What "capsule"? Dragon 1 was never designed for humans. It has no crew compartment. Here's what it looks like on the inside. Dragon 2 is designed for humans. It is not complete yet.
Gee, who'dathunkit that filling a pack with fire barriers and surrounding every cell with a non-flammable coolant might mean something?
tesla almost kills owner when it rams concrete barrier
OMG, a car got in a nonfatal accident at highway speeds and protects its occupant! Quick, ring the New York Times, have them dispatch an autogyro to the scene, post haste!
tesla almost kills driver and multiple fire fighters due to their shit system
OMG, another highway-speed crash with an astoundingly small amount of damage (" minor cuts and bruises from the accident but was otherwise unharmed"), caused due to a fire truck stopped on a highway causing traffic to have to swerve out of its way, causing minimal damage to the fire truck, with the Tesla driver openly stating that the accident was his fault? WORLD NEWS MEDIA, WHERE ARE YOU? This is the story of the century! Cars never crash, and yet... twice!
tesla delivers accident waiting to happen to owner due to shit quality control
Dear Lord, a vehicle with a manufacturing defect, from a company making a hundred thousand vehicles per year? I've never heard of such a thing! That's never happened before in history! What's next... two? Three even? Oh, precious God in heaven above! They've even fooled new owners picking up their vehicles on the Tesla forums into not finding defects on their cars. What sort of sorcery are they playing here? They even got Consumer Reports to rank Model S above average in reliability. Witchcraft!
tesla cuts corner by not having a proper gauges in front of driver. glued on iPad they use instead causes deadly shards of glass to be thrown at occupants.
Oh, precious Heaven above, a car gets in an accident because he wasn't paying attention and praises how well it protected him, writing "“Everyone from the paramedics to the tow truck driver said that people don’t usually walk away from this. Had this been a regular ICE vehicle, I would be dead or in a lot worse condition." WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE STOP TESLA BEFORE THEY KILL AGAIN????
Also: clearly, NOBODY has EVER before in the history of time made a car with a central speedometer. It's just never happened! Certainly not completely>/i> centred ones, let alone "right beside the wheel" like in Model 3. Nope, never happened! Because it's so much safer to have to look "down and then through an obstruction" to see your speed, vs. "down and slightly right with no obstructions". Obviously!
Go here. Let's pick a relatively recent year, so it reflects relatively modern manufacturing, but not so modern that there won't be time for problems to come up. Say, 2015? So punch in, say, "2015 Tesla" in one year, then pick some other manufacture and do the same thing - I'll do "2015 BMW" or "2015 Mercedes". Let's see how many recalls come up for each of the models that come up.
My god, look at that horrible Tesla build quality!
Furthermore, Tesla has - very unusually - never had a mandatory recall forced on them by the NHTSA, or one that started from a NHTSA investigation. Every single recall Tesla has ever had has come internally.
Yeah, I mean, what cars has Tesla ever finished? Well, the Roadster, but apart from that. Well, the Model S, but apart from that. Well, the Model X, but apart from that. Well, the Model 3 is already the highest number of EV deliveries in the US for two months in a row, but because it's not up to full production yet, AHA! See, he never finishes anything!;)
No, see, you don't understand Seeking Alpha logic. Tesla's cars are so terrible that just being in physical contact with one will make your truck crash! It's like a hex. Load a bunch of them on the back of your truck all at once, and you're just asking for disaster.
plus one "I think my son was using autopilot but I'm not going to let Tesla check the logs"
The family refused to turn over the logs, so the only thing we have to go on is the father's insistence (he wasn't in the car) that his son must have been using Autopilot. Given that most "Autopilot did it!" claims so far have turned out to not involve Autopilot at all (sometimes humorously involving cars that don't even have Autopilot)....
SpaceX got their space rating when congress told the USAF that it would happen
No, they had to sue the USAF to break ULA's monopoly. USAF was sued because they made endless delays in conducting their engineering analysis, which SpaceX accused of being due to the fact that ULA offers an effective revolving-door policy for former USAF officials involved in approvals. SpaceX had already turned over all of the data that was supposed to qualify them to launch. And you want to talk about the fact that some people in congress have supported SpaceX... far more people in congress have continually and consistently lined up behind ULA, which carefully spreads its jobs around various congressional districts and spends large amounts on lobbying.
I'll never get why you people love crazy-expensive monopolies run by defense giants so much.
50/51 flown missions successful on the primary payload, 49/51 on all payloads, plus one ground failure, doesn't even remotely resemble "the worst relaiability in the history of rocketry". The average failure rate is 5,8%. Not worst - average. And the reason that none are allowed to carry passengers, apart from the fact that qualification takes years, is that they don't have a manned capsule completed yet. What do you want them to do, launch people strapped to a chair on the side of a rocket like something out of Kerbal Space Program?
Tesla put their half assed self driving implementation on the road and it already murdered two people and cause multiple crashes.
In somewhere around a billion miles, there has been one confirmed death (plus one "I think my son was using autopilot but I'm not going to let Tesla check the logs"). The normal rate of driving deaths is one per around 80 million miles. In the one death, the NTHSA investigated and found Tesla to not be at fault; the driver had ample time to react but did nothing (if I recall correctly, the semi was visible in his path for something like 7 seconds), and that Tesla's attempts to ensure that drivers paid attention were sufficient (that said, Tesla followed up with more driver pestering, and Model 3 has a driver-facing camera which is expected to be used for eye tracking).
But the mesh erodes a lot faster too, so you need high current low voltage DC, sturdy sacrificial anodes
Mesh (cathode) erosion should be minimal to none; it's your cathode and the current is providing cathodic protection. And if you're providing DC current, your anode should not be sacrificial; it should be as inert as possible (e.g. graphite, titanium, precious metal, etc). But I've not done any experiments myself.
Would the chalky residue not be brucite rather than aragonite? Brucite suggests that your current was too high; lower currents favour aragonite, which is what you want.
Right. So it's perfectly okay for a "self driving car" to have a LIDAR that doesn't work, a radar that doesn't work, cameras that can't see at night and/or a neural net that doesn't work, and ultrasonic sensors don't work, and to have the "self driving car" rely on a person who's not been driving being suddenly instantly able to hop into "driving mode" during each of the once-in-every-1500-mile occurrences where the car tries to crash itself without warning. Got it! This is all totally okay.
In the real world, Pykrete was never designed to be a miraculous substance that didn't melt. The aircraft carrier was designed - and its prototype built - to use electrically powered cooling systems to keep the ice solid. The thing that adding wood fibre brought to the table was that it turned ice from a brittle substance into a composite; for a modern composites analogy, the wood fibre acts equivalent to fibreglass or carbon fibre, and the ice acts equivalent to epoxy.
There've been a number of attempts to make structures "straight from the sea", and they've had success on the small scale but never been attempted on the large scale. One I kind of like is called "Biorock" or "Seacrete"; you build a steel skeleton in the shape of what you want, then run a small DC current through it; this causes minerals (mainly calcium carbonate, aka limestone) to precipitate out on it, forming a very hard steel-reinforced rock. Even better, it's self-healing, as anywhere that gets damaged becomes the easy path for current to conduct, and most growth switches to that area. Calcium and carbon dioxide, unlike some minerals (such as iron) are never in short supply in the ocean; carbon dioxide is quickly replaced by gas exchange with the air and sea life respiration, while calcium exchanges with the seafloor at a quick rate. If the electrical power source (which isn't huge) is carbon neutral, the construction acts as a carbon sink. And the electrical current oxygenates the water around the structure slightly, which leads to sea life flourishing. Indeed, the latter property is the only one that's successfully been exploited with biorock thusfar - growing artificial reefs (the growth rate has proven too slow for growing large structures like ships or artificial islands, mainly because the rock that gets laid down acts like an electrical insulator - the thicker it gets, the more the resistance).
Still, it'd be interesting to see some new approaches to get the growth rate up, such as meshes, "fuzzy" steel rods, maybe even conductive gels where wave action isn't of significance.
Yeah, it’s borderline. FB influence is slowly creeping in.
Instagram’s probably ok imo, so long as it stays fairly independent. I don’t use FB & never have, so don’t think I’m some kind of martyr or my companies are taking a huge blow. Also, we don’t advertise or pay for endorsements, so don’t care.
Correct. That said, SpaceX still does (on other launches) the sort of stress testing that the previous AC was describing; they've increasingly pushed returning stages through more and more aggressive entry profiles. Obviously they haven't been as aggressive on ascent since you have a customer's payload then, but...
Neither. RP-1. If you had to pick a common hydrocarbon product it's most similar to, that would be jet fuel. Think of it as a very highly refined aviation fuel/kerosene, with very low sulfur, alkenes and aromatics, seeking (as much as possible) pure alkanes - particularly cycloalkanes. Average mass is around C12. Diesel is heavier and with more undesirable fractions and sulfur. But methane is obviously far lighter, C1:)
LOX/Methane will be the propellant of the Raptor engine, and thus BFR.
This is simply not correct. The specific strength of the cable material determines the taper ratio. For anything with a worse specific strength than carbon nanotubes, you get a very high taper ratio that yields completely unreasonable masses - but you still can get a space elevator if you can magic all of that mass into existence in space. Even with carbon nanotubes the infamous Edwards analysis has to "fudge" a lot to make things work (and he assumes CNTs nearly twice as strong as individual CNTs have ever been measured, much less CNT "ropes" (microbundles), much less entire space elevator ribbons.
Space elevators require unobtanium to have reasonable masses (they also have serious problems with damping oscillations, and their throughput is tiny in comparison to their mass, and they're inefficient, and slow, and about fifty other things). If you want something along that vein which doesn't require unobtanium, try a launch loop.
And more to the point, even if they did (as mentioned, they don't), manufacturers would simply just just modify the BMS to charge the thousands of individual cells consecutively, not incrementally.
Shallow charges are normal in EVs, particularly long-range EVs where only a tiny portion of the range is used in a typical day. And they demonstrably last for long time periods and ranges. There are Tesla taxis with hundreds of thousands of miles on them that still have more than 90% of their original capacity.
If short charges like that did not impact the battery life, it would be fine.
They do impact battery life.... for the better (shallow charge cycles are better for li-ion than deep cycles).
Your knowledge of batteries is literally four decades old. "Memory effects" are from the Ni-Cd days. Ni-MH had something that looked like a memory effect, but it disappeared after a few charges. Li-ion has never had memory effects in any way, shape, or form.
So your point is that if you forget to charge your car 5-15 times in a row, you might have to stop at a DC charger on the way for five minutes to add enough range for the trip?
Slashdot Mirror
It's an oversimplification to begin with, since failure rates are highest early in a rocket's history.
Don't like it, then disable it. But then you won't be able to use autopilot, if they mandate eye tracking.
Might want to think again.
What "capsule"? Dragon 1 was never designed for humans. It has no crew compartment. Here's what it looks like on the inside. Dragon 2 is designed for humans. It is not complete yet.
Even back in 2014 when the tech wasn't as mature as it is today, rates of EV fires, including rates of Tesla fires, were much lower than they are for gasoline vehicles. Yes, it's possible to burn a battery pack, but you have to really mess it up to do so. As an example of how fire resistant they are, this Model S was entirely gutted in an unrelated fire, to the point of leaving a pool of molten alumium on the ground, and still didn't manage to burn the battery pack. Here's the results of what happens when you deliberately try to burn a Powerpack (same basic tech).
Gee, who'dathunkit that filling a pack with fire barriers and surrounding every cell with a non-flammable coolant might mean something?
OMG, a car got in a nonfatal accident at highway speeds and protects its occupant! Quick, ring the New York Times, have them dispatch an autogyro to the scene, post haste!
OMG, another highway-speed crash with an astoundingly small amount of damage (" minor cuts and bruises from the accident but was otherwise unharmed"), caused due to a fire truck stopped on a highway causing traffic to have to swerve out of its way, causing minimal damage to the fire truck, with the Tesla driver openly stating that the accident was his fault? WORLD NEWS MEDIA, WHERE ARE YOU? This is the story of the century! Cars never crash, and yet... twice!
Dear Lord, a vehicle with a manufacturing defect, from a company making a hundred thousand vehicles per year? I've never heard of such a thing! That's never happened before in history! What's next... two? Three even? Oh, precious God in heaven above! They've even fooled new owners picking up their vehicles on the Tesla forums into not finding defects on their cars. What sort of sorcery are they playing here? They even got Consumer Reports to rank Model S above average in reliability. Witchcraft!
Oh, precious Heaven above, a car gets in an accident because he wasn't paying attention and praises how well it protected him, writing "“Everyone from the paramedics to the tow truck driver said that people don’t usually walk away from this. Had this been a regular ICE vehicle, I would be dead or in a lot worse condition." WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE STOP TESLA BEFORE THEY KILL AGAIN????
Also: clearly, NOBODY has EVER before in the history of time made a car with a central speedometer. It's just never happened! Certainly not completely>/i> centred ones, let alone "right beside the wheel" like in Model 3. Nope, never happened! Because it's so much safer to have to look "down and then through an obstruction" to see your speed, vs. "down and slightly right with no obstructions". Obviously!
Go here. Let's pick a relatively recent year, so it reflects relatively modern manufacturing, but not so modern that there won't be time for problems to come up. Say, 2015? So punch in, say, "2015 Tesla" in one year, then pick some other manufacture and do the same thing - I'll do "2015 BMW" or "2015 Mercedes". Let's see how many recalls come up for each of the models that come up.
Tesla: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1
BMW: 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 0, 0, 0, 3, 1, 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2...
Mercedes: 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 4, 1, 8, 8, 8, 8, 0, 0, 3, 3, 3, 3, 8, 8, 7, 7, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 6....
My god, look at that horrible Tesla build quality!
Furthermore, Tesla has - very unusually - never had a mandatory recall forced on them by the NHTSA, or one that started from a NHTSA investigation. Every single recall Tesla has ever had has come internally.
Right, and those dufuses at the NHTSA just haven't caught on yet!
Sneaky, sneaky Tesla!
Foolish, foolish NHTSA!
Yeah, I mean, what cars has Tesla ever finished? Well, the Roadster, but apart from that. Well, the Model S, but apart from that. Well, the Model X, but apart from that. Well, the Model 3 is already the highest number of EV deliveries in the US for two months in a row, but because it's not up to full production yet, AHA! See, he never finishes anything! ;)
No, see, you don't understand Seeking Alpha logic. Tesla's cars are so terrible that just being in physical contact with one will make your truck crash! It's like a hex. Load a bunch of them on the back of your truck all at once, and you're just asking for disaster.
The one in China was the one where I wrote:
The family refused to turn over the logs, so the only thing we have to go on is the father's insistence (he wasn't in the car) that his son must have been using Autopilot. Given that most "Autopilot did it!" claims so far have turned out to not involve Autopilot at all (sometimes humorously involving cars that don't even have Autopilot)....
Add to the list of myths that just won't die.
No, they had to sue the USAF to break ULA's monopoly. USAF was sued because they made endless delays in conducting their engineering analysis, which SpaceX accused of being due to the fact that ULA offers an effective revolving-door policy for former USAF officials involved in approvals. SpaceX had already turned over all of the data that was supposed to qualify them to launch. And you want to talk about the fact that some people in congress have supported SpaceX... far more people in congress have continually and consistently lined up behind ULA, which carefully spreads its jobs around various congressional districts and spends large amounts on lobbying.
I'll never get why you people love crazy-expensive monopolies run by defense giants so much.
50/51 flown missions successful on the primary payload, 49/51 on all payloads, plus one ground failure, doesn't even remotely resemble "the worst relaiability in the history of rocketry". The average failure rate is 5,8%. Not worst - average. And the reason that none are allowed to carry passengers, apart from the fact that qualification takes years, is that they don't have a manned capsule completed yet. What do you want them to do, launch people strapped to a chair on the side of a rocket like something out of Kerbal Space Program?
In somewhere around a billion miles, there has been one confirmed death (plus one "I think my son was using autopilot but I'm not going to let Tesla check the logs"). The normal rate of driving deaths is one per around 80 million miles. In the one death, the NTHSA investigated and found Tesla to not be at fault; the driver had ample time to react but did nothing (if I recall correctly, the semi was visible in his path for something like 7 seconds), and that Tesla's attempts to ensure that drivers paid attention were sufficient (that said, Tesla followed up with more driver pestering, and Model 3 has a driver-facing camera which is expected to be used for eye tracking).
Mesh (cathode) erosion should be minimal to none; it's your cathode and the current is providing cathodic protection. And if you're providing DC current, your anode should not be sacrificial; it should be as inert as possible (e.g. graphite, titanium, precious metal, etc). But I've not done any experiments myself.
Would the chalky residue not be brucite rather than aragonite? Brucite suggests that your current was too high; lower currents favour aragonite, which is what you want.
Right. So it's perfectly okay for a "self driving car" to have a LIDAR that doesn't work, a radar that doesn't work, cameras that can't see at night and/or a neural net that doesn't work, and ultrasonic sensors don't work, and to have the "self driving car" rely on a person who's not been driving being suddenly instantly able to hop into "driving mode" during each of the once-in-every-1500-mile occurrences where the car tries to crash itself without warning. Got it! This is all totally okay.
In the real world, Pykrete was never designed to be a miraculous substance that didn't melt. The aircraft carrier was designed - and its prototype built - to use electrically powered cooling systems to keep the ice solid. The thing that adding wood fibre brought to the table was that it turned ice from a brittle substance into a composite; for a modern composites analogy, the wood fibre acts equivalent to fibreglass or carbon fibre, and the ice acts equivalent to epoxy.
There've been a number of attempts to make structures "straight from the sea", and they've had success on the small scale but never been attempted on the large scale. One I kind of like is called "Biorock" or "Seacrete"; you build a steel skeleton in the shape of what you want, then run a small DC current through it; this causes minerals (mainly calcium carbonate, aka limestone) to precipitate out on it, forming a very hard steel-reinforced rock. Even better, it's self-healing, as anywhere that gets damaged becomes the easy path for current to conduct, and most growth switches to that area. Calcium and carbon dioxide, unlike some minerals (such as iron) are never in short supply in the ocean; carbon dioxide is quickly replaced by gas exchange with the air and sea life respiration, while calcium exchanges with the seafloor at a quick rate. If the electrical power source (which isn't huge) is carbon neutral, the construction acts as a carbon sink. And the electrical current oxygenates the water around the structure slightly, which leads to sea life flourishing. Indeed, the latter property is the only one that's successfully been exploited with biorock thusfar - growing artificial reefs (the growth rate has proven too slow for growing large structures like ships or artificial islands, mainly because the rock that gets laid down acts like an electrical insulator - the thicker it gets, the more the resistance).
Still, it'd be interesting to see some new approaches to get the growth rate up, such as meshes, "fuzzy" steel rods, maybe even conductive gels where wave action isn't of significance.
Yeah! Where else can we all go to learn that aliens built the pyramids, Bigfoot has been captured, and Hitler didn't die in World War II?
He's talked about that:
Correct. That said, SpaceX still does (on other launches) the sort of stress testing that the previous AC was describing; they've increasingly pushed returning stages through more and more aggressive entry profiles. Obviously they haven't been as aggressive on ascent since you have a customer's payload then, but...
Neither. RP-1. If you had to pick a common hydrocarbon product it's most similar to, that would be jet fuel. Think of it as a very highly refined aviation fuel/kerosene, with very low sulfur, alkenes and aromatics, seeking (as much as possible) pure alkanes - particularly cycloalkanes. Average mass is around C12. Diesel is heavier and with more undesirable fractions and sulfur. But methane is obviously far lighter, C1 :)
LOX/Methane will be the propellant of the Raptor engine, and thus BFR.
This is simply not correct. The specific strength of the cable material determines the taper ratio. For anything with a worse specific strength than carbon nanotubes, you get a very high taper ratio that yields completely unreasonable masses - but you still can get a space elevator if you can magic all of that mass into existence in space. Even with carbon nanotubes the infamous Edwards analysis has to "fudge" a lot to make things work (and he assumes CNTs nearly twice as strong as individual CNTs have ever been measured, much less CNT "ropes" (microbundles), much less entire space elevator ribbons.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Space elevators require unobtanium to have reasonable masses (they also have serious problems with damping oscillations, and their throughput is tiny in comparison to their mass, and they're inefficient, and slow, and about fifty other things). If you want something along that vein which doesn't require unobtanium, try a launch loop.
And more to the point, even if they did (as mentioned, they don't), manufacturers would simply just just modify the BMS to charge the thousands of individual cells consecutively, not incrementally.
Shallow charges are normal in EVs, particularly long-range EVs where only a tiny portion of the range is used in a typical day. And they demonstrably last for long time periods and ranges. There are Tesla taxis with hundreds of thousands of miles on them that still have more than 90% of their original capacity.
They do impact battery life.... for the better (shallow charge cycles are better for li-ion than deep cycles).
Your knowledge of batteries is literally four decades old. "Memory effects" are from the Ni-Cd days. Ni-MH had something that looked like a memory effect, but it disappeared after a few charges. Li-ion has never had memory effects in any way, shape, or form.
So your point is that if you forget to charge your car 5-15 times in a row, you might have to stop at a DC charger on the way for five minutes to add enough range for the trip?
Heavens to Betsy, EVs are doomed.