Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

techcrunch.com

451–460 of 926 posts

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get a headache watching Star Wars like sci-fi where everything is manually controlled by the pilot. How did sci-fi get so disconnected from the actual future?

Star Wars is not sci-fi, it's a cross between space fantasy and space opera. The list of better sci-fi movies is long.

From wikipedia

> Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes space warfare, melodramatic adventure, interplanetary battles, chivalric romance, and risk-taking

> A science fantasy is a cross-genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon and/or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy

Star Wars is 100% science fiction.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#452

What does this launch mean for humans? Does this mean we can send humans to Mars on the next mission? Is there step by step plan anywhere?

This is kind of a "big deal" but on the other hand it's also just an intermediate step. The really cool thing here is that this brings another contender into the heavy lift launch market, which has traditionally been an incredibly small space, especially recently (with NRO launches dominating). More than that, it dramatically reshapes the cost structure in that market. If you want a Delta IV Heavy launch normally you're looking at spending around a billion dollars, and generally the only customers who could even have the option to use that vehicle would be the US government anyway. So, of course, that means it's been a very restrictive field.

Falcon Heavy is, on the other hand, nominally a $90 million launch cost. That's cheaper than the typical launch cost for a Falcon 9, Atlas V, or Ariane 5 class vehicle, so that's crazy cheap. A lot of that is down to the fact that 90% of the hardware cost of the Falcon Heavy stack comes from reusable rocket stages (the 3 main cores). On top of that, the Falcon Heavy side boosters are just regular Falcon 9 cores, so as SpaceX gets better at reusing Falcon 9 rockets it'll also become easier to launch Falcon Heavy rockets because there will just always be a stack of appropriate components sitting around in inventory ready to go. Meaning that the potential flight rate on Heavy launches could be quite high. The Delta IV Heavy launches maybe around once every year or every other year or so. The Falcon Heavy could potentially fly many times per year.

Together that's kind of a "big deal". It'll crack open the heavy lift market to a lot of people who previously lacked the means or the access to launch big payloads. If launching 20 tonnes to LEO is something that costs 10 figures and happens literally less often than every blue moon then you tend to only launch things like multi-billion dollar spy satellites. But if launching much more than that mass costs less than a traditional comsat launch and can happen every other month or perhaps more often if there's the demand, then you're going to get a lot of folks coming out of the woodwork to take advantage of that capability (and, as well, that'll still include NRO and US national defense folks as well, they won't miss out either).

So, what are some things that become more possible with Falcon Heavy?

* Space station components. After the Shuttle program ended there was much less capacity for launching station components, it was restricted to small bits and pieces (a docking adapter here, a small inflatable module there) and Russian components launched via Proton. With Falcon Heavy in the mix it becomes more practical to launch new space stations and new station components. So that's more of an option now.

* Deep space missions. Falcon Heavy is capable of launching reasonable payloads on interplanetary trajectories to the outer planets. So that means it could make new missions to asteroids, comets, the gas and ice giant planets (or their moons), as well as KBOs and TNOs much more cost effective. NASA, ESA, etc. could look to using Falcon Heavy for those sorts of missions in the near future. It also makes things like "ordinary" Mars rover missions cheaper, of course, and allows them to be larger and more capable.

* Space telescopes. Launching big space telescopes like Hubble and its successors will become much cheaper. So instead of having just one or two or even a handful of big top tier observatory class space telescopes we could have many of them.

* Crewed interplanetary missions. In theory you could do something like a crewed cislunar mission similar to Apollo 8 using a single Falcon Heavy launch. More realistically if you wanted to do a "proper" interplanetary mission you'd assemble something in low Earth orbit. You'd put up separate boost stages as well as the crewed spacecraft component and the return vehicle on separate flights and bring them together then set off somewhere. If you're, say, NASA and you have a paltry $2 billion or something to pull off a crewed mission to an asteroid, perhaps, then being able to buy a half-dozen Falcon Heavy flights and put up a crap-ton of payload into LEO with only a quarter of your budget is hugely advantageous.

* And, of course, all the standard stuff like spysats and big national defense payloads. This isn't such a huge deal for "the future" but it'll be a substantial revenue stream for SpaceX.

As for sending humans to Mars, SpaceX won't be using Falcon Heavy for that. They have a next generation launch architecture planned that is more or less specifically designed for mars colonization (the BFR/BFS). That system will be much larger and able to put about 150 tonnes into LEO in a single (reusable) launch. It'll be fully reusable, including the 2nd stage (the BFS). It'll use LOX/Methane instead of LOX/Kerosene because of the superior performance, significantly improved longevity of engine components (less soot and coking in piping) to enhance reusability, and compatability with a Mars exploration architecture that includes utilization of the Martian atmosphere to produce propellant for return trips (which is actually surprisingly easy). They will begin the first stages of manufacturing that rocket sometime this year but it will be a few years before it even has a test flight.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#453

I like everything about private space exploration except this: when we sent the Voyager golden record to space, we consulted with the great minds about which were the important landmarks of our civilisation. In this model, it's all about idiosyncrasies: the Voyager record had the Vitruvian Man, this has an astronaut on a sports car and largely-irrelevant sci-fi stories. Of course, private space probably means the who…

>Still, this payload is culturally cringeworthy,

According to whose culture though? I suggest the culture of the people who built it is the most relevant one.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#454
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I love the live streams hosted by John Innsprucker. He doesn't look like a TV star, he looks like an engineer, a rocket scientist. He looks real. The other hosts are great, but if you told me they were hired actors or PR people I'd believe it.

You're showing your biases here. The other people on the livestream are also rocket scientists. They aren't PR people. They just happen to be younger, or women, or of color. So you might want to re-evaluate what you think a rocket scientist "looks like", because your notion is outdated. Sorry to call you out like this, but these kinds of prejudices about who is the "correct" kind of person for tech jobs are harmful a…

Is this not alike to asking me to not have the mental view of a basketball team as a coloured group of tall males? And if I had that view, then am I discriminating against short white people, or have I built a more accurate mental model of the world?

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#455
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely love that Musk is putting a car into Mars orbit. Assuming mankind doesn't have an extinction event (or dark ages event), it is extremely likely we'll populate the solar system over the next millenia. In 200 years, Martian children can look up in the sky and know that one of the quickly moving visible satellites is a hilarious, old-Earth car. Depending on how accessible orbit is from planets over the next…

Part of me enjoys it, but a big part of hates that he put a car there. I don't associate cars with anything good, only bad.

Why? General opposition to motorized transport?

Opposition to non-bipedal forms of transport?

Or is it opposition to the type of urban planning that is centered around the car more than the pedestrian?

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get a headache watching Star Wars like sci-fi where everything is manually controlled by the pilot. How did sci-fi get so disconnected from the actual future?

Star Wars takes place in the distant past, not in the future. Also, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a great movie about a great example why you do not pilot your ships with computers all the time. Also, you do not know what the future holds. You are living in the present, not the future, where we very well may have pilots piloting ships. Star Wars is not science fiction and it does not take place in the future. We are not l…

> Also, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a great movie about a great example why you do not pilot your ships with computers all the time.

No, it merely illustrates why you want your AI properly bottled up and airgapped that way the flight computer will follow your instructions after you consult with the AI (assuming an AI is ever built...).

Computers can control spacecraft just fine in the present without AI so really there does not seem to be a pressing need for this.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's still more! Live Webcam from Spaceman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M

All of this insane expense and amazing science and they couldn't make a VR360 camera happen. :(

Tough crowd. I'm rather more amazed at what did happen than at what did not.

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#459
post #192

Love that SpaceX’s own team shoots, announces, and switches the live production in-house rather than hiring a production company. Also love seeing machinists side by side cheering with software engineers, standing by a mission control which is placed feet from where engines are assembled on the shop floor. Open company culture well-executed. Congratulations to all there!

This is why I love the live streams hosted by John Innsprucker. He doesn't look like a TV star, he looks like an engineer, a rocket scientist. He looks real. The other hosts are great, but if you told me they were hired actors or PR people I'd believe it.

Take Lauren, for example, she's a super accomplished mech/aero engineer who also happens to be a really good host.

EDIT: Of course she's also involved in FIRST :P

Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

#460
post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked permission from all of my references beforehand. Two were coworkers and the last was my previous team lead. I knew all of them had positive opinions regarding my work. The problem was BlueOrigin’s reference-questionnaire. One of my references shared it with me afterwards. It’s a stock template - except pretty much all the questions seem contrived to find reasons not to hire someone. One of the questions was a…

I interviewed at BlueOrigin ~3.5 years ago, my impression was they're very old fashioned and secretive. Not necessarily a bad thing for such critical systems (though I think SpaceX has the better model/culture even if I know it's not for me), but I was applying for a backend role using Spring and hoping to get in on a program they had at the time where you could move around the various departments like avionics and s…

I interviewed for the superlative job title “Spaceflight systems avionics software engineer”. Contrary to your experience, I found the process to be very casual. They told me not to bring my resume, but to put together a PowerPoint presentation about my life. For one of my interviews the interviewing engineer didn’t even show up and his boss came in later and said (paraphrased): “you made it this far so I guess you’re good enough” and had me go see the next interviewer. It did take them 2 weeks to get back to me with the “We want to make you an offer”-call.

My biggest surprise was that they were (and I assume still are) running Windows 7 on their dev boxes.

Post reply on HN