Discussion
Ok, this may be over simplistic but...
F1 cars now regularly finish races and don;t encounter problems... they are really really reliable now. This despite the machinery and the people being pushed to their limits.
Space technology (particularly rockets) is really dodgy. It fails often and often (due to the nature of space) catasrophically. How come if a little F1 team can make a totally reliable machine that will deal with the extremes of it's environment, NASA can't?
This thread was inspired by "Space" on BBC2 at 9pm this evening which was once again excellent.
F1 cars now regularly finish races and don;t encounter problems... they are really really reliable now. This despite the machinery and the people being pushed to their limits.
Space technology (particularly rockets) is really dodgy. It fails often and often (due to the nature of space) catasrophically. How come if a little F1 team can make a totally reliable machine that will deal with the extremes of it's environment, NASA can't?
This thread was inspired by "Space" on BBC2 at 9pm this evening which was once again excellent.
I would say it is because getting into space in the most complex machine ever built is far, far more difficult.
Compared to the Space Shuttle, an F1 car is about as advanced as a teapot.
The forces involved in getting the Shuttle into orbit are simply incredible - the fuel pumps would empty a full size olympic smimming pool in thirty seconds, the Shuttle has to reach 17,500mph to escape the Earth's gravity, the explosive power of the fuel on board the shuttle is about equivalent to a small atomic bomb, and it all has to be controlled.
That do you for starters?
Compared to the Space Shuttle, an F1 car is about as advanced as a teapot.
The forces involved in getting the Shuttle into orbit are simply incredible - the fuel pumps would empty a full size olympic smimming pool in thirty seconds, the Shuttle has to reach 17,500mph to escape the Earth's gravity, the explosive power of the fuel on board the shuttle is about equivalent to a small atomic bomb, and it all has to be controlled.
That do you for starters?
For starters..the NASA equipment is some 20 years old minimum and use 60's-80's technology....
..F1 cars are under a year old...
Plus if an F1 car developes a fault..it can just stop... ...and the driver gets out.. and walks back..
once you've pressed the big red 'GO' button a spacship can't stop and needs to do the whole trip without failure (though I believe the shuttle does have triple redundant systems...)..stopping and walking back isn't really an option..
I do see your point though...
..F1 cars are under a year old...
Plus if an F1 car developes a fault..it can just stop... ...and the driver gets out.. and walks back..
once you've pressed the big red 'GO' button a spacship can't stop and needs to do the whole trip without failure (though I believe the shuttle does have triple redundant systems...)..stopping and walking back isn't really an option..
I do see your point though...
I realise all this (space is a harsher environment). I just thought it interesting that in two sort of "extreme machine" industries one seems to be able to do it pretty well and the other hasn't.
How much is due to the differing nature of the challenges and how much due to different structures in the organisations, relative sizes of the organisations, and whether the competition element comes into play I don't know.
Does the space shuttle need to be as complicated as it is? How much less complicated could it be and still get the job done?
How much is due to the differing nature of the challenges and how much due to different structures in the organisations, relative sizes of the organisations, and whether the competition element comes into play I don't know.
Does the space shuttle need to be as complicated as it is? How much less complicated could it be and still get the job done?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
A fuel pump is just a pump no matter how fast it's flow rate needs to be.
17,500mph is fast but how fast is the acceleration compared to an F1 car? The G forces sustained can't be that much higher than a fighter plane even if they are more severe than an F1 car.
All the fuel will just sit there until it gets some energy because of thermodynamics... The problem is only burning it when you want to I guess.
D_Mike said:
Does the space shuttle need to be as complicated as it is? How much less complicated could it be and still get the job done?
That is a good question.
it is often said that the Shuttle is 1970's technology. This is not strictly true - the original design concept is 1970's, but the Shuttle fleet has been virtually rebuilt several times since then. Pretty much all the original systems have been redesigned and updated. The avionics and on-board computer systems are state of the art.
It is simpler to get a capsule into space, as the Russians regularly do. However, the functionality of a capsule in orbit is very limited. They are also not re-usable.
There have been attempts to design a successor space plane to the shuttle, or a re-usable rocket with singel stage to orbit - like the X-33 Clipper. All have encountered difficulties.
The main problem is the amount of gravity you have to overcome. If the Earth were about 10% smaller than it is, it would be quite a bit easier apparently.
The real answer is to establish colnies and robot factories on the moon, and build the spacecraft there from the local materials. It is very easy to launch from the moon.
D_Mike said:
anonymous said:[redacted]
A fuel pump is just a pump no matter how fast it's flow rate needs to be.
17,500mph is fast but how fast is the acceleration compared to an F1 car? The G forces sustained can't be that much higher than a fighter plane even if they are more severe than an F1 car.
All the fuel will just sit there until it gets some energy because of thermodynamics... The problem is only burning it when you want to I guess.
In response to those points:
A fuel pump that shifts that amount of liquid is not just any old fuel pump. It is a staggering piece of engineering - it has to be 100% reliable too.
The acceleration of the Shuttle appears to start slowly, but within a few seconds it's acceleration is collosal - massively outstripping an F1 car. The Shuttle is already doing over 100mph by the time it fully clears the launch tower. Don't forget an F1 car is out at about 220mph, the Shuttle has barely begun it's journey at that speed and has to continue to accelerate to ninety times that velocity, vertically.
The G-forces involved aren't staggering - around 4G's IIRC, but they are constant for a very long time - around 20 minutes to orbit.
You have to also consider the collosal air friction at these speeds acting on the airframe.
The SRB's, (Solid Rocket Boosters) generate simply jaw dropping thrust - millions of horsepower, once lit you cannot turn them off. They have to be controlled and structurally bonded to the rest of the Shuttle system until released.
Overall the Shuttle is an astonishing piece of machinery. I understand your original point, but there really is no comparision between an F1 car and the Shuttle.
>> Edited by alexkp on Wednesday 21st September 23:56
D_Mike said:If you really want to compare 2 extremes, then how about looking at a top fuel dragster.... nowhere near as reliable as a space shuttle....almost as spectacular though!
I realise all this (space is a harsher environment). I just thought it interesting that in two sort of "extreme machine" industries one seems to be able to do it pretty well and the other hasn't.
Huge gravity-well energy issues not withstanding...
There is also an issue an issue of design philosphy;
F1 cars are (nowadays) built with an assumption of
failure - that sooner or later some part of the
car (or someone else's car) will fail, leading to
collision with someone else or the scenery; hence
the increasing amount of carbon tub around the
operator. Aviation in general, and the space
programme in particular, is built around an
assumption of success, and a pragmatic approach
to failure - i.e. that a mechanical failure at
operating conditions is likely to be fatal.
There is also an issue an issue of design philosphy;
F1 cars are (nowadays) built with an assumption of
failure - that sooner or later some part of the
car (or someone else's car) will fail, leading to
collision with someone else or the scenery; hence
the increasing amount of carbon tub around the
operator. Aviation in general, and the space
programme in particular, is built around an
assumption of success, and a pragmatic approach
to failure - i.e. that a mechanical failure at
operating conditions is likely to be fatal.
As someone has already said, it's just a whole different bag.
There have been perhaps 200 shuttle launches, compared to tens of thousands of F1 car/races.
The F1 car might generate as much as 900 horses, the shuttle generates a cool two or three million.
The F1 environment has thermal extremes of maybe +10 to +40 degrees C. The shuttle has thermal extremes of maybe -300 to +3000 degrees C.
The shuttle weighs one heck of a lot more than an F1 car.
The F1 car is intended to stay secure to the road, it is a two dimensional machine. The shuttle has to be competent and manouverable in three dimensions.
The F1 car is never subjected to extremes of radiation beyond that which you and I are capable of withstanding. The shuttle has to operate in an environment where shielding from the atmosphere is greatly reduced.
It's just a whole different bag.
There have been perhaps 200 shuttle launches, compared to tens of thousands of F1 car/races.
The F1 car might generate as much as 900 horses, the shuttle generates a cool two or three million.
The F1 environment has thermal extremes of maybe +10 to +40 degrees C. The shuttle has thermal extremes of maybe -300 to +3000 degrees C.
The shuttle weighs one heck of a lot more than an F1 car.
The F1 car is intended to stay secure to the road, it is a two dimensional machine. The shuttle has to be competent and manouverable in three dimensions.
The F1 car is never subjected to extremes of radiation beyond that which you and I are capable of withstanding. The shuttle has to operate in an environment where shielding from the atmosphere is greatly reduced.
It's just a whole different bag.
I don’t think F1 cars are that reliable. Firstly the engines are only good for two races if you’re lucky. That is not a great distance. At almost every F1 meeting there are cars dropping out with various malfunctions.
Perhaps a better comparison would be 24 hour endurance racing. There we see the problems of keeping man and machinery performing for extended periods.
Perhaps a better comparison would be 24 hour endurance racing. There we see the problems of keeping man and machinery performing for extended periods.
ALL rockets are tricky and delicate machines to operate - not just the Shuttle. They have to incorporate the conflicting requirements of dealing with massive explosive power contained within as lightweight a structure as possible. The Shuttle has about the same failure rate as most rockets.
In comparison, F1 cars have it fairly easy. They too have to be light (within certyain regulations) but the power they need to cope with is nothing compared to a rocket. Also, they don't have to be that reliable at all. They "only" have to keeep going for less than 200 miles after which they are totally rebuilt. Hardly an indication of mechanical longevity.
Since 1981 there have been 114 missions, of which two resulted in catastrophic failure.
Of course, NASA have never built a single rocket or spacecraft in their entire existence. NASA basically plan and manage programmes. The spacecraft are built to carry out these programmes by private aerospace companies.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 22 September 08:47
In comparison, F1 cars have it fairly easy. They too have to be light (within certyain regulations) but the power they need to cope with is nothing compared to a rocket. Also, they don't have to be that reliable at all. They "only" have to keeep going for less than 200 miles after which they are totally rebuilt. Hardly an indication of mechanical longevity.
Since 1981 there have been 114 missions, of which two resulted in catastrophic failure.
Of course, NASA have never built a single rocket or spacecraft in their entire existence. NASA basically plan and manage programmes. The spacecraft are built to carry out these programmes by private aerospace companies.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 22 September 08:47
F1 Technology is behind Sportscars.
Making a car last 24 Hours is a lot harder than a 2 Hour F1 race.
As for space and motorsport their is one thing in come the need for Research and Development programmes.
Without getting political here I personally believe the nation that gave the world Burnel, Stephenson, and Dyson can still produce inventors and engineers that can be the best in the world and beyond.
Making a car last 24 Hours is a lot harder than a 2 Hour F1 race.
As for space and motorsport their is one thing in come the need for Research and Development programmes.
Without getting political here I personally believe the nation that gave the world Burnel, Stephenson, and Dyson can still produce inventors and engineers that can be the best in the world and beyond.
john75 said:
F1 Technology is behind Sportscars.
Making a car last 24 Hours is a lot harder than a 2 Hour F1 race.
As for space and motorsport their is one thing in come the need for Research and Development programmes.
Without getting political here I personally believe the nation that gave the world Burnel, Stephenson, and Dyson can still produce inventors and engineers that can be the best in the world and beyond.
a ford focus will last 24 hours!
Eric Mc said:
Did anyone say we didn't?
A lot of people don't realise that thre was a small but significant cadre of British engineers involved in the Apollo programme.
Even fewer realise that Britain had it's own space rocket programme that was progressing nicely in the 1950's to early 60's...until it was shutdown for funding reasons of course...IIRC.
1971 actually - although (as debated in another thread) it's debateable if Britain really ever had a serious "space programme" as such.
Unlike the USA, Soviet Union and France which all had space agencies managing distinct space objectives which were perceived to be of national interest , Britain only had a number of un-coordinated projects, some military and some civil. It's actually amazing that Britain achieved what it did with such muddled directives issuing from government.
Unfortunately, the only co-ordinated direct decision received from the British government was the decision to pull out of the launcher business.
Unlike the USA, Soviet Union and France which all had space agencies managing distinct space objectives which were perceived to be of national interest , Britain only had a number of un-coordinated projects, some military and some civil. It's actually amazing that Britain achieved what it did with such muddled directives issuing from government.
Unfortunately, the only co-ordinated direct decision received from the British government was the decision to pull out of the launcher business.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff