I'm kind of surprised a random SpaceX launch is #1 on HN, when on the same day, China just completed their modular space station: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33422779
I would agree with you if this was a normal falcon launch.
Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
121–130 of 305 posts
Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Real estate is usually all about location, land itself is plentiful and cheap around the world, it's all the stuff required to make it livable and proximity to where people want to be that's expensive.
Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
#123Possibly 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'.
It's indeed kinda refreshing to see a company actually put such a high pricetag out there... and all the more frustrating that so many companies demand contact info for a "quote" when I don't need to do that to launch something into outer fucking space .
Of course nobody actually pays that.
Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would cost 10x as much and would be 5 years behind schedule, intended to be the main vehicle for several decades (rather than soon to be replaced by an even more capable vehicle), entirely expendable, still stuck to its original parameters due to risk averseness and not at all commercially competitive. See: SLS, Space Shuttle (and to a lesser extent, Ariane 5 & 6) Falcon reusability was perfected through lots of e…
> Falcon reusability was perfected through lots of explosions in landing attempts, good luck getting NASA or ESA to risk that given how dumb the average taxpayer can be about iterative development like that. It's even worse than just risk averseness. There was a very telling comment by the CEO of ArianeGroup a few years ago[1] about why they weren't investing in reusable rockets--they were afraid that it would be too…
This is exactly the reason I don't do R&D work for the DoD anymore. Cost plus contracts incentivize the performer to have more staff than required to make more profit and to never deliver anything early or over perform in any way. I just couldn't live with myself if I min-max'd the situation.
Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
#125I'm kind of surprised a random SpaceX launch is #1 on HN, when on the same day, China just completed their modular space station: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33422779
[deleted]
Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
#126Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
#127The military propaganda at 9:30 was interesting. Showing Chinese people while saying "our adversaries". Has it ever been done so overtly before ?
It's actually at 11:50. You managed to get me to watch the entire propaganda section that started at 9:30. Are you sure you're not part of it? ;)
Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If you watched the liftoff, after the vehicle was above the fog, the plume from the core looked much weaker than from the boosters. I think they throttle that stage down so it's using less fuel, leaving fuel to be burned after the boosters are done. This will also reduce the velocity at which the boosters are staged so they have an easier time getting back. After the boosters stage the core will be throttled back up…
Correct, and that throttle-fiddling is required to get a good performance boost from using side boosters.
Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
#129Possibly 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'.
Should have Add to Cart and Checkout using Apple Pay buttons.
PayPal, so I can try and return to sender for a refund.
Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The planes are so expensive because they're specialized planes meant to be in the air nearly 24 hours a day - this justifies spending a huge amount of money on improving their fuel efficiency. A friend who works in large commercial aircraft once told me that the break-even point for money spent redesigning planes to be lighter was $1,000,000 in R&D spending per pound of weight saved. Older models which are typically used for intermittent cargo service can cost just $20m for a 747.