So....A Tesla Roadster is going to Mars....

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › So....A Tesla Roadster is going to Mars....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#1953658 8-Feb-2018 14:32

The 6-8 Tonnes of Merlin Engines in the bottom don't actually like getting wet, as much as they have been recently. The plan is to lower costs by re-use. Water damage somewhat inhibits that.

Trajectory to get from Florida to the equator or LEO is generally always over open ocean (same as RocketLab) for safety. So there's not really any land for it to even conserve gas and booster toward to use a chute.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/06/24/why-and-how-landing-rockets

On the flipside, the out-takes of early tests is a clear indicator of how hard the balance of fuel weight vs fuel needed is. Most the early ones kept running out on landing.. :D

Oblivian

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#1953670 8-Feb-2018 14:44

Always a fan of the barge pics for size reference to these things..

Next question of course, when do they become quarantine items for leaving country :P never know when that Prometheus strand DNA may get back :P

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1953674 8-Feb-2018 14:57

Geektastic:

Can I ask a dumb question: why not attach a parachute to the bit that keeps crashing in the ocean instead of having to lift and and then use fuel to bring it back? You could take up less fuel, then use the fuel left to get it close enough to be recovered and use a parachute for a soft, non-explosive landing.

Estimate the size of such a parachute.......

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953679 8-Feb-2018 15:03

Linuxluver:

Geektastic:

Can I ask a dumb question: why not attach a parachute to the bit that keeps crashing in the ocean instead of having to lift and and then use fuel to bring it back? You could take up less fuel, then use the fuel left to get it close enough to be recovered and use a parachute for a soft, non-explosive landing.

Estimate the size of such a parachute.......

test

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953680 8-Feb-2018 15:06

Linuxluver:

Geektastic:

Can I ask a dumb question: why not attach a parachute to the bit that keeps crashing in the ocean instead of having to lift and and then use fuel to bring it back? You could take up less fuel, then use the fuel left to get it close enough to be recovered and use a parachute for a soft, non-explosive landing.

Estimate the size of such a parachute.......

Use more than one. Split it into bits. etc

MikeAqua

8033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3823

#1953682 8-Feb-2018 15:12

I think parachute deployment would be an issue. You have a payload compartment from which to deploy the payload. Then you need another system for deploying the parachute. That all adds weight.

Mike

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Mistenfuru

198 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 120

#1953683 8-Feb-2018 15:12

Geektastic:

Linuxluver:

Geektastic:

Can I ask a dumb question: why not attach a parachute to the bit that keeps crashing in the ocean instead of having to lift and and then use fuel to bring it back? You could take up less fuel, then use the fuel left to get it close enough to be recovered and use a parachute for a soft, non-explosive landing.

Estimate the size of such a parachute.......

Use more than one. Split it into bits. etc

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/7718/why-would-spacex-not-use-parachutes-for-the-final-descent-of-the-first-stage

World of Warcraft Veteran, Avid Sci-Fi Geek.

ISP - Technical Support - Lines and infrastructure.

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#1953685 8-Feb-2018 15:13

It's just not viable for their goals, Between chute costs, reliability and the whole stage taking a corrosive salt water bath it's not the preferred option.

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953696 8-Feb-2018 15:42

Let me get this straight. Save on a few co2 here and there, and use the money to burn a continent's worth of fuel for fun?

Wow. IF I buy a V8, barbeque lots and use petrol house tools from now and never stop burning firewood, Elon Musk ain't got nothing on me.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953704 8-Feb-2018 15:56

May as well buy an empty island somewhere and use that to land on. Probably easier than a floating barge in the ocean!

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1953722 8-Feb-2018 16:13

networkn:

The landing of those two rockets at the same time was something I'll never forget. Amazing. I didn't even know it was possible to land something so tall, back on it's small "side" let alone with however much weight and force to boot. Spectacular.

I saw some tests of those a while ago, and thought it was amazing. I thought multiple parachutes would be a lot cheaper to do, as this isn't the first large rocket that has reusable parts like this. I wonder if they can get a space vehicle that re enters to do that? That potentailly could be a lot safer as the old space shuttles were unpowered and used to glide, and only had once chance of landing in the right place. Although ironically the russian space shuttles were powered.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Oblivian

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#1953733 8-Feb-2018 16:41

mattwnz:

networkn:

The landing of those two rockets at the same time was something I'll never forget. Amazing. I didn't even know it was possible to land something so tall, back on it's small "side" let alone with however much weight and force to boot. Spectacular.

I saw some tests of those a while ago, and thought it was amazing. I thought multiple parachutes would be a lot cheaper to do, as this isn't the first large rocket that has reusable parts like this. I wonder if they can get a space vehicle that re enters to do that? That potentailly could be a lot safer as the old space shuttles were unpowered and used to glide, and only had once chance of landing in the right place. Although ironically the russian space shuttles were powered.

That'd be 'Dragon 2'.

Goes up, can be thrown around by rockets onboard. Chute deceleration and potentially rocket touch. (idea scrapped however for now)

SpaceX announced that "land landing will become the baseline for the early post-certification missions" while precision water landing under parachutes was proposed to NASA as "the baseline return and recovery approach for the first few flights of Crew Dragon."[25] Thus the parachute system was initially anticipated to be only a backup system; due to the cancellation of propulsive landing, however, the parachute system will be used for all landings.[24]

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#1953785 8-Feb-2018 18:24

Batman: Let me get this straight. Save on a few co2 here and there, and use the money to burn a continent's worth of fuel for fun?

Wow. IF I buy a V8, barbeque lots and use petrol house tools from now and never stop burning firewood, Elon Musk ain't got nothing on me.

https://www.quora.com/When-Elon-Musk-launches-a-rocket-into-space-is-he-releasing-more-carbon-which-is-what-he-is-trying-to-reduce-through-electric-cars

kingdragonfly

11996 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12895

Subscriber

#1953791 8-Feb-2018 18:39

A lot of fuel is used for the first few KM's, and as mentioned, it takes less energy to launch from the equator.

I always wondered why smaller space rocket launches don't happen by the way of airplane carriage launches, or even by balloon (shoot the rocket through the balloon)

Peamsable

98 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 55
Inactive user

#1954040 9-Feb-2018 09:04

Anyone interested in options for getting into space should take a look at Isaac Arthur’s YouTube channel. He has a whole playlist dedicated to the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIIOUpOge0LsGJI_vni4xvfBQTuryTwlU

On topic... I think what SpaceX has done with the Falcon series of rockets is fantastic. They have dropped the price of getting into space by an order of magnitude and this should be applauded.

I look forward to them building up a stock of block 5 cores and then focusing all their development efforts on the BFR.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7