Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk Explains Why He's Building 'Starship' Out of Stainless Steel (popularmechanics.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader darkwing_bmf writes: In an exclusive interview with Popular Mechanics, SpaceX founder Elon Musk explains why stainless steel is the best material to build rocket ships, beating carbon fiber in cost, durability and even weight.
"As far as we know, this marks the first time the material has been used in spacecraft construction since some early, ill-fated attempts during the Atlas program in the late 1950s," reports Popular Mechanics.

"It took me quite a bit of effort to convince the team to go in this direction..." Musk tells them. But among the other benefits "It has a high melting point. Much higher than aluminum, and although carbon fiber doesn't melt, the resin gets destroyed at a certain temperature... But steel, you can do 1500, 1600 degrees Fahrenheit."

308 comments

  1. takes big toke off of spliff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    funding secured, my man. Now pass the Doritos

    1. Re: takes big toke off of spliff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go on, I think you need to short MORE.

    2. Re: takes big toke off of spliff by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Shit! I read that as snort more!
      --
        EM.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re: takes big toke off of spliff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should we tell them stainless steel is actually softer than regular steel and only really used for its resistence to corrosion....?

      Or do we sit back and watch them become flaming geniuses? I mean it's tempting ... right?

      Little bugs into a big zapper becoming little points of light as history turns the page.

    4. Re:takes big toke off of spliff by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're confusing the companies. Tesla is not SpaceX. Nor vice versa.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re: takes big toke off of spliff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why bother telling him when you obviously are clueless about what you are talking about?
      You are just one of the many trolls lying about everything.

      https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-stainless-steel-and-mild-steel-Which-is-stronger

    6. Re: takes big toke off of spliff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but Musk is the delusional asshole behind both of them.

  2. Fahrenheit? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Musk not using SI units?

    Maybe the shorts were right.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Fahrenheit? by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      He follows the UK standard practice of using Fahrenheit for high temperatures and Celsius for lows.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re: Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if he isn't using Stupid Idiot units,

    3. Re:Fahrenheit? by romanval · · Score: 4, Informative

      How do you short SpaceX? They're not even public.

    4. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they do that for budget proposals in the UK too?

    5. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The machine shop in Texas manufacturing it is probably working in decimal inch.

    6. Re:Fahrenheit? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Musk not using SI units?
      Maybe the shorts were right.

      Maybe he's building another Mars Climate Orbiter ...

      On September 23, 1999, communication with the spacecraft was lost as the spacecraft went into orbital insertion, due to ground-based computer software which produced output in non-SI units of pound-force seconds (lbfs) instead of the SI units of newton-seconds (Ns) specified in the contract between NASA and Lockheed. The spacecraft encountered Mars on a trajectory that brought it too close to the planet, and it was either destroyed in the atmosphere or re-entered heliocentric space after leaving Mars' atmosphere.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:Fahrenheit? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That's not the UK standard.

      The UK standard is some newspapers use Fahrenheit for everything, everyone else uses Celsius and maybe puts the Imperial measurement in brackets later.

      High temperatures tend to be Celsius only, along with a comparison to some other really hot thing like the sun.

      Or did I just hear a whoosh because you were joking? I can't tell.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ???? What? SpaceX has no shares for you to buy you idiot.

    9. Re:Fahrenheit? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      American company using imperial units?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    10. Re: Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how moderation works. Do you think a mod is going to upmod something he thinks is wrong?

    11. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymice · · Score: 0

      Tripe. Please find me one British newspaper article that quotes the temperature in Fahrenheit.
      Even my 90 year old grandparents use Celsius.

    12. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What newspaper uses Fahrenheit???

    13. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know he's not the sole engineer designing and building the rocket, right?

      I'll bet you $20 that the people who are, are using metric.

    14. Re:Fahrenheit? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that it's a privately held company, which means there aren't any shares on the market for you to buy / sell, and even if you could get one of the (restricted number of) private investors to play along, you wouldn't be able to get anyone else to play because there are certain windows of time when share sales / purchase are allowed. And a maximum amount of investors allowed.

      This is why companies have IPOs and become publicly traded. You don't know what you are talking about.

      Short version: you can't short a privately held company.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    15. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5953371/Famous-Robin-Hood-waterfalls-dry-time-40-years-blistering-heatwave.html

      It was a lot more common 10 years ago, however.

    16. Re:Fahrenheit? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I was going to say the Daily Mail too, thanks for the example.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re: Fahrenheit? by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 0

      No it just sounds better.

    18. Re:Fahrenheit? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The Islamabad Daily Herald (incorporating "What Burka?") is not a UK newspaper.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re: Fahrenheit? by BrianBeaudoin · · Score: 1

      You pounds per foot (lbf), or foot pounds rather than pound force, right? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    20. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said "newspaper". That doesn't qualify.

    21. Re:Fahrenheit? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Well, Elon could, by selling you his SpaceX shares telling you this is a really really good deal right before the IPO, then boarding the next spaceship to Mars with your money to use as rocket fuel, leaving you with an empty farm plot in Texas and a rather confused looking cow.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    22. Re:Fahrenheit? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's building another Mars Climate Orbiter ...

      s/Orbiter/Impactor/

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Fahrenheit? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter. I got my cheap shot off regardless.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    24. Re:Fahrenheit? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's building another Mars Climate Orbiter ...

      s/Orbiter/Impactor/

      Now, to be fair, it could have just burned up in the atmosphere. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    25. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of the standard for reporting energy in food. Low in calories to help you stay in shape! High in kilojoules to give you the energy you need to stay in shape!

    26. Re:Fahrenheit? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      He follows the UK standard practice of using Fahrenheit for high temperatures and Celsius for lows.

      Ummm, that isn't a UK standard practice.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    27. Re:Fahrenheit? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I was going to say the Daily Mail too, thanks for the example.

      The daily fail doesn't count. For anything.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  3. Love the changes by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was frequently Debbie Downer about using CF for BFR. It's not a resilient material, and organics don't play well with LOX, nor does CF like operating at cryogenic temperatures; you're fighting against its innate material properties. I love the use of stainless. It's so much more forgiving, and people who know how to work with it are a dime a dozen. Just everything about this design will be so much easier. And cheaper. And faster. And safer.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they outright build Starship and Super Heavy outside, shipyard-style. It wouldn't exactly be the first time giant pressuretight steel vessels designed for dealing with harsh conditions were built outside in salt-air conditions (e.g., almost every refinery on Earth). Corrosion rates in marine environments are on the order of decades to centuries per millimeter, depending on the stainless alloy (unlike alumium which is sensitive to salt) - and galvanic corrosion due to junctions with dissimilar metals (such as alumium) tend to corrode the other metal, not the steel (again, unlike alumium). There should be no issues with an under-construction rocket shell sitting outside for months until they can get it enclosed for more sensitive work on the interior. The LOX tank would need to be well cleaned, mind you, since LOX doesn't play well with contaminants (CH4 isn't particularly sensitive), and as always, welds need to be properly inspected.

    It's an unconventional choice, but one which I've been really glad to see.

    --
    "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    1. Re:Love the changes by Rei · · Score: 1

      That said, I hope they don't bother making a replacement fairing for the hopper. It completed the hopper aesthetically, but there's no real need for it for small-scale testing. Just launch the tanks. The rate of progress on them has been crazy-fast.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    2. Re:Love the changes by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Plus it is really shiny and makes a nice clanging sound when it falls over.

    3. Re: Love the changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed for everything you say. Because it sounds like you are repeating what musk said word for word.

    4. Re: Love the changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Love the changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alumium... I've not heard that name in a very, very long time

    6. Re: Love the changes by Rei · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm not going to post two dozen links; use Teh Google. But if you want, say, a reference that I've always opposed building BFR out of carbon fibre? Here you go.

      As a side note, I'm really uncomfortable with their plan to make IPS entirely out of carbon fibre. As they're finding out (and has others have found out in the past), it's really difficult to use LOX with composites. And perhaps most importantly, inconsistently difficult. And the failure modes can be catastrophic - instant explosive rupture at the point of failure. Aluminum is not only light, but (by pure coincidence) one of the easiest things to work with LOX, as the oxide layer does a good job protecting the metal (even still, aluminum can detonate in contact with LOX in the right temperature/pressure/shock conditions, but said explosions are only self-propagating under significantly elevated pressure conditions). Also coincidentally, aluminum-lithium is even more resistant to reaction with LOX than lithium-free aluminum alloys. Basically, rocket manufacturers have been "having it easy" working with LOX by virtue of making rockets out of aluminum. You give that up when you go to composites.

      But.... it's their rocket company, I guess we'll see how it goes.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    7. Re:Love the changes by Rei · · Score: 1

      I often waver between using the US spelling and the British spelling... so a while back I decided to split the difference and use Davy's original spelling ;) It's a perfectly cromulent spelling.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    8. Re: Love the changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Love the changes by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I love the use of stainless. It's so much more forgiving, and people who know how to work with it are a dime a dozen.

      Not to mention, the effect on the flux dispersal.

    10. Re: Love the changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is. You can buy a $35k car. Have been able to for decades.

      Just not from Elon.

    11. Re:Love the changes by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say 'shipyard style', when they were experimenting with carbon tanks they were doing so in a building that normally builds ships in my home town.
      I have a bunch of pictures of them moving the sphere and the destructive testing aftermath.

    12. Re: Love the changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought steel becomes brittle and low temperatures.

    13. Re: Love the changes by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 1

      Mild steel and high carbon steels do. Many stainless steels do not, which is why stainless steel is used to build cryostats.

    14. Re: Love the changes by Rei · · Score: 1

      Quoting myself is literally the opposite of revisionist history.

      And yes, some variants of the Model 3 were late. Others (such as AWD and P) were early. And this is relative to the timeline for the Model 3 that the company moved forward a year. But not like you actually care.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    15. Re: Love the changes by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Citation needed for everything you say. Because it sounds like you are repeating what musk said word for word.

      Isn't that just what people do?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re:Love the changes by Walter+White · · Score: 1

      I think shiny is the more important "engineering criterion."

  4. Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Confused · · Score: 0, Troll

    Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects like the Hyperloop and his tunnels or even the flame thrower, the outlook for a stainless steel rocket is very dim.

    Most of the time, Mr. Musk's cunning plans overlook some aspect and in the end they either fall very short on the original expectation or don't work at all. And if they work, liek the tunnels, they end up being about the same as those made by others.

    In engineering there are very few overlooked secrets to revolutionise things like Mr. Musk always twitters. Fortunately most engineers aren't the fumbling dolts he thinks they are.

    Probably this is just another case of dangerous half-knowledge - as usual.

    1. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a pretty negative view after his all his successes.
      You know that some of his revolutionary ideas really worked out? Like landing rockets. Also his electric cars were far ahead of the competition for a while, although you could just attribute this to putting a large amount of money in it at the right time. Well, that's what he is really good at.

    2. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How on earth do you discount the success of Tesla and SpaceX? Musk is obviously far more than just a byproduct of PayPal.

      Musk may not be the smartest guy in the room but he has a very solid track record of saying his companies are going to do something people consider outside the envelope, and not just making it work but making it work really well.

      It sure seems like with the success that SpaceX has had, anyone discounting what Musk has to say about how rockets should be built and operated, is very probably either a jerk or an idiot. In either case they are even more probably wrong.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You do seem a bit confused, Confused.

      Hyperloop isn't a project, it is an idea that was proposed in general terms.

      The BBQ "flame thrower" was a huge success.

    4. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      What success? Tesla makes niche cars for the 0.01%. SpaceX shoots satellites to LEO. You guys are impressed by tech toys. None of that is groundbreaking, just ridiculous nonsense. You know what IS groundbreaking? Linus creating Linux. That really was a game changer for not just the industry, but for the world. But you guys are so entranced by Musk who is just playing out his Iron Man fantasies because he got lucky hitting the jackpot with Paypal.

    5. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Landing rockets WAS NOT HIS IDEA. It was done FORTY YEARS AGO. You guys are just ignorant. The reason it hasn't been done since is because it is a dubious idea. It looks cool, but has little practical value.

    6. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      And if they work, liek the tunnels, they end up being about the same as those made by others.

      Musk's tunnel cost $10m for a 1.4 miles. For comparison my city just built a #)!@ bike lane for $12m/mile. They could have built an exclusive right-of-way bike tunnel for less with Boring Company.

      By the way I assume this is what you're reffering to for "about the same"

      For a better comparison Super Excavators (the previous owners of Godot) used the exact same machine to build a 1,640 ft sewer overflow tunnel for $12.4 million, or scaling up $38 million/mile

      Hardly "about the same" and this was their very first attempt which was more about fact-finding than a finished product. Not to mention the competitor using the same boring machine is using it for sewers. Even at $40m a mile vs $10m or $1m a mile that's an innovation to repurpose a small bore tunnel for transit.

    7. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by kurkosdr · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      If Linux hadn't existed we 'd be running FreeBSD or even some microkernel OS instead (like Darwin). Linux was politically superior (due to its copyleft license empowering the million-man army of Stallman zealots) not technically superior.

    8. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      Well that's the first time I hear it was done forty years ago. Was it some short-lived experiment?

    9. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Informative

      His "tunnel" was literally that: a tunnel. It didn't contain anything that you need to make a real transportation tunnel. That is why it was $10m. More marketing BS from Musk desperately trying to convince governments to fork over more public money.

    10. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No we wouldn't. We would be using some stupid Microsoft OS or Sun OS. You guys don't know what innovation is.

    11. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      The reason you have never heard of it is because you Musk zealots only "know" about things that Musk does. You aren't interested in science, or technology. You just worship the P.T. Barnum of the tech world.

    12. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      You know there are many varieties of stainless steel? Some are extremely tough proprietary alloys like Inconel or Monel. This isn't your cheap 316 kitchen sink steel.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    13. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Hypeloop [sic] isn’t a project but just an idea, why does it seem to be ongoing?

      https://www.spacex.com/hyperloop

    14. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are clueless. None of what you said discounts what he said.

      But everything he said discounts musk.

      Binary guy is usually right, it's people with a vested interest in things who try to dispute him and fail usuallyz

    15. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus started making a kernel, and he happened to release the code under the GPL, which made it compatible with the goals of an existing GNU userspace. Kernels are tricky low-level code and all, but it's not as though kernels didn't exist already.

      AFAIK nobody has attempted the level of reusability in rockets that Musk has. Maybe you could argue that the STS did, but that ended up being an extremely costly way of launching things that just happened to be pretty inspiring because it didn't look like astronauts were flying around in a teapot.

    16. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at car prices lately? Ford somehow made people think pickup trucks are worth $60k and they can't build enough of them. The 0.01% are not buying Teslas.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    17. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tesla makes cars for the rich, sure. But it has also revolutionized the industry by creating the first production electric car that wasn't a glorified golf cart.

      As for launching satellites to LEO, most *nations* can't do that yet.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOLOL. What? Citation fucking needed. The tunnel does nothing, it's an ordinary tunnel, it cost a shit ton more to dig. And from what I've read and seen, it doesn't even have exits or anything of the sort. So it cost more and took longer and he didn't even have to add safety features that the other guys had to add.

      The company who he bought the machine from was digging tunnels the same size, faster, and cheaper. This "prototype" is nothing but an overpriced, overtime tunnel that does nothing else. He can't even put a hyperloop in it because the curves aren't dug out well enough.

    19. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most of the time, Mr. Musk's cunning plans overlook some aspect and in the end they either fall very short on the original expectation or don't work at all.

      What? Name one major project which has failed. What actually happens is that they are all late, but that's very different from the never that you claim. And you know what they say about late and never.

      And if they work, liek the tunnels, they end up being about the same as those made by others.

      The tunnels are just tunnels. They're not meant to be different from other tunnels, they're meant to be cheaper and faster. They already are (slightly) and the next borer will be much better.

      In engineering there are very few overlooked secrets to revolutionise things like Mr. Musk always twitters. Fortunately most engineers aren't the fumbling dolts he thinks they are.

      Absolutely nothing Musk has done has been a new idea. All of it has just been him deciding to bankroll things which nobody else seems to want to pay for. So really, nobody but you thinks that Musk is trying to trade on overlooked secrets. He's rather taking ignored opportunities.

      Probably this is just another case of dangerous half-knowledge - as usual.

      Pot
      Kettle
      Black.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think cars under $100k are for the 0.01% you have failed at life.

      numbnuts

    21. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, having a booster rocket able to be ready for relaunch extremely quick has no practical value.

      Your hate-on is showing.

      numbnuts

    22. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The reason you have never heard of it is because you Musk zealots only "know" about things that Musk does. You aren't interested in science, or technology. You just worship the P.T. Barnum of the tech world.

      From what I can tell, Blue Origin had the first flight, but SpaceX had the first useful flight. Kind of like how GM had the first modern EV, and Toyota made the first one that normal people wanted to buy but only produced it in small numbers, but Tesla made the first one many people wanted to buy (and actually sold it.) I'd compare Elon Musk to Steve Jobs, except he'd probably be smart enough to get cancer treated if he had it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Tesla makes cars for the rich, sure. But it has also revolutionized the industry by creating the first production electric car that wasn't a glorified golf cart.

      You forgot the Toyota RAV4 EV. Not much range, but otherwise highly credible, and owners adore them.

      What Tesla has done is made the first EV that the masses want to buy, and then actually gone on to sell them to a lot of people. Most RAV4 EVs were leased, all GM EV-1s were leased... But this is not a trivial achievement, especially given that Tesla is a brand new automaker.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has a degree in physics, you nincompoop.

    25. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Nope. Like the GM EV1, the 1st Gen RAV4 EV was lease only. The second gen RAV4 EV was designed in conjunction with, wait for it.... Tesla.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1100... isn't wrong to question here...

      Seriously, how many CEOs (especially those heading 2 companies) have the expertise to "convince" their phd level engineers and scientists to use a material they don't seem is best suited for the job? Either Musk is taking credit for someone's ideas and consequently shortchanging his staff, or he is incredibly brilliant and we should put the messiah to work on other major problems too (cancer, fusion, quantum computing, warp travel, teleportation, etc).

      People need to seriously step back to reality sometimes.

    27. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      because no other rocket has successfully used stainless steel? you might want to check up on that before the space/missile buffs make mincemint out of you

    28. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Takeoff, hover and landing was done forty years ago. Actually launching a rocket to space and having any of the rocket stages land for re-use definitely wasn't

    29. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nope. Like the GM EV1, the 1st Gen RAV4 EV was lease only.

      Nope. It was lease only at the beginning, but "at the lessees' request, many units were sold after the vehicle was discontinued." and also "A total of 328 RAV4 EVs were sold directly to consumers throughout 2002 and into 2003."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because engineers never over-think anything, or immediately discount ideas because of past failures.

      Sometimes "why not? I want a real answer" is a very useful exercise for an engineering team, as it requires challenging assumptions.

      If this team discounted stainless steel from the beginning in favor of other materials because reasons, and then was made to actually enumerate those reasons and found them lacking, then good work was done.

      As always, the proof is in the testing. If the rocket spectacularly fails due to the stainless steel construction, then I guess your idiot trolling will be justified. But if it works, then you're just an idiot troll.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    31. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by hey! · · Score: 2

      After which they halted production, even though they had customers who wanted to buy.

      The point is not to take anything away from Toyota or GM, but what they built in the 90s weren't intended to become production vehicles; they were more like large-run prototypes used to obtain real-world data on EVs. These vehicles were historically significant, but they didn't shake up the market and force other manufacturers to get into EVs.

      That's partly a matter of timing. It couldn't be done prior to 2000; ten years in technology makes a big difference. But Tesla invested to get out in front of the curve, which is why Toyota turned to them for the 2nd gen RAV4 design.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    32. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but has little practical value.

      Aside from being dramatically cheaper, you mean, and letting SpaceX under-price the competition in multiple countries by large margins.

    33. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is nonsense. Linux is just another me-too UNIX-ish OS like BSD.

      See how someone can massively over-simplify something in order to detract from it's significance, much like you did with Tesla and SpaceX?

      Go fuck yourself.

    34. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      His argument is based on global income figures, because clearly Tesla (and every other car manufacturer) is directing their marketing at poor people in war-torn countries that barely can feed themselves. But somehow that matters for Tesla, and not Jaguar Land Rover, Volkswagen AG, Daimler, etc.; you know - all the other car manufacturers that sell similarly priced vehicles to the exact same markets, and have all announced EVs meant to directly compete with Tesla.

      Oh, but Tesla makes "niche" cars that the rest of the industry is scrambling to compete with...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    35. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's smarter than you ...

    36. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by kurkosdr · · Score: 0

      We are using some Microsoft OS for desktops and laptops (the majority of us) and Linux is slowly being shown the door in mobile (please Google Fuschia)

    37. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and so what? his $ is getting put back into the economy, and moving yardsticks.

      US manufacturers are gonna get burned by not going electric instead of maximizing CUV/SUV/truck profits today. they have no serious long term plan, except to perhaps have enough $ to buy into the game later.

      Ford partnering with VWG is a sign of that... VWG is developing their own flavor of EV tech and infrastructure (charging station network etc). Ford at least has quietly punted but, in pure remora mode now, latched onto the VWG megalodon.

      FCA & GM seem content to still 'wait & see'...

    38. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tesla only makes niche cars for the top 0.01% most idiotic rich people, who don't mind that their toy cars won't work during winter and are so poorly glued together that they start falling apart under minor and routine stresses

    39. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spacex is cheaper than competition because competition has been massively overcharging, a habit they picked up during military contracting

    40. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or, he hired enough people initially that echoed the 'superiority' of CF he also shared. But then actual devopment engineering started, and shortcomings were revealed.
      Whether he or some of his people pulled out the material science data (and material $...) of series-300 stainless, perhaps doesnt really matter now, if it ever did.
      Musk at least realized/was convinced they were running quickly at a very steep development cliff pursuing CF, and he changed course, which is his job to do, really.
      That huge CF tank they made in Anacortes WA is really cool. But keeping it cool during reentry probably negated any advantages it might have realized.

      At least he's not fighting against the Rocket Equation, laws of thermodynamics, flat vs spherical earth, etc.

    41. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Well that's the first time I hear it was done forty years ago.

      It wasn't. The guy you're talking to is just an asshole who is heavily invested in shorting Tesla, so will regularly tell all kinds of lies about anything Elon touches.

      If you scroll up on the page you can watch him claim that the Linux kernel was more revolutionary than anything SpaceX has done. And as insane as that it, it's not even the most ridiculous thing he's ever said!

    42. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rayscist!

    43. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you were an idiot like creamy dumpty, BUT THEN YOU USED CAPS AND CONVINCED ME.

    44. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      The world is not big enough for two genii. Either Musk is a genius or Linus is. Both can't be. Not at the same time.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    45. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's the first time I hear it was done forty years ago. Was it some short-lived experiment?

      NASA landed multiple rockets vertically on the moon. And they had a 100% success rate unlike space ex shit rocket that has the worst reliability in the entire history of rocketry.

    46. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For starters Elon bought a tunnel boring machine from europe, where they have been doing the same tunnels for decades.

      Any idiot can buy one and build a tunnel...and guess what there are dozens of similar constructions going on around the world for similar costs.

      Elon didnt invent the tunnel boring machine... he also hasnt changed in anyway the way they operate, so of course times and costs are similar to everyone elses.

    47. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Apple, they're the ones who can innovate. Just ask Phil Schiller's ass.

    48. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    49. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except space ex rockets can’t be relaunched quickly they need to be completely rebuilt.

    50. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Why who does your car company make cars for, and how high do your satellites fly? I mean come on, you just called it RIDICULOUS NONSENSE so surely you must do much better before your morning shit. Oh wait, I see, your posts are your morning shit. I get it. Carry on.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    51. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad when you have to talk yourself up with an AC sockpuppet.

    52. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You miss hey!'s point.... NONE of these fuckers started seriously caring about making electric cars until Tesla came on the scene. Them most of them banded together against him to try to legislate him out of business. Then finally when Tesla actually started selling cars and it turned out they were pretty decent, got the shit scared out of them and started looking into making their own cars. Even if Tesla is a total failure, Must has brought about the age of the electric car.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    53. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Linus creating Linux

      Erm. Sort of, he just implemented his own version of Minix to start. Minix was a teaching OS. Blah blah. Someone would have made an OSS operating system eventually, FBSD was already around.

    54. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Shit I have a Honda that cost me $60k. Granted I live in the 3rd world so about $15k of that is straight up import tax, but fuck you can't get a new car for $3000 like when I was a kid.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    55. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      It's pretty simple. You round up a group of experts who say one thing, and a group of experts who say the opposite, then you force them to defend their positions to you. The team with the most "uhhhhs" loses. Next.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    56. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      The reason it hasn't been done since is because it is a dubious idea.

      If only Mr. Watt had realized that sticking a bunch of water into a barrel and sealing it then lighting a fire on it was a dubious idea because everyone knew it would blow up and take half the building with it....

      He made it work. And not you or anyone else will EVER be able to take the credit for that away from him.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    57. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It was done by NASA I guess. The fact that it could save millions and millions of dollars was obviously of "little practical value" to a government agency.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    58. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      That's why I have a doctorate. Because I am not interested in science.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    59. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs got as much cancer treatment as can be gotten for an aggressive, uncurable cancer. The removal of his liver and liver transplant was 100% anti-ethical (ask yourself why a person with cancer of the PANCREAS would need a LIVER transplant - there's only one reason - liver metastases), but of course little things like ethics don't matter if you're Steve Jobs. Just don't expect to have it done on you even if you're a mere millionaire, because you'll be told that other people have been waiting years for that liver... people who might actually live longer than a year. He got treatment alright. But it was his time.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    60. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Elon turn down your very gay advances?

      nunbnuts

    61. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      How many of those did it from suborbital flight after delivering a payload?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    62. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Takeoff, hover and landing was done forty years ago.

      Exactly. He's saying that all Musk and SpaceX have achieved is basically, well, Grasshopper.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    63. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar City did pretty poorly, but only because it required that Americans pay their bills on time.

    64. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      "Stuff that impresses you isn't groundbreaking. You know what is groundbreaking? Stuff that impresses ME!"

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    65. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Educate yourself faggot.

      I educated myself with WP before posting. Naturally, I'm not going to watch your video. Do you actually find people who do what you say? Sad fucks, if you do, but not as sad as you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    66. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Solar City did pretty poorly, but only because it required that Americans pay their bills on time.

      Yes, it certainly has done so far. But it's not dead, just on standby. It can be spun off again if that makes sense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    67. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Tesla makes cars for the rich, sure. But it has also revolutionized the industry by creating the first production electric car that wasn't a glorified golf cart.

      You forgot the Toyota RAV4 EV. Not much range, but otherwise highly credible, and owners adore them.

      You miss hey!'s point.... NONE of these fuckers started seriously caring about making electric cars until Tesla came on the scene.

      I didn't miss it, both because I know it already, and because he didn't make it. I'm speaking to a specific claim which was clearly and obviously false.

      The truth is that Musk launched Tesla at the time when the battery technology would support the vehicle at a level of quality which was acceptable to people with lots of money, which is why the Tesla Roadster (is it just me or is it shitty to reuse that name for a dramatically different vehicle?) was a success, and why it could lead to the further success of the Model S. That's much better timing than any prior automaker had. If it wasn't Tesla, though, it would have been someone else, because the technology was finally there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    68. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if he is the only one on /. to ever say Musk is an idiot who had good friends at PayPal carry him?

      Oh please, are you new here?

      95% of the fanboy posts are Rei/Elon masturbating. The rest are stock holders in Tesla trying to boost the stock back to the high where they bought it.

      And no, I am not a short seller. I am not crazy. I have never bought or sold and Tesla. But I do know a mad man and his flock of sheep when I see it.

    69. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is not the price. I can price my hot wheels car at $100kif I want. It is that Tesla makes shitty low quality cars with the luxury level of a low end Honda at a Mercedes price.

      If I am going to shell out high double digits or more for a car it better be something special. Sitting in a Tesla is not special. The inside is very modest verging on piece of shit. If you ever sat in a same priced luxury car you would immediately know the difference. The problem is all the knuckle head greenie buyers who are used to buying high mileage cheap ass prius and low end Hondas who think Tesla is really nice inside.

      Higher end car buyers know better.

      Tesla has some interesting beta level tech but is otherwise overpriced crap in all other ways.

    70. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your history. He got treatment only after he did a bunch of mumbo jumbo bullshit.

      Of course by then it was too late.

    71. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh hello? Space shuttle booster rockets got reused. You have heard of the space shuttle right? Even that piece of crap had reusable stages before Elon grew his first public hair or knew what a girl looked like.

      Fucking stupid fan boys dont even need to google for this stuff. My grand mother, rest her soul, could have explained it to you over milk n cookies 30 years ago. But most of you posting werent even alive yet.

      The piper gets out his flute and all the stupid children believe he invented fire and discovered the wheel. No one ever had fire or the wheel before Elon came along.

      Dumbasses.

    72. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Educate yourself faggot.

      I’m a faggot.

      I fixed that for you.

    73. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by x0ra · · Score: 1

      who hasn't ?

    74. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ethic? tell me when you get the cancer.

    75. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by hankwang · · Score: 1

      According to TFA: Musk wants to use 301 steel at about $3 per kg.

    76. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You speak as if battery technology is something that appears out of thin air or that somehow Tesla licensed, not developed in-house.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    77. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      So I should let 20 year old patient A with Wilson's disease die, to save 50 year old (rich! let's not forget rich!) patient B from pancreatic cancer? Patient A will survive and live another 40 years with 80% probability. Patient B will be dead in 6 months if I do nothing, and in 18 months if I give him a transplant. Now in the IDEAL world of course I save both. In the REAL world, I only have one liver (if that) and two patients. What do I do? That's ethics. They teach courses. You're kind of required to pass them to graduate from medical school and again to get your license. It's the reality of the world we live in. Every doctor on call can only work so many hours. Every hospital has only so many ICU beds. Every country has only so many pediatric neurosurgeons specialized in condition "x". And I say Jobs' transplant was anti-ethical. It only happened because the patient was Steve Jobs. No one else on the planet will ever get that treatment, ever, in the same condition.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    78. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The moon landing was a computer assisted, piloted landing on a body with 1/6th the Earth's gravity and NO ATMOSPHERE. Fucking docking in space without ending up with two wrecks is far more complicated than the moon landing. Seriously that's all you've got?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    79. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You speak as if battery technology is something that appears out of thin air or that somehow Tesla licensed, not developed in-house.

      The battery is the easy part, the cells themselves (and their chemistry) are the hard part, and Tesla didn't design the cells. Tesla has the best battery, but not by a wide margin any more with the new EVs coming out. Remember when the height of cell technology was NiMH? That was enough for a good hybrid, but not a good EV. Now we have Li-Ion, and hopefully ere long we'll have solid electrolyte batteries that are good enough for EVs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    80. Re: Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you ever sat in a same priced luxury car you would immediately know the difference.

      Yeah, it would be broken down and it wouldn't go anywhere. Those cars are unreliable AF, almost without exception.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    81. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a harder problem faggot.

    82. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Jobs got as much cancer treatment as can be gotten for an aggressive, uncurable cancer. The removal of his liver and liver transplant was 100% anti-ethical (ask yourself why a person with cancer of the PANCREAS would need a LIVER transplant - there's only one reason - liver metastases), but of course little things like ethics don't matter if you're Steve Jobs. Just don't expect to have it done on you even if you're a mere millionaire, because you'll be told that other people have been waiting years for that liver... people who might actually live longer than a year. He got treatment alright. But it was his time.

      Steve Job's cancer was operable and survivable had he had the surgery early on. Instead he chose to try and treat it with a frutitarian diet which allowed it to spread.

      There are some people who think it was his lifelong vegan/fruititarian diet that actually killed his pancreas in the first place, same for the liver as fructose is extremely hard on the live and that is practically all he ate.

    83. Re:Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects.... by Stan42 · · Score: 1

      Is Musk only an engineer... or more ? ;)

  5. Try it yourself by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Tell someone "That material can withstand 815 to 871 C!".

    I'm in full support of metric units elsewhere, but that doesn't look, nor sound, nearly so exciting... C is just a terrible unit of measurement for expressing temperature. Even more true of weather ranges.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you're a dullard...

    2. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just repeating nonsense you heard elsewhere?

    3. Re:Try it yourself by Reaper9889 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The funny part is that the quote is incorrect - either he said Celsius and the article misquotes him or he said something wrong. The melting point of stainless steel is roughly 1500-1600 C (well somewhere in the range from 1325 - 1530)!

      E.g. see: https://www.bssa.org.uk/topics...

      I think whether you want temperature in C or Fahrenheit is a matter of taste. I grew up with C and think it is easy enough -
      0C - melting point for ice - if it is below roughly 0 it might be icy and you should be carefull
      17C or so is ok to swim in
      21-23C nice indoor temp.
      30C a bit too hot.
      100C water boils.
      What more is necessary to know?

    4. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. I grew up with metric and Celcius (SI would be Kelvin). We don't really do "temperature ranges" like you do.

      20 is a nice balmy day. 30 is a bit on the hot side. 10 requires a coat. 0 means it's freezing, as in expect ice on the road. If it stays well below zero too long a bunch of people will start to get excited. We usually just get a single temperature forecast. Or well two really, the daily high and nightly low.

      If mr. boring here had any sense, he'd've said "can withstand 800 C!" but since you're so hung up on handwavy ranges of Fahrenheit, that's what you're getting.

    5. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should use Rankine if he really wants to be impressive.

    6. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a bit.

      4 degrees c - fridge temperature to keep your food safe.

      37 degrees c - human body temperature.

      160 degrees C - oven temperature for slow cooked meat.

      180 degrees C - normal roast temperature.

      200 -220 baking temperatures for most baked products, pizza, making crackling crispy etc.

      You don't need.to know the temperature of swimming water

    7. Re:Try it yourself by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 4, Funny

      What more is necessary to know?

      I like K. It's better than C or F because it appears later in the alphabet. And you don't have to bother with those silly negative numbers -- HOW can you have a negative temperature?

      0K - a bit too cold.
      300K - reasonable
      3000K - a bit too hot.
      6000K - a bit too hot AND bright. (Link)
      -1K - you divided by 0.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    8. Re:Try it yourself by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      What more is necessary to know?

      Steel glows cherry red around 1400-1500 F, at which point work hardening is removed. Aluminum melts at around 1250 F. Those are both pretty important to me....

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re: Try it yourself by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      I'm in full support of metric units elsewhere, but that doesn't look, nor sound, nearly so exciting... C is just a terrible unit of measurement for expressing temperature. Even more true of weather ranges.

      Maybe if you're a dullard...

      Says the guy backing the system that's based off of the number of fingers humans have. Converting between cm, meters, km is done by moving a decimal point. Converting between inches, feet, yards and miles isn't some simple shit you can do on your fingers. Plus you have to know how many inches are in a foot, how many feet in a yard and how many yards are in a mile. And none of those are some base 10 crap you can do on your fingers. Hell, it's not even the same from one unit to the next. 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 1760 yards to a mile.

      Then if you think you have that figured out, you go to a horse race and they measure distances in furlongs, nose, head, neck, and lengths. A furlong is 660.001 feet. A length is 8 feet, a Nose is 0.05 of a length or 4.8 inches, a Short Head is 0.1 of a length or 9.6 inches , a Head 0.2 of a length or 19.2 inches, a Short Neck 0.25 of a length or 24 inches, a Neck 0.3 of a length or 28.8 inches.

      Then you think land would be sold in some square of those units, but it's not. That's done in acres or partial acres.

      Imperial units may be a pain in the ass, but they're not easy for a lot of people to use. If anything, metric is more suited to dullards than imperial.

    10. Re:Try it yourself by Early+Six+Digit+UID · · Score: 2

      Sorry to burst your bubble :P
      Of course, if it's below 0K outside, you'd probably want to just stay in

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    11. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOW can you have a negative temperature?

      You can't, but nothing claims to. You are mistaking C and F as units of temperature when they are not.

      K is a unit of temperature, which is why it doesn't go impossibly negative.

      Both C and F are not units of temperature. They are points on a number line scaled between two fixed temperatures.

      0C isn't a temperature value, it is the point on that number line representing the temperature 273.15k, better known as the temperature at which water freezes.

      So yes you certainly can have temperatures that are below that which water freezes.
      250k for one of many examples, is a perfectly valid and non-negative temperature, which is represented on the Celsius number line at about -20c

    12. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then you'll love R.

    13. Re: Try it yourself by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      What the fuck does horse racing measurements have to do with anything but horse racing?

      Nobody in aerospace engineering gives a shit about furlongs or short heads, and never has.

      That's like saying that anyone in aerospace engineering is measuring things in (american) football field lengths, or sides of a baseball diamond. It's completely irrelevant.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    14. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, completely irrelevant. Much like the rest of the imperial system.

    15. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have more in common than you might think:

      http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html

    16. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No 1500-1600 F is correct, above that point the crystal structure of steels break down and it becomes quite plastic.

    17. Re: Try it yourself by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      A furlong is 660.001 feet

      Where the hell does the .001 come from?

      It's 220 yards, and a yard is 3 feet. int x int = int.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think F is best for everyday use. More numeric range between freezing and boiling makes it inherently more mathematically accurate.

    19. Re:Try it yourself by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      C is just a terrible unit of measurement for expressing temperature.

      You're right. K is where it's at baby. Until someone points out to you that the size of 1K is exactly the same as the size of 1 C....the only difference being where the scale sets the zero point.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    20. Re: Try it yourself by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You picked a single example from his post and made the most ridiculous comparison. I'm sure there's a name for that. Wow, I'm totally convinced. I'm switching to imperial right away. Base 10 makes as much sense to humans as base 16 does to computers.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    21. Re:Try it yourself by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      HOW can you have a negative temperature?

      You've obviously never been outside in Canada at night (any time after 3pm) in February. When you feel your balls actually entering your abdominal cavity and sheltering somewhere between your kidneys and your liver, you have reached negative temperature.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    22. Re:Try it yourself by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I bet you're great fun at parties.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    23. Re:Try it yourself by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I was thinking of an entirely different R so I was confused for a second... I mean I know PV = nRT can throw up some pretty weird shit sometimes but...... never mind, it's late.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    24. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying 4 degrees C goes past redundant and swerves into wrong territory.

      It is just 4C, the degrees is part of C.

      numbnuts

    25. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And -40 C is the same as -40 F which is just really fucking cold.

    26. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like K. It's better than C or F because it appears later in the alphabet.

      Wait til you find out about Rankine.

    27. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      A furlong is 660.001 feet

      Where the hell does the .001 come from?

      It's 220 yards, and a yard is 3 feet. int x int = int.

      Intel processor.

    28. Re: Try it yourself by x0ra · · Score: 1

      160 degrees for slow cooked meat ? Certainly not "celcius" or we don't have the same definition of "slow".

    29. Re:Try it yourself by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      Tell someone "That material can withstand 815 to 871 C!".

      I'm in full support of metric units elsewhere, but that doesn't look, nor sound, nearly so exciting... C is just a terrible unit of measurement for expressing temperature. Even more true of weather ranges.

      As an American who uses both systems, I agree that Fahrenheit "seems" more intuitive for weather forecasts; but if all that I grew up with was solely Celsius, I would think that a 37 degree day would be a nice hot day (& a good body temperature*).

      *check math, never liked doing the conversions...

    30. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the alphabetic rule make Rankine temperature best?

    31. Re:Try it yourself by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ya, they should probably measure temperature in Java instead.

    32. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but I think he was going for the 'loud lesson' tone.

      Emotionally speaking, writing just 4C doesn't get that.

    33. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many cubic furlongs ?

    34. Re:Try it yourself by gwjgwj · · Score: 1

      Réaumur and Rømer are better.

    35. Re:Try it yourself by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      -1K - you divided by 0.

      Pffft, Quantum Physics laughs at your division by zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    36. Re: Try it yourself by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Actually there were groups of people who used the gaps between fingers to count and used base 8. Base 8 is a lot nicer then base 10.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    37. Re:Try it yourself by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Huh? I'm in Canada and yesterday the official high (at the closest airport) was 7.9C and the low was 3.4C. Sure you need to put on the Stanfield but not exactly ball freezing. Even seen girls in halter tops the other day. Whole winter up till now has had similar temperatures, again. It is finally snowing today, which will protect the flowers when it freezes tonight.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    38. Re: Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then you think land would be sold in some square of those units, but it's not. That's done in acres or partial acres."

      But it is. An acre is one chain* by ten chains.

      * definition of "chain" left as an exercise for the reader. Don't get me started on how far the king could throw an average size rock.

    39. Re: Try it yourself by FuzzyDaddy2 · · Score: 1

      Its true; Kelvins are the only sensible units.

    40. Re: Try it yourself by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Ok, I could definitely go for that. :-)

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    41. Re: Try it yourself by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That deserves a +1 funny.

      Too soon, I suppose.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re: Try it yourself by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      An acre is a furlong by a chain. Or ten square chains, if you prefer.

      I have no idea what that is in elephants, Belgiums or libraries of congress.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    43. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The funny part is that the quote is incorrect - either he said Celsius and the article misquotes him or he said something wrong. The melting point of stainless steel is roughly 1500-1600 C (well somewhere in the range from 1325 - 1530)!

      He said that "you could do" up to 1500-1600F, implying that it is usable as a structural material at those temperatures. Which is about right, though it depends on what type of stainless.

      Source: Come on, it was literally a link on the page you used as your source:
      https://www.bssa.org.uk/topics...

      Or a better article that explains some of the different issues with taking stainless to high temperatures:
      http://www.ssina.com/compositi...

    44. Re:Try it yourself by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Tell someone "That material can withstand 815 to 871 C!".

      I'm in full support of metric units elsewhere, but that doesn't look, nor sound, nearly so exciting... C is just a terrible unit of measurement for expressing temperature. Even more true of weather ranges.

      At least you know where you stand with C. 0 is water freezing 100 is boiling, everyone knows how cold ice is and how hot boiling water is and can work from there. What does F relate to? Apart from giving you bigger numbers that is.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    45. Re: Try it yourself by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Well base 8 easily convertible to base 16 (32, 64, or any greater power of 2) which makes octal also a fun thing for computers. Hey if you add the gaps between your toes you get base 16! It's destiny.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    46. Re:Try it yourself by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Sorry I meant a part of Canada that actually gets cold like Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Etc. Not BC... (I'm from Montreal - don't live there now but I remember -40 this time of year.).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    47. Re: Try it yourself by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Easily subdivided by 2 or 4 as well. There's also the Babylon's base 12/60 which still affects our math and might have been the best. 12 is nice and divisible and there's no reason that computers couldn't have evolved with 6/12 bit registers instead of 8/16 bit. Base 10 is actually a crappy base but it has such inertia that it seems natural.
      Then there are the imaginary beings such as Clarke's Ramans who may have used base 9 (everything in 3's), which is really alien to our way of thinking.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    48. Re:Try it yourself by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It did used to get cold here. I can remember close to 0F in the west end of Vancouver, and the icicles. Lots of snow with school being closed for weeks when I was in Burnaby (mile or so outside of Vancouver) and in the interior, minus 30-40 common. Looking at the records for this week, they're all close to -20C, not as cold as back east but with the high humidity, sure seemed cold. OTOH, all the record highs are about 15C. This is in the Fraser Valley, perhaps 40 miles east of Vancouver.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    49. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool, R is a measure of velocity.

      https://sites.google.com/site/h2g2theguide/Index/r/167763

  6. It's actually going to be a time machine.. by rlauzon · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's actually going to be a time machine, not a spaceship. Musk: "If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits .88 C... you're gonna see some serious shit."

    1. Re:It's actually going to be a time machine.. by rlauzon · · Score: 2

      Sorry. Wrong "C". I should have used "c" - for the speed of light. Not Celsius.

    2. Re:It's actually going to be a time machine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's ok we knew what you meant

    3. Re:It's actually going to be a time machine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought she meant Carbon

    4. Re:It's actually going to be a time machine.. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's too late, you've already collapsed the universe. Now it's just a matter of waiting until it catches up to us...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:It's actually going to be a time machine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll call it oumuamua!

  7. ...complete success is predicted. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Going by Mr. Musk's other fancy projects like the Hyperloop and his tunnels or even the flame thrower, the outlook for a stainless steel rocket is... ...fantastic.

    The hyper loop already has a demo tunnel built when many said NOTHING would ever be built. It completely validates the concept, to the point you can be sure to see commercial implementation.

    The flame thrower turned out really well, to the point I was very sad I didn't get to order one before they were gone.

    And of course, Tesla is practically the definition of success (so funny how you left that example out). Not to mention the many fantastic success SpaceX itself has had - in fact the most directly pertinent example, vs. the flame thrower.

    It seems you lack the vision to understand when early phases of something portend future success.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:...complete success is predicted. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The hyperloop WAS NOT HIS CONCEPT. The concept originated OVER 100 YEARS AGO. It is a stupid idea, that is why no one ever built it. The only thing that Tesla is a success at is making technonerds feel good about themselves.

    2. Re:...complete success is predicted. by kurkosdr · · Score: 1, Troll

      When Slashdot zealots say that something is gonna be big (MeeGo, Desktop Linux) sell sell sell. When Slashdot zealots say that something will fail (iPhone, iPad, Tesla, SpaceX) invest invest invest.

    3. Re: ...complete success is predicted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A demo tunnel, that can't do jack else, cost a shit ton more money to dig, and has no added benefits. That tunnel?

    4. Re: ...complete success is predicted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, you should never buy anything from anyone ever again; since any sale to you could be construed as being suckered by the salesman.

    5. Re:...complete success is predicted. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The hyperloop WAS NOT HIS CONCEPT.

      I can see you slipped up here, since obviously you meant to respond to the original poster who claimed the lack of Hyperloop showed that Mush was a failure. Thanks for helping my argument by noting you cannot even attribute the Hyperloop idea to Musk.

      Your support is noted and appreciated!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:...complete success is predicted. by inking · · Score: 1

      The tunnel you are talking about is the Boring tunnel. It has nothing to do with the Hyperloop, which has its own pipe that they didn’t even pump the air out of. Both are literally two completely useless “prototypes” that don’t prototype anything, because the Boring doesn’t address any issues with mass transportation (it’s literally a above-average costing sewer tunnel with LEDs) and Hyperloop does not actually run in a vacuum of any sorts. At least get your story straight.

    7. Re:...complete success is predicted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem really angry. Did you miss your nap today?

    8. Re:...complete success is predicted. by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      I want this to be true so badly, but all the "can I buy it with my BitCoin? Harr harr harr." things were going on for, like, 10 years before BitCoin became such a big thing that Joe SixPack talks about it.

    9. Re:...complete success is predicted. by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      BitCoin succeeded as a bubble for speculators but not as a currency as the Slashot zealots predicted. HTC learned this the hard way, with their "Exodus" phone costing an unafforable £1000 one month and a sweet £350 the next one.

    10. Re:...complete success is predicted. by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      Oh, for sure. But you have to think "if I had bought $500 of BitCoin when it was a SlashDot joke, I would be a multi-millionaire now".

      Then you read: "Yea, eelo is going to be HUGE" and you have no idea whether is it HUGE like BitCoin or huge like Meego.

    11. Re:...complete success is predicted. by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      Almost nobody bought $500 of bitcoin when it was a Slashdot joke, and the few that did sold it at either $250 or $1000 shortly afterwards, depending on how they reacted to the roller coaster ride back then. Nobody was hoarding tulips before the tulip mania hit and nobody was hoarding bitcoins before the cryptocurrency speculation frenzy happened. Ok maybe one or two people did so don't take "nobody" literally. My point is that unless you are a speculator who knows how to play this game you 'd better off buying a lottery ticket or simply saving up your money.

  8. you aren't coming back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oops... elon isn't telling you one other detail. you aren't coming back. ok, two, he's a cheap c#nt ... titanium was just tooo much money for this poor billionaire and your lives aren't worth it.
    troll time ;)
    titanium or tungsten are anywhere from twice to four times better in regards durability, thermal expansion, and strength

    1. Re: you aren't coming back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ti is quite expensive. Lets not forget it is hard to weld and work. And expensive. Will it play nice with liquid O2?

      W is too freaking difficult to work with in solid form probably for rocket tanks - youre not going to cold roll and spin weld it into huge tanks. It is brittle and crack propagation by the holes in the tank would be a serious concern. What are its cryogenic properties? Also, W is used as armor piercing munition penetrator rods not because it is light... And it isnt cheap either.

      300-series stainless looks like it has desirable properties at both ends of expected thermal regime that more than outweigh room temperature properties. Plus it is...cheap and easy to work with.

    2. Re: you aren't coming back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're both significantly more difficult, slower and expensive to manufacture with.

      Remember he's into building re-usable spacecraft, he needs ongoing maintenance to be fast and cheap. In stainless steel, he can afford to just rip off and replace any part that looks even remotely suspicious. In titanium or tungsten he'd have to have spare parts of everything in stock

    3. Re: you aren't coming back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ti is quite expensive.

      Especially the Ti-89. You'd think after a few decades the price would come down. You can buy a smart phone for its current price.

  9. Why doesn't he use... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...Rearden Metal instead? Dagny Taggart thought it was superior.

    1. Re:Why doesn't he use... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      You can bracelets, but other than that it is pretty useless.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  10. Because Elon Musk said so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, Elon Musk's opinion is way more significant than decades of scientific research.

    1. Re:Because Elon Musk said so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "scientific research" is over rated. Most of our scientific research never leaves the white board. Musk seems willing to through a couple million dollars to see how our research works in real life. And the people doing the scientific research are more interested in publishing their work in obscure scientific journals than actually applying their work in the real world. And there are numerous examples of our scientific research being wrong. Scientific research once claimed the earth was flat. Scientific research once claimed that operating on the heart could never be done without killing the patient. There was little more than a few mathematical calculations on nuclear physics until the construction of the first atomic bomb. Only after the first bomb was built did the real research start. And today scientific research is shaky at best because of the political beliefs of those underwriting the cost of the research. Global climate research being a prime example. And even though global warming is occurring those raising the alarm are disingenuous when they describe the problem. The archeological record shows that the global climate has been shifted to extremes over the past 50000 years when industrialization and uncontrolled population growth did not exist. The problem with global warming is one of money and convenience. The majority of those pushing to fix the environment are not willing to sacrifice their mobility or lower their consumption of everything that we manufacture today from clothes to computers.

    2. Re:Because Elon Musk said so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientific research once claimed the earth was flat.

      Are you so f**king nut? Who in scientific research claimed the earth was flat? When did religion zealots become scientists?

    3. Re:Because Elon Musk said so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right?! The ANCIENT GREEKS calculated the circumference of the Earth -- over 2200 years ago. Maybe people in 300 BC thought they lived on a plane, but by 240 BC it was known that the Earth had a measurable curve.

  11. Perfect reason by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    : "If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits .88 C.

    Someone above was asking why Musk didn't use C instead of F to refer to the temperature the hull can take...

    You just demonstrated why - when talking about spaceships you only want to use F for temperatures so you don't confuse it with the use of C for speed. :-)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Perfect reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the AC is the barer of all knowledge? Or you are fishing for a reason to back up your lies. Keep fishing, because everyone on slashdot knows your a fucking liar.

    2. Re: Perfect reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one who isn't a huge fuckin nerd that never goes outside would mistakenly think that spaceship speed would be measured relative to the speed of light, c (not C)

    3. Re: Perfect reason by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      measured relative to the speed of light, c (not C)

      Yeah I prefer not to risk potential confusion to the whims of a bad font or someone who TYPES IN ALL CAPS.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Perfect reason by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Only GP would use C when he meant to write c. I know a lot of astronomers and astrophysicists and believe me it's NOT a common mistake!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Perfect reason by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Only GP would use C when he meant to write c.

      I can't believe a programmer (as all Slashdot posters are) is really going to pretend that the fidelity of case will always be maintained across a lot of documents! Remember these are eventually getting into the hands of, or being created by, engineers.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:Perfect reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just demonstrated why - when talking about spaceships you only want to use F for temperatures so you don't confuse it with the use of C for speed. :-)

      That can't really happen since temperature will always have a small circle that indicated degrees before the C.
      It is only a problem when reposted on more casual sites like slashdot where proper units aren't supported or cared for.

    7. Re:Perfect reason by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Who will usually catch their mistake when they end up with a temperature in meters per second or a velocity in Kelvin at one point or another.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. Ridiculous comment by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1, Troll

    They built something like 500 balloon-tank Atlas missiles at Atlas II and they were extremely successful, every single one of them was stainless steel. They launched the last one in the early 2000's , and the Atlas II has a perfect success record. Hardly "ill-fated attempts one the Atlas program in the late 50's".

            Musk, of course, is not using the stainless in an ideal manner, mostly for show. That's because he is more PT Barnum than Werner Von Braun.

    1. Re:Ridiculous comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, SpaceX are a bunch of frauds. Simple showmen. They know nothing about building spacecraft, and are just all about the bling!

      I mean, its not like they were the first to reuse orbital class VTOL boosters, and they certainly haven't dramatically lowered the cost of commercial space delivery. /end sarcasm

      Yes, Musk comments about the Atlas were oversimplified and somewhat misleading, and that is somewhat inexcusable when talking to the press as an official representative. Having said that, you are just as guilty by pushing the idea they are just using stainless steel for show.

      With the new cold-forging method they are using, the stainless steel is ~60x cheaper than carbon fibre, and the fuel-bleeding backbone is an efficient reusable (without refurbishment) heat sink that could not be done with carbon fibre.

    2. Re:Ridiculous comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And to get to the stars we may need more PT Barnum than Werner Von Braun. We have all the Brauns we need, it's the Barnums that bring the funding and desire.

    3. Re:Ridiculous comment by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      That's because he is more PT Barnum than Werner Von Braun.

      The comparison to PT Barnum is apt. Carl Sagan and Steven Hawking could wear that label too. Anybody who has a vision has to be part showman to make it happen. But WVB was a Nazi war criminal who ordered the deaths (by hanging) of a dozen random workers at a forced labor camp named Dora to set an example for the other workers after production schedules for the V2 rocket parts being produced at Dora slipped. EM's labor relations are notoriously bad, but he hasn't resorted to stringing up his employees.

    4. Re:Ridiculous comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Musk, of course, is not using the stainless in an ideal manner, mostly for show. That's because he is more PT Barnum than Werner Von Braun

      damn dude, someone steal your cookies?

      reducing cost from $130/m2 to $3/m2 and upping the operating range from 300f to 1500f is unequivocally not "mostly for show"

      (but you already know that...)

  13. Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem with stainless is that it's a bit brittle subject to stress cracking.

    This is why here on earth steel or aluminum rather than stainless is used on boats for any structural/loading components. It's why more mundane things like "spiders" in washing machines are made out of heavy gauge aluminum and not corrosion resistant stainless like the rest of the drum.

    I am not a rocket scientist or a materials scientist and can only assume they've done their homework but it just seems dumb on its face.

    1. Re:Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      Google Inconel.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by cjameshuff · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sure about yours, but my washing machine doesn't have to operate at cryogenic through incandescent temperatures. Stainless steel alloys can be *really* good at cryogenic temperatures where common steel and carbon fiber composites are brittle. Ordinary steel would rapidly burn if exposed to reentry conditions, aluminum would melt and carbon fiber would start to decompose and burn if not covered with a substantial thermal protection layer.

      Aluminum and carbon fiber have their own problems with manufacturability, durability, and ease of modification or repairs. Stainless alloys let them sidestep those difficulties while getting many of the advantages of ordinary steels.

    3. Re:Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      You don’t occasionally put your clothes through a liquid ammonia rinse? It gets rid of any pathogens quite effectively

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Carbon fiber/epoxy would be a terrible choice for the tankage for exactly the reason you suggest - it would just shatter like glass from shock at cyrogenic temperatures and you couldn't insulate it well enough. Stainless, use conventionally, is a very good choice from all aspects, and as the Atlas experience showed, it can make for a very high performance system. The Atlas stage and a half system had one of higher stage mass ratios ever fielded, the entire missile would go into orbit, it's as close to SSTO as you are ever likely to get for a practical payload fraction. The problem is that at a practical weight, it has to be so thin that it must be pressurized all the time or collapse.

            Young internet space buffs tend to grossly underestimate the state of the art and the knowledge and wisdom of the past, this entire article and the original "Popular Mechanics" (for goodness sake, it's still around?) being sterling examples. 50's and 60's engineering was of an exceptional standard, and nothing much has changed about space technology, at least as regards to the important and difficult part of boosters, since then.

            It also illustrates why SSTO is a fundamentally ridiculous idea, you have to build something that is quite difficult to deal with to achieve a tiny payload fraction - meaning the rocket itself tends to be huge, multplying the cost enormously. Welding up a SS balloon tank rocket stage large enough to do more than loft a Mercury capsule, say 3x-5x the size of an Atlas, can certainly be done. However, the same payload can be lofted by a much smaller staged rocket because of the mass ratio advantages.

    5. Re:Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      The Atlas was a near-SSTO vehicle that used stainless steel balloon tanks, but that certainly does not mean that stainless steel is only useful for near-SSTO vehicles with balloon tanks. The fact that you can't reach the mass fractions needed for SSTO with rigid stainless steel tanks is rather irrelevant to staged vehicles.

      Starship will only ever go to orbit when launched on a booster. As such, it has sufficiently forgiving mass ratios that it doesn't need balloon tanks.

    6. Re:Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about yours, but my washing machine doesn't have to operate at cryogenic through incandescent temperatures.

      Washing machines are irrelevant. It was merely an example of where stainless is a poor choice of materials.

      Stainless steel alloys can be *really* good at cryogenic temperatures where common steel and carbon fiber composites are brittle.

      So says TFA.

      . Ordinary steel would rapidly burn if exposed to reentry conditions, aluminum would melt and carbon fiber would start to decompose and burn if not covered with a substantial thermal protection layer.

      This is a nonsensical argument. If you think stainless can be used instead of a TPS you would be wrong. Melting points of steel and stainless are about the same so invoking this as if it means something is a waste of time.

      Aluminum and carbon fiber have their own problems with manufacturability, durability, and ease of modification or repairs. Stainless alloys let them sidestep those difficulties while getting many of the advantages of ordinary steels.

      And disadvantages.

    7. Re:Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      I wonder why it's relevant though how stable the starship is at cryogenic temperatures? It must be stable when taking off, but then it is not cold. And it must be stable i the later phase of reentry, but then it isn't cold either.
      Also the material cost shouldn't be that important, since they pan to reuse the ship.
      I would have though that Titanium is the material of choice for light-weight stable structures that have to withstand high temperatures. Also using different materials in different places might solve some issues.

    8. Re:Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      About 2/3 of the structure by length (more by mass) is cryogenic propellant tanks. Those tanks absolutely are going to be cold at liftoff, and it's still carrying landing propellants in internal tanks on the way in.

      Titanium is far more difficult to work with and has problems with oxidizing atmospheres. While they upgraded some Falcon 9 booster parts from aluminum to titanium for its temperature tolerance, Starship goes through much hotter reentries.

      They could conceivably do some fancy sandwich of an Inconel outer layer over titanium base structure or such in the warmer parts of the vehicle to save a bit of mass, but that would greatly complicate the structure and manufacturing processes...you can't just weld those metals together like you can stainless steel components. Maybe Starship II will have a more complex but mass-efficient approach, but they're trying to reduce development costs and schedule...they aren't even using vacuum-optimized engines on the initial version.

    9. Re:Stainless "seems" like a bad idea by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > Atlas was a near-SSTO vehicle that used stainless steel balloon tanks

      As did the Centaur upper stage, which was extremely successful as well.

  14. Brett Buttfuck here to explain engineering knowhow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee Mr Buttfuck, I didn't notice you were a famous engineer - or any engineer - had ever built anything or ever known what you were talking about generally when your punk ass blathers online... because, wait for it, YOU AREN'T, and never did.

  15. So E.E. "Doc Smith" had it right all along? by Babel-17 · · Score: 1

    Just kidding, though his spaceships (like the Skylark) made out of special steel were the first thing to come to mind on reading this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... A lot of today's Science Fiction writers stand on the shoulders of JMS, who created Babylon 5, just as he stood on the shoulders of Doc Smith. 25 years just went by since the first airing of B5's first episode by the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  16. I really liked the entire "Lensman" series... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I read the series when I was in 7th grade (or rather, as many as they had then) - good stuff Kimball Kinnison & crew!

    * MUCH of it during "reading break" during, of all places, GYM Class 1st 20 minutes (rest @ home - couldn't put it down) in 7th grade.

    APK

    P.S.=> IIRC, I started w/ "The Gray Lensman" but it's been 3++ decades since so, I could be "off/wrong"... apk

  17. Dr. Zarkov was right by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they'll make it to the planet Mongo in that thing?

  18. You're a moron Ken Doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a reason nobody asks Ken Doll for his worthless opine on anything.

  19. IIRC, Gray Lensman was most commonly in stock by Babel-17 · · Score: 1

    And I think I started with that one as well. Only later did I read the prequel novels of the IPC, and Smith's other famous series with the characters of The Skylark of Space.

  20. Hot topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone should explain to Musk that, even if stainless steel has a very high melting temperature, usually at just 400 degree Celsius stainless steel lose about 80% of his mechanical strength. If I'm not mistaken temperatures on re-entry from orbit can easily exceed 1000 degree Celsius, not a nice temperature for something that must withstand a certain amount of mechanical stress...

    1. Re:Hot topic by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      OMG, you're right! Musk and all his rocket engineers are idiots!

      Oh wait, they're going to cool the skin on reentry.

    2. Re: Hot topic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Which is why they plan on using active cooling during reentry. The fact that it's harder to melt just means less need for cooling.

    3. Re: Hot topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also means when their shit cooling system fails, everyone dies.

  21. Re: Brett Buttfuck here to explain engineering kno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From looking at his post history he is unemployed and thinks the UN is trying to make. World government lol. Truly a slash dot stereotype.

  22. Curious choice for the "energy efficient" team by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Stainless steel (304) is about 3 times more dense than 6061 aluminum. Yet it's only about 10% stronger in tensile strength, and about 2.8 times better in Young's modulus. Meaning that you need more mass for the equivalent strength of aluminum. So you have to have more fuel, and more fuel (and volume in the tanks - which means they are also heavier) to carry that additional fuel.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Curious choice for the "energy efficient" team by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      While 304 isn't the strongest grade (IIRC) I just don't see the case for stainless. It's not like rockets need long term rust resistance, and you have to sacrifice various desirable properties for that. Why not a high grade of non stainless?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Curious choice for the "energy efficient" team by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Must be for some reason in space.
      Something else must be doing bad things to existing materials that design work discovered when "really" out in space.
      Think of neutrons on earth in a nuclear reactor.
      Stainless steel has its place in such a harsh environment around nuclear energy production.

      Will space be a harsh to a lot of existing materials?
      Tested and well understood stainless steel is the way to ensure things keep working when actually going into real outer space?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Curious choice for the "energy efficient" team by ghoul · · Score: 1

      I think the original interview answered that questions. Normal steels become brittle at cryogenic temperatures whereas stainless steel actually becomes stronger at those temperatures

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    4. Re:Curious choice for the "energy efficient" team by icejai · · Score: 1

      The choice to go stainless is more about this...

      https://youtu.be/CkgCF64QLgg?t...
      (Richard Hammond is awesome) ...and the fact that stainless can reach almost 1400 celsius before melting, than it is about weight.

    5. Re:Curious choice for the "energy efficient" team by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      It's a reusable launch vehicle, it doesn't just get manufactured, put on the pad, launched, and thrown away. The corrosion resistance is required just for surviving reentry, and the vehicles will be spending potentially years exposed to weather on the coast.

    6. Re:Curious choice for the "energy efficient" team by cjameshuff · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are only looking at the room-temperature performance, while the advantages of stainless are under cryogenic and reentry conditions. An aluminum structure (or their originally planned carbon fiber composite) would need to be protected by TPS materials that are either extremely fragile, or thick and relatively heavy (and still rather fragile).

      Also look at the problems NASA has had welding the thick aluminum walls of the SLS tank. Steels, even stainless steels, are easier to work with, and their density means the tank walls can be thinner. SpaceX uses the same materials and processes on their aluminum Falcon 9 rocket, and is quite familiar with their advantages and limitations.

    7. Re:Curious choice for the "energy efficient" team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like rockets need long term rust resistance, and you have to sacrifice various desirable properties for that. Why not a high grade of non stainless?

      Well, I don't know anything about this really, but since it is about Musk and the title says "starship" I assume that we are talking about something with a habitation area.
      That means that the inside will be exposed to long terms of atmosphere and water.

    8. Re:Curious choice for the "energy efficient" team by romanval · · Score: 1

      Stainless steel is for the outer skin since it has to survive launch and re-entry multiple times.

      The space shuttle used thermal tiles, wasn't very light either... and were a PITA to maintain.

  23. Mine wasn't NEW so as far as "in stock"? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mine wasn't NEW so as far as "in stock", didn't really apply - I got my copy from my Dad who got me into reading & we got our material from used bookstores (often minus covers but didn't matter to me, it was "what's inside, counts" (as it does w/ people MOST of the time (except women, lol - has to be appealing OUTSIDE too if you 'catch my drift')). I always VALUED those places right into the early 90's (when I began seriously 'drifting' towards computers more which later on in this post, makes sense on another 'point' of mine imo). I had 1 such spot near me (the "1/2 price bookstore" which closed 2nd year I was living near it, bummed me out bad) right before computers "re-hit" me (started on mainframes & midranges, didn't like charmode interfaces but GUI "got me" (art & science combined imo)).

    * The ENEMY was the 'Boskone' right? (Testing my "memory banks" on that note).

    Anyhow - pretty cool running into someone w/ common-ground here! QUESTION: How old are you? I'm 54 as of last Thursday - & you? Just curious. I don't see a LOT of readers in the past 2 decades++ or so & especially from the youth. Perhaps THEIR "books" are what WE are on, NOW (computers & the internet (most fantastic library I've ever seen, great learning tool)).

    APK

    P.S.=> I'll always be grateful my Dad got me into reading around 5-6 yrs. of age - 1st w/ comic books (army & horror comics THEN 'superhero' ones w/ HULK) & then onto Sci-Fi "pulp" short stories (which I thought ROCKED) - I can't help but feel it helped me later get a NEAR PERFECT "SAT" verbal score & helped me become a national spelling bee contestant in 5th grade (reading a lot helps, no questions asked)... apk

  24. Video explains most: by ClarkMills · · Score: 1
  25. Re: Brett Buttfuck here to explain engineering kno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine a beowulf cluster of slash dot stereotypes.....

  26. Re: Brett Buttfuck here to explain engineering kno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    elan musl isn't a famous engineer either. he's just famous and he has enough money to pretend he's an engineer without having his engineer employees call him out

  27. It already does something by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    A demo tunnel, that can't do jack else

    I dare you to drive a mile in LA at rush hour in under 4 minutes.

    Musk can.

    And as the tunnel obviously works and was built as easily as he claimed, at the low cost he claimed, there will be many more to come.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It already does something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tunnel for starters doesnt scale... it will take more than 4 mins just to get in and out of the tunnel... and in case you didnt know the tunnel doesnt appear where yous tart and where you want to go.

      Thats the complexity of treansport systems, compropmises and being part of the network.

  28. Re: Would Musk Buy A Chinese Liver Too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those chinese prisoners have the best organs Jerry, the best!

  29. Melting point is unimportant by aepervius · · Score: 2

    And if any engineering let themselves convinced by that, fire them. What is important is the tensile strength of steel versus temperature. e.g. in a fire steel beam get weakened at far lower temperature than melting point. At about 600-700 degree celsius your steel lost half its strength. You can see that at warehouse fire among others, steel beam get weakened and it crumples long before meeting melting point. Now the question is, what do carbon fiber at those temp, and is that important versus steel weakening. I can't answer that. I was just indicating melting temperature is not what you look at in most applications.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Melting point is unimportant by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Shhhh don't let the truthers hear you say that!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Melting point is unimportant by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      Referencing the melting point is inaccurate, but not that bad of a Fermi estimate. Keep in mind that the outer skin doesn't have to carry the main mechanical loads. Musk is talking about a structure with two sheets separated by stringers that provide additional mechanical support as well as directing the flow of coolant fluid. The outer skin mostly has to handle the difference between static aerodynamic pressure and internal coolant pressure. Presumably the passively cooled portion would have a similar double-walled structure to limit heat transfer to the interior.

      As for carbon fiber, it disintegrates long before it reaches such temperatures. The fibers themselves are quite heat resistant, not so much for the epoxy. A carbon fiber structure requires a thick layer of highly insulating thermal protection materials.

    3. Re:Melting point is unimportant by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Shhhh don't let the truthers hear you say that!

      They will simply claim that the fire wasn't hot enough, or that the structure was designed to survive it getting that hot...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Melting point is unimportant by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      "Now the question is, what do carbon fiber at those temp,"

      It's in the article. Strength degradation at 300 degrees

  30. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was 100% in-doc with Musk, he could do no wrong. His ideals had me at go and was bought in. Over the past 2 years, I've started to see things that have made me double take. He really is starting to come, undone. I don't think it's the science or the idea/dream, it's something else and I can't figure it out. Maybe it's drugs or the high press has changed him, but his image is everything and his PR is suffering.

    Telsa needs to revamp, the trucks and roadster are not going to make it.
    SpaceX needs a better method of landing and recovering parts, small wins + more often = success over a big one, in one go.

    Musk, I'm behind you, still, but you need to get this shyt together.

  31. Yes, it was the Boskone by Babel-17 · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit over 60 years old, fwiw. Yes, used book stores ftw. I scored a used first edition of Babel-17 at one. It's in good shape, and it brings back memories of the first time I read it. I still like physical copies of books, though I buy the e-books of authors I like to support. My local library has a thrift shelf where they offer their retired paperbacks, hardcovers, and even DVDs and Blu rays, for a quarter or less (a buck for the disks though), and they also have book sales in the basement once in a while. Btw, most of Galaxy Magazine has been scanned and uploaded to archive.org. Amazing stuff! Just look for the zoom feature on the page, otherwise the text is too small to rad, imo. Many classic SF novels have been scanned at archive.org as well, and can be checked out. All totally legally of course! https://archive.org/details/ga...

  32. Transpiration cooling was proposed may times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contrary to what Musk says transpiration cooling was proposed may times, it was never implemented because it didn't have obvious advantages for non-reusable spacecraft and was though to be fragile. However, in reality it will probably be a lot less fragile than the Space Shuttle TPS.

    1. Re:Transpiration cooling was proposed may times by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Transpiration cooling isn't used because it is fiddly and typically it's easy to clog the holes and rein the performance. However there are film cooling techniques used in rocket engine nozzle walls which do work.

  33. Is he nuts? by mark-t · · Score: 0

    Titanium has a *WAY* higher melting point than stainless steel, is less than 60% as dense, and more than twice as strong. It's only about one and a half times more expensive than stainless steel per unit volume, however, but because of its increased strength, I'd imagine you may also be able to use correspondingly less, and therefore get a more performant material for the same or lower cost.

    1. Re:Is he nuts? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Much harder to work with, and likely more expensive than just 1.5 times the steel cost. They have a lot of people working on it so I'm sure they have reasons

    2. Re:Is he nuts? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It is considerably more expensive going by mass, but because it is so much less dense, the same volume going to be that much less massive as well. Per unit volume, titanium costs only about 1.5 times what stainless steel costs.

    3. Re:Is he nuts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course from an engineering standpoint titanium is better, that's why Musk never mentions it in his ridiculous comparisons. He's trying to build his rocket on the cheap so he's going back to 1950s technology and pitching himself as a genius for using stainless steel.

    4. Re:Is he nuts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't there a new process discovered for refining Ti that was expected to make it much cheaper? Anyone have details?

      As others have mentioned, the difficulty is that Ti is harder to work with. However, if the cost dropped substantially there would be great incentive in finding solutions.

    5. Re:Is he nuts? by Swistak · · Score: 1

      Biggest problem with Titanium is it doesn't melt in atmosphere - it'll oxidize (burn). So welding has to be done in a neutral gas. Huge PITA.

    6. Re:Is he nuts? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You are talking about the FFC Cambridge Process. AFAIK it is not used in any major way because of, well, complications.

  34. Temperature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tungsten has the highest melting point of any metal, and I believe the highest of any known element.

    Why not use that? Does it have shit properties in regard to strength, etc?

  35. Thanks for reply, sorry for mine being late... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: So you ARE from around the same 'timeframe'/generation as myself (close enough) so it makes sense you too are a 'reader'. You noted Galaxy. I read TONS of tales from that one & OLDER material from the 20's/30's/40's/50's too (considering I read this in the 1970's that is) & it was GREAT! I loved it. Amazing Science Fiction (iirc, that was a serial title of that era I liked) etc.

    I will take a book in my hand as I lay back in a comfortable spot & read ANYDAY over "modern media" (even film, though it's a close second) because unlike film, YOU are the director of the scenes painting them in your mind (better than a movie) & there is NOTHING LIKE not being able to put a good book down (or even falling asleep with one still open on your face, lol) - reading is that good!

    APK

    P.S.=> That's cool you have that available - ever since I entered computing, it's been a rarity for me (on reading other than technical information) & the lateness of my reply is due to trolls I have to fend off who IMPERSONATE me (or STALK me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts every day here) & here's two examples https://science.slashdot.org/c... & a reply to gweihir (who KNOWS they do it to me as they try "stir up others" against me) https://science.slashdot.org/c... - unbelievable some people have NOTHING BETTER TO DO than bug me, lol - oh well & NICE speaking to you about Sci-Fi reading! apk

  36. Here's a gift to thank you for your reply... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: APK Hosts File Engine 1.0++ 64-bit for MacOS h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r M a c O S . z i p

    Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

    Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing you hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition loaded w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation!

    * ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI 4 MacOS!

    (Better vs. Windows model in speed/efficiency)

    APK

    P.S.=> Protects against ALL known & unknown vulnerabilities. Now supports port filters in hosts. My work is world-class & China copied it because they can't do better. I am God's gift to Slashdot... apk

  37. IMPERSONATING me again? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STOP IMPERSONATING me on /. & DO get on topic!

    You can't help you're an immature little BUTTHURT no-mind, lol! I blew you away in TONS OF PLACES and easily dust your no-mind bullshit blatherings.

    * IMITATING me as you do proves you WISH you were ME though!

    APK

    P.S.=> Hopefully, this 'sinks in' to your DULL BRAIN @ last, finally (for the 100th time now)... apk

  38. Riddle of Steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shall I tell you? It's the least I can do. Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger!

  39. The important question: will it show fingerprints? by mnemotronic · · Score: 2

    I hate that about some stainless steel refrigerators and other appliances. Some stainless is ok. Others are fingerprint magnets. All those smudges and fingerprints make it look so unkempt. It's really embarrassing when company comes over. "Look where they put the BFR honey. They knew we were coming and couldn't even take the time to clean it up a little. Tsk Tsk".

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  40. Melting point? by nojayuk · · Score: 1

    Which part of a rocket structure, the tanks, hull, fairing etc. is expected to resist temperatures much above two or three hundred degrees Celsius? The engines, yes, but they run a lot hotter than the melting point of stainless steels and are actively cooled where necessary.

    I can't think of a cost benefit for using stainless steel in an aerospace environment except if Musk plans to build something like the trans-Pacific Tokyo Express, a multi-Mach ballistic passenger transport which would have a hot re-entry as it re-enters thick air from the troposphere. Using a heat-resistant stainless steel would reduce or eliminate the need to replace ablative thermal coatings after every flight.

    There's an experimental supersonic aircraft, a precursor to the SR-71, the BAC-188 (now in in the RAF museum at Cosford) which was made from stainless steel to investigate aircraft skin temperature effects at high speeds. It was never intended to be a production aircraft though.

  41. WoW - you've got to be kidding me... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've even IMPERSONATED me here talking to others - butt out & mind your own business freak.

    APK

    P.S.=> Unbelievable - you REALLY ARE SICK IN THE HEAD stalking me you know - don't YOU have BETTER things to do? Apparently not (you're a LOSER, freak)... apk

  42. You're giving away you're impersonating me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: That link won't work so you give away you're impersonating me moron...

    * Like I said before - unbelievable!

    APK

    P.S.=> YOU are a TOTAL LOSER weirdo... apk

  43. Right, because Musk is smarter than the engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I bet it was Musk who "convinced the team" to go with stainless steel. Because amongst his various accomplishments in life, he's also smarter than scientists and engineers who have spent decades studying, designing, and building actual spacecraft.

    I feel sorry for the poor suckers who decide to put their lives in his hands, but he has a way of inspiring people to lunatic belief in his nonsense.

  44. No one needs to know temp of boiling water by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows water freezes at 32F, and they don't care what temperature water boils at as they can just see it's boiling (or steaming and don't enter a temperature to boil - they just turn on heat until it boils.

    So the numerical alignment of 100 to boiling is totally worthless, while having weather forecast temperatures that do not need decimal points to be accurate is much nicer for comprehension. When you get between 70-80 degrees there starts to be a lot of variance in what temperature people adjust clothing, In C that is 21.1 to 26.6 which gives you half the whole numbers to express what it will be like outside.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:No one needs to know temp of boiling water by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      It's not worthless at all. Water is the most abundant thing and everyone knows its reference. Who gives decimal points in temperature? No one, that who. So you only have 5 degrees to express not that great of a difference instead of 10? Boo fucking hoo.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:No one needs to know temp of boiling water by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      It's not worthless at all. Water is the most abundant thing and everyone knows its reference.

      Totally irrelevant how common water is, people do not need to understand exactly how warm water is, just that it is hot enough to boil.

      P.S. even the boiling thing is a fail, because the temperature water boils at varies by altitude! So the one thing Celsius set out to do cleanly, it cannot even manage correctly. Most of the world lives in places where the boiling temperature of water is not 100C. Utter fail.

      Who gives decimal points in temperature? No one, that who.

      That is exactly my point. By having fewer whole numbers you cannot having the reporting fidelity for normal temperature ranges that F allows for. I personally do not like using a less precise measuring unit. You go right ahead and enjoy your inferior means of denoting air temperature, it's only twice as bad at doing so as you pointed out... But from the 100C fiasco we know you like shoddy measurement systems.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:No one needs to know temp of boiling water by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Ok so if people don't need to know what temperature water freezes and boils at and a scale based on the key phases of the most abundant substances is pointless then why is fahrenheit better? What is it based on that is so relevant? Is it just that there are more degrees between two given points? So one that has twice as many as fahrenheit would be better, is that how it works? I can admit really that its arbitrary which you prefer but as c is based off something everyone knows it makes it more accessible. What happens at 0F or 100F, anything?

      Lots of things vary by altitude (it actually varies by pressure but whatever) but you can go ahead and assume most times people are referring to sea level at 20C, you know the standard kind of condition. The speed of sound varies by altitude (air density) too, does that make it a worthless measurement ?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    4. Re:No one needs to know temp of boiling water by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      why is fahrenheit better?

      I already explained that to you, it allows more fidelity for temperatures people actually need to know exactly - weather.

      assume most times people are referring to sea level at 20C

      Why would anyone assume most people refer to sea level when most people do not live at sea level?

      The speed of sound varies by altitude (air density) too, does that make it a worthless measurement ?

      Did anyone base a unit of measurement around the speed of sound? That would equally be a mistake.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:No one needs to know temp of boiling water by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      So more degrees whatever is better?

      Because most things need a reference and thats it, or do people not need to know sea level either?

      You ever hear about planes or rockets or whatever going at mach x? Speed of sound. Tell the air force and nasa to come up with something better.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    6. Re:No one needs to know temp of boiling water by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      So more degrees whatever is better?

      No, a larger range is better for precision in describing temperature, especially between 70-90F

      Because most things need a reference and thats it, or do people not need to know sea level either?

      Most people's reference of temperature is experience, and there is a fine grain to experience in that range, To me there is a noticeable difference in feeling cold at 71 but not at 72, for example. There's also a point just after 83 when I consider it to feel hot... all of this moderated by humidity of course. The desirable temperatures will differ per person, so trying to have some kind of base reference vs. as accurate as possible a description of the temperature, is insanity.

      You ever hear about planes or rockets or whatever going at mach x? Speed of sound.

      You're kind of dumb if you confuse the needs of technical units with human-oriented units. But even there, C is still fundamentally flawed since they based it around when water boils or freezes - both of which change with pressure, so the very fundamentals of C are based on a lie they try to tell about what the numbers mean.

      Why are you promoting a system based on lies?

      Fail.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:No one needs to know temp of boiling water by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Is this that propaganda your troll was on about? What is 70-90F? That means nothing to me. Looking it up says that ~20-30C. Nice T-shirt weather. Do you actually need that precision? Can you go out side and say its exactly 78F or would you say its around 80? I couldn't do that with celsius and one of them is almost twice as big. When you see the temperature on the weather report do you think its going to be exactly that number all over? Temperature is very variable anyway, even if its just wind chill so that kind of precision for weather is meaningless. At the end of the day I think a system based on something everyone knows makes more sense. You still haven't said what F is based on if it even is based on anything. If you prefer fahrenheit then more power to you but apart from there being more whole number points of degrees in a given range then what does it have that makes it 'better'? Nothing, nothing at all.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u