SpaceX Starship landing on Moon or Mars: why doesn't it fall over?Will spacex launch in an inclined fashion while returning from mars?Why can't SpaceX Starship perform the same landing procedure as the Falcon 9 does?Why has SpaceX changed Starship from carbon fiber composite to stainless steel?How will SpaceX Starship deploy its payload?What are SpaceX Starship/BFR proposed abort modes?Is a Mars return mission by Starship possible without local propellant production, given the current specifications?Why doesn't Starship have four landing legs?What will the role of a pilot be on the SpaceX Starship?How will the crew exit Starship when it lands on Mars?
What is it called when at university there are two subjects being held at the same time?
How to create numeronyms in bash
Trading stock more quickly vs. holding it
What do the dots and lines underneath these chords mean?
Finding big cacti between Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles
What is it called when someone asks for an opinion that almost everyone asked is going to have the same answer on?
Outlook not so good
How to protect software from being deleted by antivirus?
Can an employer be forced to allow an employee to bring a gun to work (Washington State)?
Black hole as a storage device?
Should I correct a mistake on an arXiv manuscript, that I found while refereeing it?
"When you Frankenstein a team together..." - Is "Frankenstein" a new verb?
Apollo image lighting
Should I pay closing cost and replace HVAC for buyer
180W Laptop charged with 45W charger, is it dead?
Why derailleur guard is present only on more affordable bicycles
How do you organize/plan your discovery session so that it does not conflict with the work of the current sprint?
What is the physical explanation for energy transport in simple electrical circuits?
How do we distinguish old craters from new ones on the Moon?
Z80 CPU address lines not stable
Are there any real life instances of aircraft aborting a landing to avoid a vehicle?
Famous easy to understand examples of a confounding variable invalidating a study
Is it okay to have an email address called "SS"?
Is there more concise way to say "tomorrow morning" than "mañana por la mañana"?
SpaceX Starship landing on Moon or Mars: why doesn't it fall over?
Will spacex launch in an inclined fashion while returning from mars?Why can't SpaceX Starship perform the same landing procedure as the Falcon 9 does?Why has SpaceX changed Starship from carbon fiber composite to stainless steel?How will SpaceX Starship deploy its payload?What are SpaceX Starship/BFR proposed abort modes?Is a Mars return mission by Starship possible without local propellant production, given the current specifications?Why doesn't Starship have four landing legs?What will the role of a pilot be on the SpaceX Starship?How will the crew exit Starship when it lands on Mars?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
$begingroup$
How does the SpaceX Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces that might not be stable under the weight of the vessel?
I don't understand how SpaceX's Starship would be able to land on unprepared surfaces on the Moon or Mars. It is 50 meters tall, with 6 relatively small landing legs, so to me that sounds a lot like a tall building with no foundations. What are the odds of finding a perfectly flat level surface that won't yield under the enormous pressure on each of the legs?
mars the-moon spacex-starship
edited Oct 16 at 3:20
Basil Bourque
1796 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 5:02
Ags1Ags1
7782 silver badges10 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
How does the SpaceX Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces that might not be stable under the weight of the vessel?
I don't understand how SpaceX's Starship would be able to land on unprepared surfaces on the Moon or Mars. It is 50 meters tall, with 6 relatively small landing legs, so to me that sounds a lot like a tall building with no foundations. What are the odds of finding a perfectly flat level surface that won't yield under the enormous pressure on each of the legs?
mars the-moon spacex-starship
edited Oct 16 at 3:20
Basil Bourque
1796 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 5:02
Ags1Ags1
7782 silver badges10 bronze badges
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
SpaceX's own concept art? google.com/amp/s/www.geekwire.com/2019/… Also the concept of the Starship is that it can function as a primary exploration vehicle.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 12:51
1
$begingroup$
Starship is 50 meters (~150 feet) tall minus the booster. On Earth Starship currently stands on concrete - very different from the martian or lunar regolith. The issue is not whether the ship can support itself, which it clearly can, but how we can be reasonably certain the unknown regolith on the Moon or Mars can support it.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:38
2
$begingroup$
Also whether and how the Starship design can cope with imperfections like slight inclines or surface rocks.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:45
13
$begingroup$
This runs dangerously close to the internet meme "I see a problem I can't solve so hundreds of engineers at SpaceX must be wrong." Perhaps you could reword it as "How does the Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces? "
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Oct 15 at 14:11
1
$begingroup$
I will clarify the question body along those lines. I don't mean to suggest the SpaceX engineers are wrong, I simply want to understand how the problem can be resolved.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 15 at 19:09
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
How does the SpaceX Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces that might not be stable under the weight of the vessel?
I don't understand how SpaceX's Starship would be able to land on unprepared surfaces on the Moon or Mars. It is 50 meters tall, with 6 relatively small landing legs, so to me that sounds a lot like a tall building with no foundations. What are the odds of finding a perfectly flat level surface that won't yield under the enormous pressure on each of the legs?
mars the-moon spacex-starship
edited Oct 16 at 3:20
Basil Bourque
1796 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 5:02
Ags1Ags1
7782 silver badges10 bronze badges
$endgroup$
How does the SpaceX Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces that might not be stable under the weight of the vessel?
I don't understand how SpaceX's Starship would be able to land on unprepared surfaces on the Moon or Mars. It is 50 meters tall, with 6 relatively small landing legs, so to me that sounds a lot like a tall building with no foundations. What are the odds of finding a perfectly flat level surface that won't yield under the enormous pressure on each of the legs?
mars the-moon spacex-starship
mars the-moon spacex-starship
edited Oct 16 at 3:20
Basil Bourque
1796 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 5:02
Ags1Ags1
7782 silver badges10 bronze badges
edited Oct 16 at 3:20
Basil Bourque
1796 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 5:02
Ags1Ags1
7782 silver badges10 bronze badges
edited Oct 16 at 3:20
Basil Bourque
1796 bronze badges
edited Oct 16 at 3:20
Basil Bourque
1796 bronze badges
edited Oct 16 at 3:20
Basil Bourque
1796 bronze badges
1796 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 5:02
Ags1Ags1
7782 silver badges10 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 5:02
Ags1Ags1
7782 silver badges10 bronze badges
asked Oct 14 at 5:02
Ags1Ags1
7782 silver badges10 bronze badges
7782 silver badges10 bronze badges
7
$begingroup$
SpaceX's own concept art? google.com/amp/s/www.geekwire.com/2019/… Also the concept of the Starship is that it can function as a primary exploration vehicle.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 12:51
1
$begingroup$
Starship is 50 meters (~150 feet) tall minus the booster. On Earth Starship currently stands on concrete - very different from the martian or lunar regolith. The issue is not whether the ship can support itself, which it clearly can, but how we can be reasonably certain the unknown regolith on the Moon or Mars can support it.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:38
2
$begingroup$
Also whether and how the Starship design can cope with imperfections like slight inclines or surface rocks.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:45
13
$begingroup$
This runs dangerously close to the internet meme "I see a problem I can't solve so hundreds of engineers at SpaceX must be wrong." Perhaps you could reword it as "How does the Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces? "
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Oct 15 at 14:11
1
$begingroup$
I will clarify the question body along those lines. I don't mean to suggest the SpaceX engineers are wrong, I simply want to understand how the problem can be resolved.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 15 at 19:09
|
show 3 more comments
7
$begingroup$
SpaceX's own concept art? google.com/amp/s/www.geekwire.com/2019/… Also the concept of the Starship is that it can function as a primary exploration vehicle.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 12:51
1
$begingroup$
Starship is 50 meters (~150 feet) tall minus the booster. On Earth Starship currently stands on concrete - very different from the martian or lunar regolith. The issue is not whether the ship can support itself, which it clearly can, but how we can be reasonably certain the unknown regolith on the Moon or Mars can support it.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:38
2
$begingroup$
Also whether and how the Starship design can cope with imperfections like slight inclines or surface rocks.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:45
13
$begingroup$
This runs dangerously close to the internet meme "I see a problem I can't solve so hundreds of engineers at SpaceX must be wrong." Perhaps you could reword it as "How does the Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces? "
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Oct 15 at 14:11
1
$begingroup$
I will clarify the question body along those lines. I don't mean to suggest the SpaceX engineers are wrong, I simply want to understand how the problem can be resolved.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 15 at 19:09
7
7
$begingroup$
SpaceX's own concept art? google.com/amp/s/www.geekwire.com/2019/… Also the concept of the Starship is that it can function as a primary exploration vehicle.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 12:51
$begingroup$
SpaceX's own concept art? google.com/amp/s/www.geekwire.com/2019/… Also the concept of the Starship is that it can function as a primary exploration vehicle.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 12:51
1
1
$begingroup$
Starship is 50 meters (~150 feet) tall minus the booster. On Earth Starship currently stands on concrete - very different from the martian or lunar regolith. The issue is not whether the ship can support itself, which it clearly can, but how we can be reasonably certain the unknown regolith on the Moon or Mars can support it.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:38
$begingroup$
Starship is 50 meters (~150 feet) tall minus the booster. On Earth Starship currently stands on concrete - very different from the martian or lunar regolith. The issue is not whether the ship can support itself, which it clearly can, but how we can be reasonably certain the unknown regolith on the Moon or Mars can support it.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:38
2
2
$begingroup$
Also whether and how the Starship design can cope with imperfections like slight inclines or surface rocks.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:45
$begingroup$
Also whether and how the Starship design can cope with imperfections like slight inclines or surface rocks.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:45
13
13
$begingroup$
This runs dangerously close to the internet meme "I see a problem I can't solve so hundreds of engineers at SpaceX must be wrong." Perhaps you could reword it as "How does the Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces? "
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Oct 15 at 14:11
$begingroup$
This runs dangerously close to the internet meme "I see a problem I can't solve so hundreds of engineers at SpaceX must be wrong." Perhaps you could reword it as "How does the Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces? "
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Oct 15 at 14:11
1
1
$begingroup$
I will clarify the question body along those lines. I don't mean to suggest the SpaceX engineers are wrong, I simply want to understand how the problem can be resolved.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 15 at 19:09
$begingroup$
I will clarify the question body along those lines. I don't mean to suggest the SpaceX engineers are wrong, I simply want to understand how the problem can be resolved.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 15 at 19:09
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In my experience, I've noticed that SpaceX uses a lot of temporary components until such temporary components need to actually be tested. Since the legs of MK1, MK2, and most probably MK3 will never see uneven soils rather than concrete landing pads, they will most likely just have simple legs. After a few successes with MK3, we should start seeing much more articulate landing legs that will dynamically adjust to uneven terrain. But for now, it's just an additional engineering effort that is not yet ready for testing. SpaceX has demonstrated that it doesn't put the cart before the horse with many components (unless it's for a press conference, then they do get creative at times!)
answered Oct 14 at 15:21
Tony LTony L
3461 silver badge3 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Quick answer is all I have time for now -- if someone wants to do a more detailed and referenced answer, please feel free and I'll delete this:
While it's very big, its mass is not that high, and gravity is low. On Mars, for instance, it needs about 150 tons of fuel, plus 100 or so tons of vehicle (mass) to get back to orbit. Under Mars gravity thats only just under 100 tons of weight on the legs -- a couple of fully loaded trucks. It's not surprising that a large truck can drive across a desert supported only by the contact patches of 16 tires.
edited Oct 14 at 15:41
Russell Borogove
106k5 gold badges376 silver badges456 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 6:32
Steve LintonSteve Linton
12.5k1 gold badge33 silver badges62 bronze badges
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Ok... Now make the trucks vertical, stack one on top of the other, crowd all the wheels around the base, and leave it standing there for a year waiting for an Earth-return launch window?
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 7:13
3
$begingroup$
Which brings us to the question of what Mars soil is like mechanically. We should have at least some idea of that by now from the various landers and rovers. It's will be somewhat different from Earth -- no liquids, so no muddiness.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 7:39
14
$begingroup$
I have a hunch that when large, fully loaded trucks drive across a desert they do it on terrain already known to be amenable to truck driving whereas on Mars there is (disappointingly) not so many previously characterized deserts.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Oct 14 at 8:13
28
$begingroup$
The landing may also serve to blow away (or even melt) some of the surface material.As someone once said of Project Orion -- "you don't have to worry about choosing your landing site, by the time you get to it it'll be flat!".
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 14:23
14
$begingroup$
Lower surface gravity, perhaps unintuitively, means that an object at rest is less stable, easier to topple than in 1 g. That is why Apollo rovers and landers had such a wide base and low center of gravity. Even if it can stable itself at a Moon landing, tourists moving towards the windows at 50 m height could make it lean over, unless they iterate the design somehow.
$endgroup$
– Miles Mutka
Oct 14 at 19:10
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39332%2fspacex-starship-landing-on-moon-or-mars-why-doesnt-it-fall-over%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In my experience, I've noticed that SpaceX uses a lot of temporary components until such temporary components need to actually be tested. Since the legs of MK1, MK2, and most probably MK3 will never see uneven soils rather than concrete landing pads, they will most likely just have simple legs. After a few successes with MK3, we should start seeing much more articulate landing legs that will dynamically adjust to uneven terrain. But for now, it's just an additional engineering effort that is not yet ready for testing. SpaceX has demonstrated that it doesn't put the cart before the horse with many components (unless it's for a press conference, then they do get creative at times!)
answered Oct 14 at 15:21
Tony LTony L
3461 silver badge3 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In my experience, I've noticed that SpaceX uses a lot of temporary components until such temporary components need to actually be tested. Since the legs of MK1, MK2, and most probably MK3 will never see uneven soils rather than concrete landing pads, they will most likely just have simple legs. After a few successes with MK3, we should start seeing much more articulate landing legs that will dynamically adjust to uneven terrain. But for now, it's just an additional engineering effort that is not yet ready for testing. SpaceX has demonstrated that it doesn't put the cart before the horse with many components (unless it's for a press conference, then they do get creative at times!)
answered Oct 14 at 15:21
Tony LTony L
3461 silver badge3 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In my experience, I've noticed that SpaceX uses a lot of temporary components until such temporary components need to actually be tested. Since the legs of MK1, MK2, and most probably MK3 will never see uneven soils rather than concrete landing pads, they will most likely just have simple legs. After a few successes with MK3, we should start seeing much more articulate landing legs that will dynamically adjust to uneven terrain. But for now, it's just an additional engineering effort that is not yet ready for testing. SpaceX has demonstrated that it doesn't put the cart before the horse with many components (unless it's for a press conference, then they do get creative at times!)
answered Oct 14 at 15:21
Tony LTony L
3461 silver badge3 bronze badges
$endgroup$
In my experience, I've noticed that SpaceX uses a lot of temporary components until such temporary components need to actually be tested. Since the legs of MK1, MK2, and most probably MK3 will never see uneven soils rather than concrete landing pads, they will most likely just have simple legs. After a few successes with MK3, we should start seeing much more articulate landing legs that will dynamically adjust to uneven terrain. But for now, it's just an additional engineering effort that is not yet ready for testing. SpaceX has demonstrated that it doesn't put the cart before the horse with many components (unless it's for a press conference, then they do get creative at times!)
answered Oct 14 at 15:21
Tony LTony L
3461 silver badge3 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 15:21
Tony LTony L
3461 silver badge3 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 15:21
Tony LTony L
3461 silver badge3 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 15:21
Tony LTony L
3461 silver badge3 bronze badges
3461 silver badge3 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Quick answer is all I have time for now -- if someone wants to do a more detailed and referenced answer, please feel free and I'll delete this:
While it's very big, its mass is not that high, and gravity is low. On Mars, for instance, it needs about 150 tons of fuel, plus 100 or so tons of vehicle (mass) to get back to orbit. Under Mars gravity thats only just under 100 tons of weight on the legs -- a couple of fully loaded trucks. It's not surprising that a large truck can drive across a desert supported only by the contact patches of 16 tires.
edited Oct 14 at 15:41
Russell Borogove
106k5 gold badges376 silver badges456 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 6:32
Steve LintonSteve Linton
12.5k1 gold badge33 silver badges62 bronze badges
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Ok... Now make the trucks vertical, stack one on top of the other, crowd all the wheels around the base, and leave it standing there for a year waiting for an Earth-return launch window?
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 7:13
3
$begingroup$
Which brings us to the question of what Mars soil is like mechanically. We should have at least some idea of that by now from the various landers and rovers. It's will be somewhat different from Earth -- no liquids, so no muddiness.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 7:39
14
$begingroup$
I have a hunch that when large, fully loaded trucks drive across a desert they do it on terrain already known to be amenable to truck driving whereas on Mars there is (disappointingly) not so many previously characterized deserts.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Oct 14 at 8:13
28
$begingroup$
The landing may also serve to blow away (or even melt) some of the surface material.As someone once said of Project Orion -- "you don't have to worry about choosing your landing site, by the time you get to it it'll be flat!".
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 14:23
14
$begingroup$
Lower surface gravity, perhaps unintuitively, means that an object at rest is less stable, easier to topple than in 1 g. That is why Apollo rovers and landers had such a wide base and low center of gravity. Even if it can stable itself at a Moon landing, tourists moving towards the windows at 50 m height could make it lean over, unless they iterate the design somehow.
$endgroup$
– Miles Mutka
Oct 14 at 19:10
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Quick answer is all I have time for now -- if someone wants to do a more detailed and referenced answer, please feel free and I'll delete this:
While it's very big, its mass is not that high, and gravity is low. On Mars, for instance, it needs about 150 tons of fuel, plus 100 or so tons of vehicle (mass) to get back to orbit. Under Mars gravity thats only just under 100 tons of weight on the legs -- a couple of fully loaded trucks. It's not surprising that a large truck can drive across a desert supported only by the contact patches of 16 tires.
edited Oct 14 at 15:41
Russell Borogove
106k5 gold badges376 silver badges456 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 6:32
Steve LintonSteve Linton
12.5k1 gold badge33 silver badges62 bronze badges
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Ok... Now make the trucks vertical, stack one on top of the other, crowd all the wheels around the base, and leave it standing there for a year waiting for an Earth-return launch window?
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 7:13
3
$begingroup$
Which brings us to the question of what Mars soil is like mechanically. We should have at least some idea of that by now from the various landers and rovers. It's will be somewhat different from Earth -- no liquids, so no muddiness.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 7:39
14
$begingroup$
I have a hunch that when large, fully loaded trucks drive across a desert they do it on terrain already known to be amenable to truck driving whereas on Mars there is (disappointingly) not so many previously characterized deserts.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Oct 14 at 8:13
28
$begingroup$
The landing may also serve to blow away (or even melt) some of the surface material.As someone once said of Project Orion -- "you don't have to worry about choosing your landing site, by the time you get to it it'll be flat!".
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 14:23
14
$begingroup$
Lower surface gravity, perhaps unintuitively, means that an object at rest is less stable, easier to topple than in 1 g. That is why Apollo rovers and landers had such a wide base and low center of gravity. Even if it can stable itself at a Moon landing, tourists moving towards the windows at 50 m height could make it lean over, unless they iterate the design somehow.
$endgroup$
– Miles Mutka
Oct 14 at 19:10
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Quick answer is all I have time for now -- if someone wants to do a more detailed and referenced answer, please feel free and I'll delete this:
While it's very big, its mass is not that high, and gravity is low. On Mars, for instance, it needs about 150 tons of fuel, plus 100 or so tons of vehicle (mass) to get back to orbit. Under Mars gravity thats only just under 100 tons of weight on the legs -- a couple of fully loaded trucks. It's not surprising that a large truck can drive across a desert supported only by the contact patches of 16 tires.
edited Oct 14 at 15:41
Russell Borogove
106k5 gold badges376 silver badges456 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 6:32
Steve LintonSteve Linton
12.5k1 gold badge33 silver badges62 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Quick answer is all I have time for now -- if someone wants to do a more detailed and referenced answer, please feel free and I'll delete this:
While it's very big, its mass is not that high, and gravity is low. On Mars, for instance, it needs about 150 tons of fuel, plus 100 or so tons of vehicle (mass) to get back to orbit. Under Mars gravity thats only just under 100 tons of weight on the legs -- a couple of fully loaded trucks. It's not surprising that a large truck can drive across a desert supported only by the contact patches of 16 tires.
edited Oct 14 at 15:41
Russell Borogove
106k5 gold badges376 silver badges456 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 6:32
Steve LintonSteve Linton
12.5k1 gold badge33 silver badges62 bronze badges
edited Oct 14 at 15:41
Russell Borogove
106k5 gold badges376 silver badges456 bronze badges
edited Oct 14 at 15:41
Russell Borogove
106k5 gold badges376 silver badges456 bronze badges
edited Oct 14 at 15:41
Russell Borogove
106k5 gold badges376 silver badges456 bronze badges
106k5 gold badges376 silver badges456 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 6:32
Steve LintonSteve Linton
12.5k1 gold badge33 silver badges62 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 6:32
Steve LintonSteve Linton
12.5k1 gold badge33 silver badges62 bronze badges
answered Oct 14 at 6:32
Steve LintonSteve Linton
12.5k1 gold badge33 silver badges62 bronze badges
12.5k1 gold badge33 silver badges62 bronze badges
6
$begingroup$
Ok... Now make the trucks vertical, stack one on top of the other, crowd all the wheels around the base, and leave it standing there for a year waiting for an Earth-return launch window?
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 7:13
3
$begingroup$
Which brings us to the question of what Mars soil is like mechanically. We should have at least some idea of that by now from the various landers and rovers. It's will be somewhat different from Earth -- no liquids, so no muddiness.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 7:39
14
$begingroup$
I have a hunch that when large, fully loaded trucks drive across a desert they do it on terrain already known to be amenable to truck driving whereas on Mars there is (disappointingly) not so many previously characterized deserts.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Oct 14 at 8:13
28
$begingroup$
The landing may also serve to blow away (or even melt) some of the surface material.As someone once said of Project Orion -- "you don't have to worry about choosing your landing site, by the time you get to it it'll be flat!".
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 14:23
14
$begingroup$
Lower surface gravity, perhaps unintuitively, means that an object at rest is less stable, easier to topple than in 1 g. That is why Apollo rovers and landers had such a wide base and low center of gravity. Even if it can stable itself at a Moon landing, tourists moving towards the windows at 50 m height could make it lean over, unless they iterate the design somehow.
$endgroup$
– Miles Mutka
Oct 14 at 19:10
|
show 4 more comments
6
$begingroup$
Ok... Now make the trucks vertical, stack one on top of the other, crowd all the wheels around the base, and leave it standing there for a year waiting for an Earth-return launch window?
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 7:13
3
$begingroup$
Which brings us to the question of what Mars soil is like mechanically. We should have at least some idea of that by now from the various landers and rovers. It's will be somewhat different from Earth -- no liquids, so no muddiness.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 7:39
14
$begingroup$
I have a hunch that when large, fully loaded trucks drive across a desert they do it on terrain already known to be amenable to truck driving whereas on Mars there is (disappointingly) not so many previously characterized deserts.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Oct 14 at 8:13
28
$begingroup$
The landing may also serve to blow away (or even melt) some of the surface material.As someone once said of Project Orion -- "you don't have to worry about choosing your landing site, by the time you get to it it'll be flat!".
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 14:23
14
$begingroup$
Lower surface gravity, perhaps unintuitively, means that an object at rest is less stable, easier to topple than in 1 g. That is why Apollo rovers and landers had such a wide base and low center of gravity. Even if it can stable itself at a Moon landing, tourists moving towards the windows at 50 m height could make it lean over, unless they iterate the design somehow.
$endgroup$
– Miles Mutka
Oct 14 at 19:10
6
6
$begingroup$
Ok... Now make the trucks vertical, stack one on top of the other, crowd all the wheels around the base, and leave it standing there for a year waiting for an Earth-return launch window?
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 7:13
$begingroup$
Ok... Now make the trucks vertical, stack one on top of the other, crowd all the wheels around the base, and leave it standing there for a year waiting for an Earth-return launch window?
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 7:13
3
3
$begingroup$
Which brings us to the question of what Mars soil is like mechanically. We should have at least some idea of that by now from the various landers and rovers. It's will be somewhat different from Earth -- no liquids, so no muddiness.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 7:39
$begingroup$
Which brings us to the question of what Mars soil is like mechanically. We should have at least some idea of that by now from the various landers and rovers. It's will be somewhat different from Earth -- no liquids, so no muddiness.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 7:39
14
14
$begingroup$
I have a hunch that when large, fully loaded trucks drive across a desert they do it on terrain already known to be amenable to truck driving whereas on Mars there is (disappointingly) not so many previously characterized deserts.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Oct 14 at 8:13
$begingroup$
I have a hunch that when large, fully loaded trucks drive across a desert they do it on terrain already known to be amenable to truck driving whereas on Mars there is (disappointingly) not so many previously characterized deserts.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Oct 14 at 8:13
28
28
$begingroup$
The landing may also serve to blow away (or even melt) some of the surface material.As someone once said of Project Orion -- "you don't have to worry about choosing your landing site, by the time you get to it it'll be flat!".
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 14:23
$begingroup$
The landing may also serve to blow away (or even melt) some of the surface material.As someone once said of Project Orion -- "you don't have to worry about choosing your landing site, by the time you get to it it'll be flat!".
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Oct 14 at 14:23
14
14
$begingroup$
Lower surface gravity, perhaps unintuitively, means that an object at rest is less stable, easier to topple than in 1 g. That is why Apollo rovers and landers had such a wide base and low center of gravity. Even if it can stable itself at a Moon landing, tourists moving towards the windows at 50 m height could make it lean over, unless they iterate the design somehow.
$endgroup$
– Miles Mutka
Oct 14 at 19:10
$begingroup$
Lower surface gravity, perhaps unintuitively, means that an object at rest is less stable, easier to topple than in 1 g. That is why Apollo rovers and landers had such a wide base and low center of gravity. Even if it can stable itself at a Moon landing, tourists moving towards the windows at 50 m height could make it lean over, unless they iterate the design somehow.
$endgroup$
– Miles Mutka
Oct 14 at 19:10
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39332%2fspacex-starship-landing-on-moon-or-mars-why-doesnt-it-fall-over%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
7
$begingroup$
SpaceX's own concept art? google.com/amp/s/www.geekwire.com/2019/… Also the concept of the Starship is that it can function as a primary exploration vehicle.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 12:51
1
$begingroup$
Starship is 50 meters (~150 feet) tall minus the booster. On Earth Starship currently stands on concrete - very different from the martian or lunar regolith. The issue is not whether the ship can support itself, which it clearly can, but how we can be reasonably certain the unknown regolith on the Moon or Mars can support it.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:38
2
$begingroup$
Also whether and how the Starship design can cope with imperfections like slight inclines or surface rocks.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 14 at 20:45
13
$begingroup$
This runs dangerously close to the internet meme "I see a problem I can't solve so hundreds of engineers at SpaceX must be wrong." Perhaps you could reword it as "How does the Starship design accommodate uneven landing surfaces? "
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Oct 15 at 14:11
1
$begingroup$
I will clarify the question body along those lines. I don't mean to suggest the SpaceX engineers are wrong, I simply want to understand how the problem can be resolved.
$endgroup$
– Ags1
Oct 15 at 19:09