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

111–120 of 305 posts

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#111

Post by p1esk »

rexreed wrote: post #97
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'.

There's plenty of listed real estate that goes into the tens to hundreds of millions (and billions) with a contact and pricing. here's one right now: https://www.commercialcafe.com/commercial-property/us/ny/new... Listed price, and even a phone number to call. Go ahead, make an offer ;)

It shows $99,000,000. Where do you see billions?

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#112

Post by MichaelCollins »

malfist wrote: post #72
thallium205 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Depends on what you consider it's mission objective. If you consider it a jobs program that we happen to get a rocket out of, it's an astounding success. If you consider it a rocket program it's an abject failure. To give you an example of why it's a jobs program and not a rocket program. Congress forced NASA to build a multimillion dollar testing facility they never intended to use for the SLS nor for any other rock…

Even judged that way, SLS is substandard. As a pointless jobs program, the TSA definitely has SLS beat.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#113

Post by rippercushions »

rep_movsd wrote: post #102
fsiefken wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Falcon9 launched Starlink, without which the course of the Ukraine war might have been significantly different. There's also the plan to pull CO2 from the atmosphere to create rocket fuel. https://labusinessjournal.com/manufacturing/aerospace/big-pl... There's the Dragon 2, the only US human space vehicle in operation, as the Space Shuttle has been retired in 2011 due to expenses and safety issues. https://en.wikiped…

Quoted post unavailable.

It's quite feasible on Mars, where the concentration of CO2 is much higher (albeit the air is also much thinner), and a cornerstone of SpaceX's plan to produce methane fuel in situ.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#115

Post by oorza »

chroma wrote: post #104
oconnor663 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's probably more cost-effective to keep the craft and scrap it. The structure itself is a significant amount of steel, and the engines contain expensive superalloys.

If a spacefaring vessel lasts long enough that it needs to be decomissioned due to wear and tear, that mf'er belongs ONLY in a museum. I hope to live to the day where that isn't universally true, but it is not today.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#116

Post by tjpnz »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #95

The military propaganda at 9:30 was interesting. Showing Chinese people while saying "our adversaries". Has it ever been done so overtly before ?

Given that the Chinese military will spend weeks pouring over the footage it would be rude not to say hello.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#117

Post by twh270 »

post_break wrote: post #14

Seeing those boosters land will never get old. I drive by one on my way to work every day and it's just amazing how large they are.

I haven't seen one up-close (yet!) but I agree. This was pure science fiction when I grew up, watching a booster landing is a thrill every time.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#119

Post by MichaelCollins »

rep_movsd wrote: post #102
fsiefken wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Falcon9 launched Starlink, without which the course of the Ukraine war might have been significantly different. There's also the plan to pull CO2 from the atmosphere to create rocket fuel. https://labusinessjournal.com/manufacturing/aerospace/big-pl... There's the Dragon 2, the only US human space vehicle in operation, as the Space Shuttle has been retired in 2011 due to expenses and safety issues. https://en.wikiped…

Quoted post unavailable.

Oh please, it's perfectly feasible. The catch is you need to put more energy in than you get out, and it won't save you any money. But it's not "against the laws of physics and chemistry"

(The reason it might be done despite costing more money is mostly PR.)

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#120

Post by PM_me_your_math »

nosequel wrote: post #5
Klathmon wrote: post #3

One really cool thing I heard in this video, is the double sonic booms from each booster. There are reasons behind it that I don't really understand, but each booster makes 2 distinct sonic booms as it comes in to land. With Falcon Heavy launches, it makes a total of 4 of them!

As a kid I used to watch the Space Shuttle come in for landing, and it always had a distinct triple-boom on entry. Someone said it was the body and wing tips each making their own boom, but I never really confirmed it.

IIRC it was shocks at nose, wing tips and tail.
Post reply on HN