Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX BFR [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–277 of 277 posts

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#271

Post by wolf550e »

idlewords wrote: post #262
OrwellianChild wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla Roof is cheaper than many traditional roofing materials and provides solar. See the chart here. [1] Air Force launches with SpaceX are less than half the price of ULA launches. [2] Can you clarify how you believe Musk's companies haven't delivered? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-10/tesla-s-s... [2] https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/16/us-air-force-spacex-ula-...

They have not delivered "orders of magnitude cost reduction from already mature technologies", which is what I said in my parent comment. They've instead made (valuable!) incremental advances, usually by relying on immense government subsidies.

What immense government subsidies did Tesla and SpaceX rely on? Tesla got a loan it paid back early and a $7k tax rebate per car for the first 200k cars which other car companies also got. SpaceX got a contract to build a rocket and capsule NASA wants to use, for a fraction of the price Boeing and Lockheed charge for same job.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#273

Post by idlewords »

wolf550e wrote: post #271
idlewords wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have not delivered "orders of magnitude cost reduction from already mature technologies", which is what I said in my parent comment. They've instead made (valuable!) incremental advances, usually by relying on immense government subsidies.

What immense government subsidies did Tesla and SpaceX rely on? Tesla got a loan it paid back early and a $7k tax rebate per car for the first 200k cars which other car companies also got. SpaceX got a contract to build a rocket and capsule NASA wants to use, for a fraction of the price Boeing and Lockheed charge for same job.

"A $7k tax rebate per car for the first 200k cars" is a $1.4B government subsidy.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#274

Post by triplesec »

eightysixfour wrote: post #58
Shivetya wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sadly this is all I started thinking, but only because of how much he pushes EVs and Solar. It seems like a complete opposite move but given current technology there isn't a clean method to do what he wants. I would be really curious how much works has gone into neutral fuels. pretty sure lox and such can be made neutrally with solar powered chillers but what is his other fuel? a hydrogen type would be similar would…

Methane + oxygen (methalox).

That produces C02, and given the energies required, would produce a lot. A retrograde step.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#275

Post by dvdhnt »

thesash wrote: post #157
dvdhnt wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the video, Musk states that SpaceX believes BFR will match the safety of commercial airliners due to its multi-engine propulsive landing capability.

Yes, totally, I get that they have a plan to make it safer -- my point is that a 20,000x increase in saftey is a massive leap, and that will be the limiting factor for this technology.

Oh, right. I don't disagree with your sentiment, I was just adding information for HNers who didn't actually watch the video.

Consistently, my colleagues have made remarks along the lines of "I'll take the 1,000th flight after I know it's safe enough". I grew up with cars and airliners so I'm not sure what the process of convincing the public of BFR's safety will actually look like or how long it will take. For all I know, they'll give out the first 100 rides for free or at huge discounts, making all of these thoughts moot.

Cheers.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#276

Post by wolf550e »

idlewords wrote: post #273
wolf550e wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What immense government subsidies did Tesla and SpaceX rely on? Tesla got a loan it paid back early and a $7k tax rebate per car for the first 200k cars which other car companies also got. SpaceX got a contract to build a rocket and capsule NASA wants to use, for a fraction of the price Boeing and Lockheed charge for same job.

"A $7k tax rebate per car for the first 200k cars" is a $1.4B government subsidy.

"usually by relying on immense government subsidies" makes one think that Boeing and GM failed to do the engineering work that SpaceX and Tesla had done because they were somehow barred from some kind of government subsidy.

But of course, the opposite is true: Being, Lockheed, GM, Ford, etc. enjoy a lot of help from the government (money and regulation) and use a bunch of dirty tactics against Musk's companies. And despite this, SpaceX and Tesla did things the incumbents were incapable of doing. In some cases things that were said to be impossible rather than just uneconomical.

I think at least the "usually" in your post is unwarranted.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#277

Post by mstade »

Retric wrote: post #253
mstade wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people think supersonic jets are loud, they’re in for a treat with rockets. Anyone who’s ever witnessed a launch at KSC (I have) will probably say two things: it’s awesome, and it’s LOUD. Not ear popping kind of loud, but VERY loud nonetheless, and you feel it too if you’re close enough. (Really recommend a viewing at the LC39 observation gantry, it’s awesome!) I was watching that video and kept thinking that plat…

Airports are in cities. Even 10 miles out to the ocean would make a massive difference without taking that long.

Airplanes are much, much quieter than rockets though. If you haven't seen (and heard!) a launch in person, I understand this might be difficult to appreciate. Even 10 miles out isn't enough to be ignorable.

Also the light – a launch is very bright! During the daytime this wouldn't be such a big deal I guess, but a dawn/dusk/night launch would be very noticeable, even from 10 miles out.

Post reply on HN