|
Parachutes and a reversed saturn 5 mounted in front of the train sounds like the most ideal safety mechanism. No one stand within a mile of the front of a train though.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
iospace posted:Momentum is a hell of a thing. And inertia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Uh-hu. And no mechanical grip whatsoever. See my edit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
nm posted:Parachutes and a reversed saturn 5 mounted in front of the train sounds like the most ideal safety mechanism. No one stand within a mile of the front of a train though. That Saturn 5 made 24 billion joules pushing its 5,000,000 pound payload I am trying to then compare it to how many joules a 13,000 short ton (26,000,000 pound) train going 50 mph has and get (Answer 2.9461e+9) to see how that 165 second burn time would affect the train I am not good with calculators. Am I wrong or is this 2.9461e+9 actually 2,946,100,000? 24 billion joules (found the figure thrown around on the internet not quantified by me) would be 24,000,000,000,000 24000000000000 / 2946100000 = 8,146.36298835749 So this rocket would be able to stop this train like 8000 times over? Discuss laugh at me whatever. I am curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
You sort of have to completely ignore the fact that all of that energy working only on the front locomotive of the train would also cause the worlds largest derailment, and the only derailment where the locomotive was pushed backwards through the entire consist as it was coming off the tracks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
The Locator posted:You sort of have to completely ignore the fact that all of that energy working only on the front locomotive of the train would also cause the worlds largest derailment, and the only derailment where the locomotive was pushed backwards through the entire consist as it was coming off the tracks. Yeah, and I don't think even the new DOT-117 tankers could stand up to the backblast of a Saturn V at full burn. The worlds largest derailment and fireball rolled into one! Edit: I have to admit it would be one spectacular show however PremiumSupport fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
The Locator posted:You sort of have to completely ignore the fact that all of that energy working only on the front locomotive of the train would also cause the worlds largest derailment, and the only derailment where the locomotive was pushed backwards through the entire consist as it was coming off the tracks. Build stronger trains. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
The Locator posted:You sort of have to completely ignore the fact that all of that energy working only on the front locomotive of the train would also cause the worlds largest derailment, and the only derailment where the locomotive was pushed backwards through the entire consist as it was coming off the tracks. Kerbal Railways
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Kerbal Railways 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Do what we do and build trains that break down before they go that fast in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:So this rocket would be able to stop this train like 8000 times over? Sounds about right, the Saturn V was a monster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
One of my greatest regrets in life is that I will never see a saturn v fire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
The mars rocket will be a ton of smaller engines I assume, instead of just 5 massive ones like the saturn V. But it will be awesome, for sure. I got to see a static test last summer of the SLS motor, that was pretty loving cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
sincx posted:The Falcon Heavy will b pretty decent, and Musk's Mars rocket will beat the Saturn V. That's if they don't run out of money anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:One of my greatest regrets in life is that I will never see a saturn v fire. While that would be something, I believe the Space Shuttle would have been a more impressive experience. Just the visuals caused by the SRB's would have been something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:While that would be something, I believe the Space Shuttle would have been a more impressive experience. Just the visuals caused by the SRB's would have been something. Good news! Imagine the Space Shuttle but with an extra main engine and even bigger SRBs and you can see one launch as early as next year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:While that would be something, I believe the Space Shuttle would have been a more impressive experience. Just the visuals caused by the SRB's would have been something. Shuttle night launch from Playalinda. Pretty sure nothing else I see will ever match that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Axeman Jim posted:Clearly what we need are parachutes. Why don't they just make the road lower?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:The mars rocket will be a ton of smaller engines I assume, instead of just 5 massive ones like the saturn V. But it will be awesome, for sure. I got to see a static test last summer of the SLS motor, that was pretty loving cool. lots of smaller engines didn't work out too hot for the Soviets though turns out having lots of small rockets as opposed to a few big ones make the rocket plumbing a lot more complicated and prone to failure
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:While that would be something, I believe the Space Shuttle would have been a more impressive experience. Just the visuals caused by the SRB's would have been something. The time I went (that I can remember) it was delayed.  I did get at least to see it up in the sky 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:lots of smaller engines didn't work out too hot for the Soviets though At that point you're just lighting it up and hoping for the best, no matter what your engine layout is like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:lots of smaller engines didn't work out too hot for the Soviets though More devices -> more moving parts -> higher chance of one failing per unit time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
NoWake posted:As far as obvious goes, I think the 'Schwellenpflug' trumps retro-rockets: What the gently caress was that even used for? Scorched earth tactics of "we're retreating, have fun rebuilding the tracks if you wanna use them"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:What the gently caress was that even used for? Scorched earth tactics of "we're retreating, have fun rebuilding the tracks if you wanna use them"? Exactly this at the end of World War 2. So long, kiss your train lines goodbye.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:While that would be something, I believe the Space Shuttle would have been a more impressive experience. Just the visuals caused by the SRB's would have been something. The current crop of SpaceX rockets that land back at the cape are pretty amazing at night, even from 40 miles away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
meltie posted:More devices -> more moving parts -> higher chance of one failing per unit time. There's also some non-obvious factors, like how SpaceX's Mars plans only use one type of engine. Every launch gives you 52 engines worth of flight experience. By the time you're trying to land on Mars it's nice if the engine you're relying on in order to not splatter all over the landscape is one that has hundreds of successes under its belt, rather than one that's only ever been flown a few times. Sorry for the derail. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Yes, but there's more aspects to the equation and it's much more complex than big engines > small engines. Is the rocket capable of withstanding an engine failure? If so, reliability may be increased by more engines. How much does launching more engines increase their reliability from the additional flight experience gained? What size do cost, thrust and other factors optimize for given your particular design constraints? why do you hate giant rocket engines :cryingF-1:
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Theris posted:Good news! Imagine the Space Shuttle but with an extra main engine and even bigger SRBs and you can see one launch as early as next year. Can confirm, I saw the static test of one of these srbs and it was one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Two of them during launch is gonna be goddamned awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Shuttle night launch from Playalinda. Pretty sure nothing else I see will ever match that. My wife got to see a shuttle launch in person as a kid and says it's still the most amazing thing she's ever seen. One of these days I want to get down to the cape to see a rocket launch myself, even if it's not the shuttle. Elukka posted:Well, more like not testing the engines and not ever testing the whole rocket before flight (because you don't have a test stand for it) makes it a lot more prone to failure. Expanding on this, the Soviet space program was characterized by multiple competing design groups, each with their own ideas of what goals to focus on (lunar landing, mars flybys, manned space stations in LEO, military ICBMs, etc) and how to get there. In addition to producing lots of political infighting, this also made it impossible to focus vast resources on a single project as NASA did. There was also a pervasive culture of "just put it on the pad and see if it'll fly", although, to be fair, that applied more to systems and integration testing than to propulsion testing; apparently, it was common for the engines to be fully tested and integrated and the rest of the systems flight-ready before the systems test rigs were finished, and with pressure to go fast fast fast there was a strong incentive to cross your fingers and roll the rocket out to the launchpad as soon as you had all the parts. The soviet space program didn't kill very many astronauts* but they blew up an awful lot of rockets -- some of them in pretty amazing ways, like the destruction of Soyuz No. 1. On top of that, they didn't even start the N1 program until after Apollo was well underway; initially they were planning less ambitious circumlunar missions, but after Gemini, Korolev (the designer of the R-7, still in use today) was able to talk them into backing the much more ambitious N1 project and try for a manned lunar landing. Due partly to these factional disputes and partly to the time crunch to beat the Americans to the moon, Korolev (over objections by other designers) opted to dispense with test rigs for the first stage (which would have cost ~$100M and taken 2-3 years to construct) in favour of rig-testing individual engines (and the second and third stages, which they could modify existing rigs for) and then trusting KORD, the computerized engine regulator, to handle individual engine failures on the first stage. In practice, of course, it didn't work that way. The closely-packed design of the N1 Block A meant that any sort of destructive engine failure -- which is most engine failures -- would inevitably damage the surrounding engines or fuel lines. Launches 1 and 4 had fuel lines rupture (for different reasons) and start a fire in the first stage, and launch 2 had a turbopump explode during liftoff; launch 3, which went into an uncontrolled roll due to aerodynamic forces and ripped itself apart, was the only launch not to be destroyed by an engine failure. People often wonder what would have happened if Korolev hadn't died in 1966, but I don't think the problems with the N1 were surmountable, even by him -- at least, not in the time frame they needed to beat the Apollo program to the surface of the moon. Possibly it would have been a different story if he'd been more open to criticism and gone with Glushko's suggestion of building the first stage of R-7 style engine clusters that could be rig-tested as sealed units and then combined into the first stage, but he didn't. If you feel up to reading 3000+ pages about the Soviet space program, all four volumes of Rockets and People by Boris Chertok -- director of control systems development for Korolev's OKB-1 design bureau from 1946 onwards -- have been translated by NASA and are available for free online. The last two volumes (Hot Days of the Cold War and The Moon Race) are the ones with the most explosions in them. * although there were some pretty horrific ground crew casualties
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:lots of smaller engines didn't work out too hot for the Soviets though I forgot what discussion was happening in this thread and thought this was going to be a link to soviet trains that used hundreds of tiny locomotives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
jamal posted:How about, like, a big long shoe that extended down from the car itself to basically pick the car up off the rail? You could just have a few cars retrofitted or specific braking cars that sat throughout the train. So track brakes on a spread of cars (or, hell, all of them)? It works for passenger trains, so it hardly seems impossible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Erwin posted:I forgot what discussion was happening in this thread and thought this was going to be a link to soviet trains that used hundreds of tiny locomotives. I would definitely read an Axeman Jim style series of posts (or a book, for that matter) about soviet rail. There have to be some delightfully weird stories in there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
One train-related thing regarding the soviet space program, they used a specialized multi-track railway to transport the launch platforms: 
Disgruntled Bovine fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Sorry for the derail. No apologies! This was a good derail, and an interesting exercise in risk accounting! Anywhere I can read more about it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
It's absolutely shocking to me that no one has made a derail pun yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:One train-related thing regarding the soviet space program, they used a specialized multi-track railway to transport the launch platforms: Russian version: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
That picture of the Buran on rails looks like it coulda come straight out of Thunderbirds
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
But those two images you quoted are the Russian versions. That is the Buran space shuttle. The American space shuttles were rolled to the pad upright on the mobile crawlers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
I'm on a Pacer! It's not very good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 19:49
|
|
