.
To be fair, the belly flop has been a success...recovering from the belly flop has been less of a success.
Rocketry imitates life.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Space X

#83

Post by mbasic » Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:56 am

aurelius wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:16 am
mikeylikey wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:42 am Looks like Elon is going to try another bellyflop manoeuvre today. Third time's a charm maybe. Ima very excite.
To be fair, the belly flop has been a success...recovering from the belly flop has been less of a success.
yeah, that nomenclature doesn't even make sense.

it this it (the launch thingy)?


User avatar
SnakePlissken
Registered User
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:22 am
Age: 29

Re: Space X

#84

Post by SnakePlissken » Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:19 am

mettkeks wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:27 pm
DoctorWho wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:05 pm You guys are a tough crowd. The guy:
- starts a car company (the last remaining auto start up was Jeep in the 1940s or so).
- starts SpaceX, putting lots of satellites to orbit to provide wireless data (making the Russians and Chinese plan their own).
- starts The Boring Co. (using the waste would be great if it could ever work).

Most new ventures fail. I'm guessing that most new ventures in each of the above categories fail more often and bigger. He could have just eff'd off after paypal, but taking on big things is pretty great -- even with his problems with saying too much.
He started space X and got all the government coin he needed. Then he put batterie's in cars he sold to rich environmental snobs and secured more government funding and still hasn't made any money from selling expensive batterie's with overpriced cars around them. The boring Co. is just bullshit. Like the the hyperloop, and a lot of the stuff he tries to sell to governments and stock markets whenever he "revolutionizes" anything.
I've always felt like Elon is Gen-X's revenge on Boomers that don't understand anything about current society or technology.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Space X

#85

Post by mbasic » Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:19 pm

well that sucked

User avatar
mikeylikey
Rabble Rouser
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
Location: Coconut Island
Age: 40

Re: Space X

#86

Post by mikeylikey » Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:21 pm

mbasic wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:19 pmwell that sucked
Republicans forgot to winterize the gas pipe.

User avatar
Hardartery
Registered User
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
Location: Fat City

Re: Space X

#87

Post by Hardartery » Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:44 pm

I don't see the issue. He's breaking rockets to figure stuff out. Sounds like fun, every young boys grown up dream. The cars are overhyped and expensive, but what thing isn't when it's the big new thing? He figured out how to make money without making it on the actual cars, mostly to fund battery research. The money is on the batteries, always has been. There are actual power grids (Australia for instance) using big versions of his batteries. He appears to be saving taxpayers a fortune because the payload stuff they are already doing happens significantly cheaper than NASA could ever manage. Success is figuring out how to something cheaper while still making a profit, which is what Space-X does. Without Tesla, the push isn;t there for any of the other EV stuff going on, so as much as I hate the cars, kudos for that achievement. Throw in that everything has some sort of Gen-X inside joke or cultural reference, and my hat is off to him. Seriously. The rocket design is partly directly a refernce to a Borat gag. Having driver settings like "Ludicrous", frigging hilarious. I would bet that most of the people that own Teslas don't even get the reference.

User avatar
mettkeks
Registered User
Posts: 1600
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:28 pm
Location: Siegen, Germany
Age: 28

Re: Space X

#88

Post by mettkeks » Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:57 pm

Hardartery wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:44 pm I don't see the issue. He's breaking rockets to figure stuff out. Sounds like fun, every young boys grown up dream. The cars are overhyped and expensive, but what thing isn't when it's the big new thing? He figured out how to make money without making it on the actual cars, mostly to fund battery research. The money is on the batteries, always has been. There are actual power grids (Australia for instance) using big versions of his batteries. He appears to be saving taxpayers a fortune because the payload stuff they are already doing happens significantly cheaper than NASA could ever manage. Success is figuring out how to something cheaper while still making a profit, which is what Space-X does. Without Tesla, the push isn;t there for any of the other EV stuff going on, so as much as I hate the cars, kudos for that achievement. Throw in that everything has some sort of Gen-X inside joke or cultural reference, and my hat is off to him. Seriously. The rocket design is partly directly a refernce to a Borat gag. Having driver settings like "Ludicrous", frigging hilarious. I would bet that most of the people that own Teslas don't even get the reference.
How is he saving who money? Numbers please.

User avatar
mikeylikey
Rabble Rouser
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
Location: Coconut Island
Age: 40

Re: Space X

#89

Post by mikeylikey » Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:12 pm

mettkeks wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:57 pm Numbers please.
4,8,15,16,23,42...

User avatar
Hardartery
Registered User
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
Location: Fat City

Re: Space X

#90

Post by Hardartery » Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:32 pm

mettkeks wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:57 pm
Hardartery wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:44 pm I don't see the issue. He's breaking rockets to figure stuff out. Sounds like fun, every young boys grown up dream. The cars are overhyped and expensive, but what thing isn't when it's the big new thing? He figured out how to make money without making it on the actual cars, mostly to fund battery research. The money is on the batteries, always has been. There are actual power grids (Australia for instance) using big versions of his batteries. He appears to be saving taxpayers a fortune because the payload stuff they are already doing happens significantly cheaper than NASA could ever manage. Success is figuring out how to something cheaper while still making a profit, which is what Space-X does. Without Tesla, the push isn;t there for any of the other EV stuff going on, so as much as I hate the cars, kudos for that achievement. Throw in that everything has some sort of Gen-X inside joke or cultural reference, and my hat is off to him. Seriously. The rocket design is partly directly a refernce to a Borat gag. Having driver settings like "Ludicrous", frigging hilarious. I would bet that most of the people that own Teslas don't even get the reference.
How is he saving who money? Numbers please.
He saves the US government, which is the taxpayers ultimately, money. The R&D and testing is paid for by private money, the government pays the lowest bidder to do the job. Less red tape, market drives the price. The closest comparison would be to take a look at how the US government develops a new fighter jet, which is astronomically expensive and slow. The F-22 was a big payday at the taxpayer expense. Space-X has to outcompete Blue Horizon among others to get the contract. And yes, the contract goes to the lowest bidder, that's how all government bidding works - by law. When I bid government projects my price had to be less than everyone else, even if it's only a few cents, because all bidders have to be "Qualified" to bid. Private investors and competition always drive the price down, open government cost plus contracts are stupidly expensive and always go way over budget.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Space X

#91

Post by mbasic » Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:03 pm

Hardartery wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:32 pm When I bid government projects my price had to be less than everyone else, even if it's only a few cents, because all bidders have to be "Qualified" to bid.
This kinda goes out the window with rockets and stealth fighter jets.
...many times there is only 1 qualified bidder.

User avatar
Hardartery
Registered User
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
Location: Fat City

Re: Space X

#92

Post by Hardartery » Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:06 pm

That's not really true. There are less qualified bidders, but there is actually more than one in both of these scenarios at the moment.

hector
Registered User
Posts: 5070
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Space X

#93

Post by hector » Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:17 am

Hardartery wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:32 pm
mettkeks wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:57 pm
Hardartery wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:44 pm I don't see the issue. He's breaking rockets to figure stuff out. Sounds like fun, every young boys grown up dream. The cars are overhyped and expensive, but what thing isn't when it's the big new thing? He figured out how to make money without making it on the actual cars, mostly to fund battery research. The money is on the batteries, always has been. There are actual power grids (Australia for instance) using big versions of his batteries. He appears to be saving taxpayers a fortune because the payload stuff they are already doing happens significantly cheaper than NASA could ever manage. Success is figuring out how to something cheaper while still making a profit, which is what Space-X does. Without Tesla, the push isn;t there for any of the other EV stuff going on, so as much as I hate the cars, kudos for that achievement. Throw in that everything has some sort of Gen-X inside joke or cultural reference, and my hat is off to him. Seriously. The rocket design is partly directly a refernce to a Borat gag. Having driver settings like "Ludicrous", frigging hilarious. I would bet that most of the people that own Teslas don't even get the reference.
How is he saving who money? Numbers please.
He saves the US government, which is the taxpayers ultimately, money. The R&D and testing is paid for by private money, the government pays the lowest bidder to do the job. Less red tape, market drives the price. The closest comparison would be to take a look at how the US government develops a new fighter jet, which is astronomically expensive and slow. The F-22 was a big payday at the taxpayer expense. Space-X has to outcompete Blue Horizon among others to get the contract. And yes, the contract goes to the lowest bidder, that's how all government bidding works - by law. When I bid government projects my price had to be less than everyone else, even if it's only a few cents, because all bidders have to be "Qualified" to bid. Private investors and competition always drive the price down, open government cost plus contracts are stupidly expensive and always go way over budget.
Lowest bidder always by law gets the contract?

There aren't scenarios where the government determines one product, although more expensive, could offer a better value?

User avatar
mikeylikey
Rabble Rouser
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
Location: Coconut Island
Age: 40

Re: Space X

#94

Post by mikeylikey » Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:26 am

Ins and outs of government acquisition being as they may, all I know is Space X just blew up it's third $9-figure rocket in 3 months, but they're happy with their progress and Elon is cracking jokes about it on Twitter. Nasa can't do that. Senators have too many questions, and rightly so. Look at how long it took to get SLS from concept to just the test stand, even though it's basically recycled shuttle technology, and it still doesn't have a time horizon to fly any time soon (if ever).

User avatar
Hardartery
Registered User
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
Location: Fat City

Re: Space X

#95

Post by Hardartery » Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:29 am

hector wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:17 am
Hardartery wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:32 pm
mettkeks wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:57 pm
Hardartery wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:44 pm I don't see the issue. He's breaking rockets to figure stuff out. Sounds like fun, every young boys grown up dream. The cars are overhyped and expensive, but what thing isn't when it's the big new thing? He figured out how to make money without making it on the actual cars, mostly to fund battery research. The money is on the batteries, always has been. There are actual power grids (Australia for instance) using big versions of his batteries. He appears to be saving taxpayers a fortune because the payload stuff they are already doing happens significantly cheaper than NASA could ever manage. Success is figuring out how to something cheaper while still making a profit, which is what Space-X does. Without Tesla, the push isn;t there for any of the other EV stuff going on, so as much as I hate the cars, kudos for that achievement. Throw in that everything has some sort of Gen-X inside joke or cultural reference, and my hat is off to him. Seriously. The rocket design is partly directly a refernce to a Borat gag. Having driver settings like "Ludicrous", frigging hilarious. I would bet that most of the people that own Teslas don't even get the reference.
How is he saving who money? Numbers please.
He saves the US government, which is the taxpayers ultimately, money. The R&D and testing is paid for by private money, the government pays the lowest bidder to do the job. Less red tape, market drives the price. The closest comparison would be to take a look at how the US government develops a new fighter jet, which is astronomically expensive and slow. The F-22 was a big payday at the taxpayer expense. Space-X has to outcompete Blue Horizon among others to get the contract. And yes, the contract goes to the lowest bidder, that's how all government bidding works - by law. When I bid government projects my price had to be less than everyone else, even if it's only a few cents, because all bidders have to be "Qualified" to bid. Private investors and competition always drive the price down, open government cost plus contracts are stupidly expensive and always go way over budget.
Lowest bidder always by law gets the contract?

There aren't scenarios where the government determines one product, although more expensive, could offer a better value?
No. There are not. There is zero discretion afforded to government employees in this, so as to avoid corruption issues.

User avatar
mikeylikey
Rabble Rouser
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
Location: Coconut Island
Age: 40

Re: Space X

#96

Post by mikeylikey » Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:07 am

Hardartery wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 8:29 am e]
No. There are not. There is zero discretion afforded to government employees in this, so as to avoid corruption issues.
Image

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Space X

#97

Post by mbasic » Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:24 am

...this shits not hard to do.

My current crappy-ass android cell phone probably has more computing power that all the onboard electronic guidance hardware on this pile of junk .... that didn't blow itself up in 1995


User avatar
mikeylikey
Rabble Rouser
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
Location: Coconut Island
Age: 40

Re: Space X

#98

Post by mikeylikey » Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:03 am

mbasic wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:24 am ...this shits not hard to do.

My current crappy-ass android cell phone probably has more computing power that all the onboard electronic guidance hardware on this pile of junk .... that didn't blow itself up in 1995
It's easy if a) you don't need to scale it up to something huge, and b) you're content with crashing a significant fraction of the time. Computing power is not the bottleneck and never really was. Both the US and Soviets built completely autonomous probes that landed themselves on the moon in the mid 60's, prior to Apollo 11.

The fundamentals of rocket science are fairly easy. The bottleneck is and has always been the manufacturing process. Take one example, the giant tanks. The engineering is actually pretty simple. On paper it's just a big cylinder of metal with domes at each end, and in fact aluminum, steel, and other materials offer sufficient strength-to-weight ratios to design a tank that, once constructed, has the needed properties of lightness, strength, heat/cold resistance, etc. The issue is assembling giant pieces of metal into the form of a giant tank before the whole things deforms itself and falls apart. You had welds on a Saturn 5 that were ~ 100 feet long in quarter inch thick aluminum rings held on their side in a jig like a giant log roll. Space X is doing welds like this on 3mm stainless steel(!).

This is why space X does overpressure tests. They know the design works, they know the materials limits. They know exactly how strong stainless steel is and exactly how strong a theoretical weld is. They overpressurize the tanks and blow them up to figure out where the flaws in manufacturing are and how to weed those out.


We could talk about similar issues with engine designs and all manner of other aspects of this stuff, where the difficulty is not in designing something that works but in actually being able to make what you designed.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Space X

#99

Post by mbasic » Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:12 am

mikeylikey wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:03 am
mbasic wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:24 am ...this shits not hard to do.

My current crappy-ass android cell phone probably has more computing power that all the onboard electronic guidance hardware on this pile of junk .... that didn't blow itself up in 1995
It's easy if a) you don't need to scale it up to something huge, and b) you're content with crashing a significant fraction of the time. Computing power is not the bottleneck and never really was. Both the US and Soviets built completely autonomous probes that landed themselves on the moon in the mid 60's, prior to Apollo 11.

The fundamentals of rocket science are fairly easy. The bottleneck is and has always been the manufacturing process. Take one example, the giant tanks. The engineering is actually pretty simple. On paper it's just a big cylinder of metal with domes at each end, and in fact aluminum, steel, and other materials offer sufficient strength-to-weight ratios to design a tank that, once constructed, has the needed properties of lightness, strength, heat/cold resistance, etc. The issue is assembling giant pieces of metal into the form of a giant tank before the whole things deforms itself and falls apart. You had welds on a Saturn 5 that were ~ 100 feet long in quarter inch thick aluminum rings held on their side in a jig like a giant log roll. Space X is doing welds like this on 3mm stainless steel(!).

This is why space X does overpressure tests. They know the design works, they know the materials limits. They know exactly how strong stainless steel is and exactly how strong a theoretical weld is. They overpressurize the tanks and blow them up to figure out where the flaws in manufacturing are and how to weed those out.
I see.
I would imagine the reusability aspect complicates this further, as you are asking a lot more of the materials now because 'life-cycles'.
Then like, what, you have to magnaflux/real-time-xray all of those welds for safe re-use after each launch? (or whatever IDK)
And then add it human rated craft vs. cargo rated craft.

Its almost like a disposable system might be way cheaper.

Maybe that's what conclusion they came to after the small scale tests 25 years ago.

User avatar
mikeylikey
Rabble Rouser
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:32 am
Location: Coconut Island
Age: 40

Re: Space X

#100

Post by mikeylikey » Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:43 am

mbasic wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:12 am

I see.
I would imagine the reusability aspect complicates this further, as you are asking a lot more of the materials now because 'life-cycles'.
Then like, what, you have to magnaflux/real-time-xray all of those welds for safe re-use after each launch? (or whatever IDK)
And then add it human rated craft vs. cargo rated craft.

Its almost like a disposable system might be way cheaper.

Maybe that's what conclusion they came to after the small scale tests 25 years ago.
For sure. It's got to be more durable, which probably means heavier. Also, there are design compromises you make when, for example, you have to be able to easily take a thing apart to maintain it. Take a Lamborghini for example: the thing is built with almost complete focus on performance, and the upshot is you have to take the whole engine out to change the blinker fuses.

But, to return to my thesis on manufacturing as the bottleneck, CNC machining and increasingly 3d printing, are narrowing the gap between what you'd build on paper and what you can actually construct out of physical stuff. Elon's Raptor engines have on the order of something like 5% of the number of parts of a Space Shuttle engine, and it's not because the guys who made the space shuttle were stupid, it's because of the state of the art of manufacturing at the time.

Post Reply