Tesla Gigafactories, News and Conversation

1,959 posts in this topic

Looks like their latest launch rocket has just collapsed in its firing bay...   LOL...

 

Pics are on the UK daily mail website.. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Janx Spirit said:

Off topic Spidey.

 

And The Runs as a source? ;) 

Off topic ?

I can`t count the amount of times MM has brought up Space X on this thread.

If Space Xs success and innovation are relevant then their failures are too.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SpiderPig said:

Same CEO...

 

Spacex... 

 

Can't believe you are actually making Tesla a compliment by comparing it with SpaceX!

BTW, SpaceX dominates the launch market. Took them some 16 years. Tesla has dominated the EV market for years. Let's see what Tesla does for the rest of the auto market.

0

Share this post


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

Off topic ?

I can`t count the amount of times MM has brought up Space X on this thread.

If Space Xs success and innovation are relevant then their failures are too.

If you look at rocketry history, you will see ALL big players messing up from time to time. Even the venerable Saturn V had its rocket sensors switched in one flight, which lead to termination! Focusing on a tilting rocket while they are dominating everywhere else is really, really, really, really shortsighted. Are you saying a stand failing is as relevant as rocket landing? Perhaps on "some types" of newspapers they equally make front page...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SpiderPig, until a more energy dense source is found, lifting things to space is on the edge of material technology. Usual margins are as thin as 25%! As an example, a house balcony is done with 200-400% margin! Meaning that a small deviation from a defined procedure leads to big mistakes.

Here are some more ridiculous errors.

This is a rocket that collapsed on itself due to fueling mistake.

 

Another one:

 

This is not just on rocket industry. I worked for an oil ship project 8 years ago and one engineer was cut in half by a loose hose under huge pressure because the maintenance procedure had 2 instructions on the wrong order. When you work for extreme projects, crazy accidents are bound to happen, you just need to accept it as part of the risk.

What is wrong is take one of this mistakes and blow it out of proportion. The Gemini and Apollo program had their shares of mistakes but in the end it was a huge success. The same way, SpaceX had their first 3 launches failed but since then they had 100 successful missions with some mistakes in between. Don't make a forest out of a single tree.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

If you look at rocketry history, you will see ALL big players messing up from time to time. Even the venerable Saturn V had its rocket sensors switched in one flight, which lead to termination! Focusing on a tilting rocket while they are dominating everywhere else is really, really, really, really shortsighted. Are you saying a stand failing is as relevant as rocket landing? Perhaps on "some types" of newspapers they equally make front page...

My comment was purely on the fact the comment was not off topic in this thread.

But yes whatever you compare it to it was a failure.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A SpaceX Mars rocket prototype just exploded. It was still a success"

 

Quote

A giant experimental rocket built by Elon Musk's SpaceX successfully soared eight miles above the company's testing facilities in South Texas on Wednesday and came back down as planned, before crashing into the ground in an enormous plume of flames and smoke. 

 

The hulking rocket didn't have anyone onboard. It was an early developmental model of Starship, a 160-foot-tall spaceship proposed by Musk that he hopes will be used for hauling massive satellites into Earth's orbit, shuttling people between cities at breakneck speeds and — eventually — establishing a human settlement on Mars.


The test flight marked the highest test flight yet of the technology Musk hopes will one day ferry the first humans to go to Mars, and a fiery ending was not totally unexpected. Musk attempted to dampen expectations before the flight, saying in one tweet that he predicted the "SN8" vehicle, the name for the Starship prototype used Wednesday, had a one-in-three chance of landing safely back on Earth.

CNN

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13.12.2020, 16:39:35, MikeMelga said:

@SpiderPig, until a more energy dense source is found, lifting things to space is on the edge of material technology. Usual margins are as thin as 25%! As an example, a house balcony is done with 200-400% margin! Meaning that a small deviation from a defined procedure leads to big mistakes.

Here are some more ridiculous errors.

This is a rocket that collapsed on itself due to fueling mistake.

 

But Mike... These guys are being paid a darn good sallary to build a stable platform.. or atleast a platform that is suitable for its purpose... 

 

Yes, Musk is one hell of a motivated guy..   I Dib my hat in his general direction..   But dont we have other problems here on this planet that need addressing rather than trying to give internet to the whole world etc?  ( I know, thats a simplification)... 

 

I would have a bit more respect for the guy if he was in the forefront of Solar/renewable power generation and storage...   and not so much "Transport"..   Maybe he should invest a few Billion in Solar farms in the sahara or the sarengetees...   Yes.. re-direct the suns energy...  Invest in storage of power!! 

 

Or does it cost too much to produce panels? ( Cost to the enviroment)..

0

Share this post


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

 

But Mike... These guys are being paid a darn good sallary to build a stable platform.. or atleast a platform that is suitable for its purpose... 

The development of the starship is completely different from Falcon 9. They are not bound by NASA requirements, so what I understood is that they are taking the 51% rule to the extreme. This means test as soon as there is 51% chance of success. Meaning super fast pace, but with lots of mistakes.

 

Quote

Yes, Musk is one hell of a motivated guy..   I Dib my hat in his general direction..   But dont we have other problems here on this planet that need addressing rather than trying to give internet to the whole world etc?  ( I know, thats a simplification)... 

Depends on how you see it. The first people who got Starlink satellite internet were first responders for remote areas. It is also an incredible opportunity for developing and 3rd world countries to supply internet without the incredibly expensive infrastructure currently required. Due to low latency, it will allow crazy stuff like remote surgeries. This is not possible with fiber at long distances. It will also increase safety at sea hugely.

For me it does address a lot of the world's problems.

 

Quote

I would have a bit more respect for the guy if he was in the forefront of Solar/renewable power generation and storage...   and not so much "Transport".. 

He is actually in the forefront. There are many Tesla storage farms being deployed, he is definitely on the top 3 there. Not only that, Tesla is entering the energy supply market in a few countries. I think their idea is to use home storage/generation in a large grid scale. This could be huge.

 

Quote

 Maybe he should invest a few Billion in Solar farms in the sahara or the sarengetees...   Yes.. re-direct the suns energy...  Invest in storage of power!! 

I think micro production at home or in buildings is the future.

Quote

Or does it cost too much to produce panels? ( Cost to the enviroment)..

Not now, it's getting cleaner every year and AFAIK the largest impact (or one of the largest) is the aluminium frame (!)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I have a backdoor access to SpaceX and although not 100% confirmed, it does seem the stand failed. The main reason seems to be that the latest prototype is heavier than all previous prototypes. My guess is that nobody checked if the newer heavier prototypes were within the stand specs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike... Stop... They fucked up... hopefully they will learn... 

 

I have respect for the guy.. Like I had for Jobs... 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SpiderPig said:

Mike... Stop... They fucked up... hopefully they will learn... 

That's the point of the 51% mindset. You will fuck up a lot. Does not matter. On the long run, it pays off, as you learn more from mistakes and you speed up general development. NASA takes 5-8 years to test a new rocket. SpaceX is doing one per month. Last week one did a sci-fi stunt but failed to soft land. Next month they will probably nail it and more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

NASA takes 5-8 years to test a new rocket. SpaceX is doing one per month

Ones funded by the govt and the others a private entity.Makes a hell of a difference for that sort of thing.

Can you imagine the outcry (rightly so) if NASA tried a new rocket every month.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now