Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

vine.co

171–180 of 279 posts

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#171
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you're saying reflects reality. When Orbital Science's rocket recently exploded, Elon's words were nothing but polite: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/527247155954610176 And his comment on their rocket being the butt of a joke, using engines literally made in the 1960s and stored in Siberia were true. It is upsetting, but still not as surprising that they suffered catastrophic failure having such an…

One example of his being polite doesn't mean he doesn't also make fun of competition publicly. Look at the interview where the interviewer asks him about a competitor's electric car (BMW I think) and he just laughs for a not-insignificant amount of time followed by something like "have you seen the thing?"

Its not his fault that everybody else makes electric cars that suck in comparison.

There will be a time of reckoning for Elon, but this is not it.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#172
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a "reduced-pressure tube." A leak is still a big deal, isn't it? Regardless, the core structural engineering is the focus of the criticism, not whether it might leak. Also, since Space X's whole point is to compete on cost savings, it was a little strange to hear cost projections that were so optimistic.

The entire purpose of the design is explicitly to keep the tolerance for leaks at a level where, to quote the whitepaper "standard commercial pumps could easily overcome an air leak and the transport pods could handle variable air density" Section 4.5.4 otherwise covers this, and does point out that for large leaks, braking would be required, but smaller leaks are intended to be dealt with as part of regular maintena…

Gas and oil pipelines typically use expansion loops to handle thermal expansion/contraction by flexing the pipe: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/PipelineExpansionLoop/

Because the hyperloop cars are discrete (as opposed to the continuous flow in a pipeline), I'd expect them to cause a lot of stress on the pipeline walls if they had to run around the bends in an expansion loop.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#173
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example of his being polite doesn't mean he doesn't also make fun of competition publicly. Look at the interview where the interviewer asks him about a competitor's electric car (BMW I think) and he just laughs for a not-insignificant amount of time followed by something like "have you seen the thing?"

His theatrics aside, he wants to make electric cars viable and take us to mars. Even if he ultimately fails, if he makes everyone else rise up to compete with him, we as humanity win.

Tesla didn't start the electric car resurgence nor is it likely to take us to Mars.

The way I see it Elon is rising up to those around him not the other way around.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#174

Wow, what an amazing feat to come this close. To think just ~100 years ago humans took flight for the first time. Now we are able to launch a rocket in orbit, then fly the first stage to land on a small platform floating in the middle of the ocean.

> Now we are able to launch a rocket in orbit, then fly the first stage to land on a small platform floating in the middle of the ocean. You know we landed on the moon, right? I mean, this is cool, but from a sheer "fascinating achievement" standpoint, this is at least a few notches behind that.

As others noted, it's not, but for different reasons. The moon landings were sort of a different task (get people to the moon and back and don't kill 'em). SpaceX is trying something a bit different though: make this whole thing boring and industrialize it.

The first is a historic series of one-shots that really can't be repeated for any sane economic purpose. The second is an attempt to automate and ruggedize it.

It's sort of why the sky-crane landing on Mars was such a historic achievement, arguably far more complex than the Apollo work. Don't let that diminish the greatness of Apollo, though. Today we have tools bording on magic, while they literally used wax pencils and slide rules. But don't let that diminish the accomplishment here, where the tools are being properly leveraged to make LEO an everyday occurrence.

In short: there's plenty of awesome to go around!

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example of his being polite doesn't mean he doesn't also make fun of competition publicly. Look at the interview where the interviewer asks him about a competitor's electric car (BMW I think) and he just laughs for a not-insignificant amount of time followed by something like "have you seen the thing?"

Its not his fault that everybody else makes electric cars that suck in comparison. There will be a time of reckoning for Elon, but this is not it.

That's just your opinion.

By and large the BMW i3/i8 has received wide praise amongst motoring reviewers and has seen strong sales.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#176
Could an aeronautics person kindly explain why it's so hard to get this thing to land as it's supposed to? I'm not being judgmental at all here; I am saying that as a software engineer with no aeronautics experience, I simply don't understand the problem. Assuming all of the sensors indicating tilt, altitude, etc. are accurate, the software portion coordinating where and how much thrust needs to deployed to keep it level and descending at an appropriate speed should be relatively straightforward to write. And yet, with at least dozens of undoubtedly brilliant people working on this very problem, the result is the world's most expensive fireworks show.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, let's go over it together. Tlb is many things, but "rarely wrong" is probably near the top of the list. He certainly read those sections before making that comment, so there must be something here which made him as an engineering expert say that it doesn't properly address thermal expansion. I'll try to run an emulator of tlb's mind, but mine is far less sharp. The tube will be supported by pillars which constr…

You are obviously not used to dealing with thermal expansion in other designs, but this has been done time and again before so from an engineering point of view this is mostly a solved problem and not a 'big deal'. For instance, you could have periodic sleeves that can slide over one another so you don't end up with the expansion on the final endpoints accumulated, the trajectory could be adjusted to allow for transl…

I realize I'm probably an idiot, but I do try to learn from my idiocy. Thanks for helping me learn. But I'm having trouble understanding how your reply takes everything into account, such as the fact that the hyperloop moves pods, not liquid. Pipelines for liquid are certainly a solved problem, but a pipeline of pods is new.

Btw, in railroads (that other long distance transportation method) the expansion is dealt with by putting a small gap between two adjacent rails. That's obviously not possible with the hyper loop as it is currently envisioned but I think that the answer is in there: don't allow the differences to accumulate over long stretches.

If that's the case, then why does the plan assume each station on the endpoints is going to absorb most of the thermal expansion? Or am I misreading? They specifically say "the stations are the ideal points to absorb thermal expansion," and the stations are on the end, so it sounds like they're aiming for a long sleeveless steel tube.

Also, I was basing my criticism on Hyperloop Alpha. Obviously, their design can change in the future. But, as presented, what gives you the impression that sleeves could be incorporated into their design without causing problems for the pods?

I can visualize sleeves which expand into each other, and if they overlap into the direction of travel, so that the edges are pointing away from the pods rather than toward the pods, maybe that wouldn't cause any problems.

Still, the interior margin from pod to wall is very small: http://i.imgur.com/YsLDXBe.png

Also, consider this paragraph:

The Hyperloop travel journey will feel very smooth since the capsule will be guided directly on the inner surface of the tube via the use of air bearings and suspension; this also prevents the need for costly tracks. The capsule will bank off the walls and include a control system for smooth returns to nominal capsule location from banking as well. Some specific sections of the tube will incorporate the stationary motor element (stator) which will locally guide and accelerate (or decelerate) the capsule. More details are available for the propulsion system in section 4.3. Between linear motor stations, the capsule will glide with little drag via air bearings.

Sleeves would cause an edge to sort of "protrude outwards" into the path of the pod, wouldn't they? So it'd basically be a small speedbump. Again, the edge is pointed in the direction of travel, so that would basically be like the second half of a speedbump, basically a small "drop". Except since the pod is moving at 760mph, even a small drop can result in quite a lot of force, and can cause wear on the pod itself, couldn't it? And it might feel a little jarring to the passenger.

If the interior needs to remain smooth, what sort of design could fulfill that requirement? (Maybe that's a big "if", but if the pod is going to bank off the walls, then it sounds like that's the case.)

EDIT: Also, as someone else pointed out, pipelines that need to be straight might be a new concept. Many pipelines seem to use "U" bends, which can't be incorporated into hyperloop for obvious reasons: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/PipelineExpansionLoop/

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#178

Maybe OP, but if Elon Musk makes actual technical contributions to his companies, I'd be super impressed.

Like being the Chief Designer (CTO) of SpaceX?

He owns the company, he could take the title Head Janitor if he really felt like it. It might not necessarily reflect his actual duties.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#179

Sorry for sounding like such a fanboy, but during my 40 years on this earth, I have never been more impressed with a human being. The guy is pushing the envelope on perhaps the most difficult engineering/technological endeavor ever attempted by a private company - and he's making it look cool and futuristic. As if that wasn't enough, he's doing this in two different industries simultaneously. I'm not saying he can do…

Three? Don't forget about Hyperloop.

The exception proves the rule.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#180
post #2

Interesting. It had quite the lean, And close to zero vertical velocity. Then it looks like it accelerated at the last second in an attempt to move sideways back the center of the barge. I wonder if the top of the rocket was at or very near the center? Also you can clearly see the landing legs deployed, jeez they look tiny. Must just tweeted "Next rocket landing on drone ship in 2 to 3 weeks w way more hydraulic flui…

From what I can tell, and I think you can see a bit in the video, when the grid fins ran out of hydraulic pressure they locked full in one direction.

The last burn this thing does is often called a 'suicide burn' as there are a couple complications to landing it. First, it only has enough fuel left for a short burn. Second, it's not possible to run the single engine they use to land it at a low enough thrust level that it can hover. i.e. 1 of 9 engines at the lowest possible thrust it can operate at is more than enough to accelerate the empty stage body upward. As a result they have to 'blip' it just before landing and cut at the exact time needed to reach 0-ish velocity at landing. This means the thing is moving _fast_ just before the video starts.

I'm guessing that with the grid fins locked in an extreme direction 24 seconds before getting to the barge they still had a lot of influence over the flight path since it was still moving fast. This pulled the top to an angle. The engine fired and the vectoring capability of the engine tried to toss it back over the ship but it just couldn't correct the lean before hitting the barge.

Post reply on HN