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

Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 305 posts

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#81

Post by dotnet00 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #43
dotnet00 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that due to how much F9 has managed to eat into FH's market, FH flights we see are more likely to only happen when the payload is heavy enough to need the center core to be expended. For example, for a GTO insertion, an expended F9 can do 8.3t while a completely reusable FH can do 8t, but the expended F9 is going to be cheaper overall. Thus FH is only worth using when the payload is heavy enough to require at…

Do you have any source for this? I would expect that a FH launch that reuses all 3 first stage cores would be cheaper than an expended F9. A few hundred thousand extra in fuel costs for the side boosters is cheaper than the few million dollars that the 9 expended engines would cost. But I still believe you -- the infrequency of an FH launch probably increases the ancillary costs. I'd just like to see your source.

My payload numbers are from the FH Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Capabilities

As for the price, the official numbers are $67m for a new F9 and $97m for a reusable FH (from their respective Wikipedia pages).

Additionally, my reasoning is (as you mention) related to cadence. FH flies very infrequently and requires more ground expenses to prepare, recover and then refurbish 3 boosters. Additionally there's the opportunity cost of keeping a center core on standby (as it's purpose built for FH [1]) and the opportunity cost of keeping the side boosters either on standby or converting them to F9s.

Elon has previously mentioned that with Falcon rockets the main costs per flight are the second stage (~$10m, expended), fairings (~$3-4m, reusable), refurbishment (~$1m) and fixed ground costs, which can be reduced by increasing cadence [2]. In the case of FH the second stage and fairing costs are the same, the refurb costs are tripled and due to much lower cadence the ground costs are higher. Meanwhile, F9 flies frequently, so it has lower ground costs per launch and the booster's cost can be more easily amortized via several flights before the expendable launch.

Additionally, [2] mentions that the marginal cost of building an F9 booster is ~$15m, so all the extra costs of FH only need to be greater than $15m to make it worth just using an expendable F9.

[1] https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/01/27/spacex-gives-converted...

[2] https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-elon-musk-falcon-9...

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#82

Post by pkage »

thallium205 wrote: post #46
Vermeulen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to imagine - just look up the SLS program and it's budget + timeframe

And the fact it will cost about 10x as much compared to SpaceX rockets to deliver something to orbit. SLS is a total failure.

You can blame Boeing for that, it's not like NASA is directly creating the rocket in-house. SpaceX is just disrupting the current MIC contracts.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#83

Post by oconnor663 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #32
BitwiseFool wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"wasteful to see that mission profile with the center booster burning up without even trying." My understanding was that the intended orbit / mission profile means that they must fly the center core in expendable mode. Otherwise, the satellite wouldn't be able to reach the intended orbit with the intended amount of fuel for the mission's duration.

Hopefully once Starship launches, we'll never see a disposable core again.

Even a reusable rocket reaches the end of its service life eventually, and at that point it can make sense for the last flight to be expendable.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#84

Post by bell-cot »

usrusr wrote: post #15

Now that Falcon 9 landings have become so routine, it feels surprisingly wasteful to see that mission profile with the center booster burning up without even trying. I wanted to write something about that lack of center booster reuse on falcon heavy feeling irrationally worse than a single F9 launch in the non-reusable profile (for a slightly higher payload iirc), but then I discovered that the non-reusable F9 profil…

When you are watching SpaceX launch videos, pay attention to the velocities at which the various engine burns begin and end. Reaching higher velocities (for comparable payloads, etc.) requires burning more fuel - so there is less fuel left in the tank to perform boost-back burns, entry burns, and landing burns. Not enough fuel for a boost-back burn (the typical situation) means "barge landing". Not enough fuel for an entry (& landing) burn means "expended first stage" - which also means "remove the weight of the useless landing legs before launch".

And if the customer is paying SpaceX to take a heavy payload to a high velocity / orbit...well, they are paying for it. Today's launch was actually the third-most-performant (and -expensive) Falcon Heavy launch mode. #2 has both side boosters landing on barges (so the boosters don't need fuel for boost-back burns). #1 expends everything - just like all of SpaceX's competition does.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#85

Post by capableweb »

elil17 wrote: post #77
OJFord wrote: post #47

Possibly the most expensive thing in the world with a publicly listed price ($97M) and sales contact (sales@spacex.com)? https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf Just find that amusingly 'accessible'.

Boeing lists aircraft prices for commercial planes: https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/#/prices (Although they note that the actual price may vary by configuration, so I guess it's not as "pure" of a list price compared to SpaceX). The highest there is $442.2 million. I wonder if there are any list prices out there higher than that?

I was gonna reply with some random island for sale, as those usually are very expensive. But they don't come near the 442.2 million USD figure, most expensive I can find is 133,467,632 EUR (https://www.jamesedition.com/real_estate/ko-kaeo-thailand/pr...).

Interesting that a whole island costs the same amount or less than just one airplane.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#86

Post by s1artibartfast »

booboofixer wrote: post #45

When does/do the research/space programs enabled by these more frequent launches start to benefit us all? It must have already contributed to something somehow. Agriculture? Defense? Oil exploration? Seems like the sort of information that's hard to find.

Not sure what kind of impact you are looking for. Nobody is going to show up at your doorstep with a check. That said, you can look around you for a lot impacts. If you really want to be specific to the frequency of launches, increased availability of starlink for indidvidual and military needs.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#87

Post by derekp7 »

somedude895 wrote: post #6
chasd00 wrote: post #2

The couple seconds of tracking camera footage of the boosters coming back down looked amazing. I wish it wasn't so foggy at the pad! When the second stage separates there's a few cables that are flying around. Does anyone know what those are used for? Electrical connections between the stages maybe?

The first time the boosters landed side by side it was perfect weather and they touched down perfectly synchronously: https://youtu.be/l5I8jaMsHYk

I recall that the synchronous landing was unintentional, they are supposed to be staged a few seconds apart for tracking purposes. Also the live feed for the first launched accidentally used the same camera feed from one booster on two windows, instead of the second booster on the second window. This was corrected in the archived video (what you see currently on YouTube for the first launch isn't exactly what was shown live). So that made it look like (from the on board camera perspective) that both landed at exactly the same time.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#88

Post by coffeeblack »

mordae wrote: post #66
dools wrote: post #30

Quoted post unavailable.

I am there with you. If only we could somehow make the public sector hire it's own personnel, pay it well and let it build the rockets instead of feeding either Boeing shareholders or the narcissistic idiot. Most people convinced of public sector inferiority only perceive the hollowed out and thoroughly corrupted husk left by the neoliberal policies. Mostly because it's been systematically destroyed their whole life…

You mean the Russian space program? They are still flying their one good ship developed 70 years ago. And the money goes to a handful of corrupt people who are good friends with “the leader”.

Or take ESA. They are currently struggling to finish development of Ariane 6. A rocket with tech already obsolete years before it is even ready to fly for the first time.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#89

Post by darknavi »

booboofixer wrote: post #45

When does/do the research/space programs enabled by these more frequent launches start to benefit us all? It must have already contributed to something somehow. Agriculture? Defense? Oil exploration? Seems like the sort of information that's hard to find.

Another benefit is the thousands of high paying, high skill jobs this market creates.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#90

Post by willis936 »

usrusr wrote: post #15

Now that Falcon 9 landings have become so routine, it feels surprisingly wasteful to see that mission profile with the center booster burning up without even trying. I wanted to write something about that lack of center booster reuse on falcon heavy feeling irrationally worse than a single F9 launch in the non-reusable profile (for a slightly higher payload iirc), but then I discovered that the non-reusable F9 profil…

It's not impossible, but it's certainly trickier. You'd have to save plenty of fuel to kick back into the atmosphere and land, re-entry is much more strenuous, and you'd have to complete a full orbit to land back where you launched. Nothing is a showstopper, but it would take development.
Post reply on HN