Using a Cybertruck
Probably more dangerous than the rocket.
Icon: I was torn between joke and flame
NASA puts astronauts’ lives in the hands of Tesla’s flaky Cybertruck
Tesla has recalled its Cybertruck 11 times to fix issues such as exterior trim panels falling off and an accelerator pedal that can become stuck, but NASA has nonetheless decided the rust-prone vehicle is up to the job of rescuing astronauts if trouble strikes on the launchpad of a forthcoming crewed mission. Muskmobiles will …
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 5th August 2026 11:01 GMT Elongated Muskrat
Re: Using a Cybertruck
Did you seriously just ask what rocket fuel might there be around the failed launch of a rocket?
As far as I am aware, NASA's rockets still mostly use hydrogen and oxygen as their propellant, although they apparently also have stages that use kerosene and solid propellant boosters. The space shuttle used a main stage that used an H2/O2 mix, and the two boosters used solid fuel, apparently the SLS is the same.
-
Wednesday 5th August 2026 13:41 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Re: Using a Cybertruck
The shuttle main engines use H2/O2 because they were based on Saturn-V 2nd stage engines (to save money) and the SLS 1st stage engines are based on shuttle main engines (to save money)
In a clean sheet design (SpaceX) you would prefer to use Kerosene main engines. H/O is useful for upper stages because although you get less overall power you get more bang per kg
-
Thursday 6th August 2026 12:56 GMT Elongated Muskrat
Re: Using a Cybertruck
Why would you prefer to use kerosene? Liquid hydrogen has far higher energy density per unit mass. Is this because Elon's engineers aren't good enough at plumbing to make a hydrogen burning engine not explode? I suspect the answer is a little more complex than this of course. How does "more bang per kg" equate to "less overall power"? What other metrics are in play beyond the mass of the propellant (and the mass of the propellant used to lift the propellant)?
-
Thursday 6th August 2026 22:20 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Re: Using a Cybertruck
Hydrogen is more bang/kg but is much less dense than Aga-fuel, so you need a much bigger tank for the same mass of fuel.
For 2nd/3rd stages where you need relatively little bang, but you have to lift the weight it to orbit this is ideal, but for massive first stage engines being able to fit tons of fuel into something smaller than a Saturn V is great.
LH2 is also a pain to handle. Obviously pretty flammable and as it's cryogenic (20K = very very cryogenic) and is small molecule so a high boil off rate so you have a very small 'go' window after fueling. The fueling and de-fueling procedure is slow difficult and dangerous. Apart the the nasty stuff itself you have cryotanks that are supported only by the pressure of the gas, so you have to keep them filled with another gas and balance the filling. Apollo had tanks made from an alloy that was only strong enough to support itself at cryo temperatures - which made it even more fun.
Some of this applies to the liquid oxygen of course, but there's no getting around that
Solid fuel rockets are even less bang/kg but you can pretty much make them as big as you need. But you can't control them so not good for a SpaceX reusable stage.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 6th August 2026 12:59 GMT Elongated Muskrat
Re: SpaceX won’t survive…
Sorry buddy, but IMHO Elmo has always been a prick, and this has been evident long before he ever made any sort of move to involve himself in politics. As it happens, I don't think anyone thought he was particularly aligned to either right-wing US political party, and in recent years he has made it apparent that he is more aligned to a 1930s German one.
-
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 11:26 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Product placement 101
To be honest, I'm not sure an MRAP offers you a great deal of protection from an exploding rocket. They're resistant to small arms, I'm not even sure they'll stop a heavy machinegun. The biggest bit of armour is on the bottom, as they're designed to protect the crew from a mine exploding underneath - the vehicle is unlikely to survive the experience, but the crew will - they tend to have wedge shaped hulls to deflect the explosion to the side. But in an exploding rocket situation, your worries are coming from above - where the vehicle offers some shrapnel protection. I certainly wouldn't describe them as bank vault like though.
Speed might be better than armour here?
The Williams Renault Espace would be ideal. Name matches job. It's a big people carrier, so room for everyone to jump in quick. It's got a detuned 1990s Renault F1 engine, and was eventually used as a track ambulance, due to being able to do 170mph. I wonder if it's still running?
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 12:12 GMT LogicGate
Re: Product placement 101
I am pretty sure that an MRAP provides more protection than a shoddily built SUV no matter where the problem comes from. Prematurely discarded spacecraft components will much more easily fall through a large sloping windshield than throuh a roof that is "only" shrapnel-proof.
Tesla is circling the drain and Space Karen is doing anything to keep it relevant... ..at the cost of SpaceX.
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 12:43 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Product placement 101
LogicGate,
You're right that an MRAP is going to offer better protection than a civilian SUV. That's obvious. But an MRAP is also slower. And in this case, there's a good argument that speed is armour. The best way to avoid the earth-shattering kaboom, is to be elsewhere. Armour is going to save you from some bits, but not from fire, lack of oxygen, or big chunks of metal shrapnel moving at supersonic speed.
MRAPs are also hard to get into, as they have some protection - although most of their armour is on the bottom to save the crew from mines - they're not designed to be protected from artillery. Mine Resistant Amush Protected, is what MRAP stands for.
Not that a Cybertruck is any easier to get into. Personally I'd either pick the fastest small minivan/people carrier, or use a full armoured personnel carrier - which have rear ramps for getting in, and more armour on the top.
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 14:38 GMT LogicGate
Re: Product placement 101
Valid points, but there is no way that any kind of vehicle speed will save the astronauts.
A rocket explosion tends to be a binary event: Everything is good changes into everything is bad at the blink of an eye.
If you stand next to the pad at this moment, then even an MRAP will have a "BAD DAY" (TM)
However, if you are at any distance from the event, then an MRAP can survive the distance being much shorter than a CRAP (see below).
Thus, if my statistics are correct, then this is a situation where one would rather have armor than speed.
A James-bond style bunker tunnell with a seats only monorail might be the best solution though.
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 16:06 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Re: Product placement 101
>If you stand next to the pad at this moment, then even an MRAP will have a "BAD DAY" (TM)
So they just switch to a Toyota Tundra pickup
Easy for the astronauts to jump in the back
Impervious to all known explosions
And it's a company owned site truck so it's the fastest car to drive
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 14:00 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Product placement 101
Hyperloop's a bit slow. I have a different idea. Now hear me out... How's about a rocket? You could have small escape rockets all spread about the place, that people could jump on and zoom off into the sunset, solid rocket with a range of a few miles, to get you to safety right quick. I'm sure there are no worrying safety implications of this idea at all!
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 15:29 GMT STOP_FORTH
Re: Product placement 101
NASA used to have emergency escape rockets bolted onto the nose of the capsule. If everything went pear-shaped, they would pull the astronauts to safety before deployed parachutes. Without checking, I think Apollo, Gemini and Mercury had them.
Never used in anger, but I think I'd prefer one to any kind of ground vehicle.
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 20:19 GMT Excused Boots
Re: Product placement 101
Still do, as does the Orion capsule. They are referred to as ‘tractor’ systems as the solid rockets are above the crew capsule and basically pull it away from the booster. Crew Dragon does it differently, there is no tower but there are a set of Super Draco engines set in the base of the capsule which, if fired push the capsule clear (a ‘pusher’ system. Starliner uses a similar system.
Both the Russian and Chinese crewed craft use tractor-style escape towers. The only time one was used in anger was a Soyuz flight where the booster caught fire just before liftoff; the escape system pulled the capsule clear a few seconds before the booster exploded. Because of the need to get clear of the exploding booster, the acceleration of these things is really quite brutal, albeit only for a few seconds. The Soyuz crew were reported to be badly bruised but at least alive.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 11:33 GMT that one in the corner
NASA doesn’t have to arrange for an MRAP crew to attend launches
As in, doesn't have to have a crew fully trained in the capabilities of their vehicle, on hand to help load the slightly singed ground crew/astronauts, ensure all hatches are battened to allow the MRAP to safely "function as a bunker on its own" if that is required because a flaming lump of gantry has just crashed down in front of them?
Instead, they'll have - who? A chauffeur meticulously trained to know how the hell to open the doors of a Cybertruck so the fire crew can pull everyone out?
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 11:49 GMT FeRDNYC
Re: NASA doesn’t have to arrange for an MRAP crew to attend launches
Yeah, I was wondering about that, too.
Honestly, given the mention of the Scuffed DeLorean being "easier to drive with gloves on", I'm worried they expect the astronauts to drive themselves out of harm's way. "Everybody pile in to the World's Least Capable Getaway Car, now whose turn is it to drive?"
-
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 13:08 GMT retiredFool
Re: NASA doesn’t have to arrange for an MRAP crew to attend launches
There was a stock photo I saw of a row of those butt ugly things at a spacex parking lot. There was even a sign that said cypbertrucks only. Reality is what some auto journalists said, the truck was the biggest flop since the edsel. They even quoted sales vs anticipate sales and it was like 1/4. Edsel was like 1/2. And Edsel didn't have a sister co buying up the inventory like spacex did.
I do have to wonder how the musk/trump bromance is going. Trump recently said something about buying 250 Escalades for white house use. That's gm, not tesla gettin 25M+. But then I don't see orangey fitting in a 3 or Y, he is too voluminous. Y/3 is all tesla sells now.
-
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 19:43 GMT retiredFool
Re: more Trumpian delusions
True, it is almost certainly a lie if it came from mango. More importantly though is he said it, which implies Mary has been doing him more favors lately than Leon. Or it could just be he was in Michigan, and with the attention span of a gnat that he is, he said Escalade. Somewhat shocking is he actually knew the name of the vehicle. I'd expect no more than him saying they bought 250 Cadillacs from that pea brain.
-
-
-
Wednesday 5th August 2026 00:06 GMT Chet Mannly
Re: NASA doesn’t have to arrange for an MRAP crew to attend launches
"It seems wasteful to have a cybertruck just sitting there when you almost never use it."
The Space X cybertruck's purpose was to get Tesla sales out of a hole - they were forced by Musk to buy a ton of them, may as well park them on a launchpad and prentend they actually have a useful purpose beyond inflating Tesla stock prices...
-
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 13:33 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Re: NASA doesn’t have to arrange for an MRAP crew to attend launches
>Why wouldn’t the astronauts drive themselves?
Spacesuits are formal wear not exactly designed for advanced yoga
Military vehicles aren't designed for comfortable driver ergonomics
Driver hatches are not built to accommodate
typical Americanspeople in space suits
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 15:47 GMT blu3b3rry
I look forward to watching one put in an appearance on a livestream, with the inevitable clown-car like progress as bits drop off en route to the rocket. Assuming of course it makes the full journey without breaking down or bursting into flames.
Definitely noticed a big drop-off in the numbers of newly registered Model 3's etc around here (Cybertrucks aren't legal in this country, guess we're too civilised).
-
Tuesday 4th August 2026 16:56 GMT Marty McFly
Beast mode
>Not a Tesla fan. Not a Musk fan. Not an EV fan. But I am open to different thinking.<
If there is an eminent threat of an explosion, there are two schools of thought for survival. 1) Shelter in place. 2) Don't be there.
The Apollo missions used the "Rubber Room" for their primary defense against a pending pad explosion by doing a shelter in place.
The Cyber Truck is well known to be very fast when configured to do so. This could be a viable solution to a pending pad explosion by simply not being there.
All the technology pieces are there for the vehicles to literally self-drive and Get Out Of Dodge in a big hurry. Closed environment, no traffic to worry about. Electric power so no engine to warm up.
A touch of special programming might be needed, but the basics are already in place. It could literally be get in, close door, push button, and the vehicle evacuates the area on its own. Actually a good use of Common Off The Shelf (COTS) technology, rather then building something specialized at standard government contract rates.
-
-
Monday 10th August 2026 13:59 GMT FeRDNYC
Re: Guys, guys…
somebody has to buy them. [citation needed]
I'm under no obligation or imperative to buy them. More accurate, perhaps, is "Tesla has to sell them to somebody".
(With apologies to Steven Crane...)
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation to buy your crappy trucks."
-
-
Wednesday 5th August 2026 03:52 GMT mevets
New business opportunity
In 2025, spacex-starship launches were 3 explosions for every 5 launches.
You could reliably rent out storage space in the debris field to any company with an inventory problem.
Its an obvious parking lot for the nazi-mobile.
I wonder if they will coat them in meta-creep-glasses?
-
-
Wednesday 5th August 2026 04:23 GMT sindrelspec
Bunker in the launchpad?
I've not seen the aftermath of a rocket explosion, how much of the launchpad remains? I presume they are built to withstand an explosion. Why not build a bunker into the launchpad itself, you can stock with medical equipment, food, water, depending on how long it takes to get them out. Or even have an underground access tunnel back to a safe distance/exit. May initially be expensive, but I presume safer than trying to outrun an explosion in any vehicle and almost zero ongoing costs.
