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

141–150 of 305 posts

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#141

Post by nuccy »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #17
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…

>"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.

Likely yes. Though there may be few ways to land the core booster:

1. Expend side-boosters to save enough fuel in the core for the entry+landing burn.

2. Land side-boosters on drone ships instead of flying back to land.

First option is likely the least favorable one, since two side-boosters combined price may be higher than the single core. Even though the core itself is likely more expensive than a single side-booster, since it caries the load of the payload plus side-loads from both side-boosters. Second option may be complicated logistically due to a lack of drone-ships. Landing three (or even two) rockets in the ocean was never done before.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#143

Post by itcrowd »

stavros wrote: post #138
WithinReason wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for some reason seeing 2 land at the same time is a 100 times cooler. Seems like coolness is non-linear.

I don't think you can extrapolate whether it's linear from two datapoints.

Three datapoints (no launch is a datapoint too)

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#144

Post by CommieBobDole »

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…

As others have noted, NASA's rockets have largely been designed, built, and operated by private contractors for its entire history. The difference was that those projects were managed by NASA via cost-plus contracts, often at mind-boggling cost.

The crowning achievement of this system was the Apollo program. Which was followed up by the Space Shuttle, a system so expensive and full of compromises that it wasn't really good at much of anything except freezing the state of US space travel at the technological level of 1976 for thirty years.

NASA doesn't design and build its own one-off plane when it needs to send some people to a conference in NYC; they buy them commercial airline tickets. Likewise, purchasing launch services from a commercial provider is far cheaper and more effective than engaging contractors to build a rocket to spec.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#145

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

capableweb wrote: post #85
elil17 wrote: post #77

Earlier 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.

Because you have to manufacture a plane, and island was manufactured by someone else who wasn't paid.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#147

Post by adverbly »

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?

Do they take visa? PayPal? Bitcoin?

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#148

Post by skykooler »

numpad0 wrote: post #11
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!

I don’t understand either, but read that supersonic objects generate shockwaves at nose, root of wings(if any), and tail. Shockwaves also may reflect off terrains. Possibly it should always be “BAbababang-baaaang…”, and the first three might be either indistinguishable or ones after the first are too weak, except it becomes noticeably apart on extremely long objects like F9? 1: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/…

In this case the two booms come from the "nose" (the engines, since at this point the booster is flying backwards) and from the grid fins at the far end. Given that the Falcon 9 boosters are about 70m tall, that would mean about a fifth of a second delay between the two booms when the booster is traveling at Mach 1.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#149

Post by s1artibartfast »

pkage wrote: post #82
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.

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.

You can absolutely blame NASA for that. They are calling the shots and making the design decisions.

Its not like NASA puts out a check and simply waits for the rocket to arrive. With the NASA process, they own the design, they are in meetings on specifications, they requests tests, ect. They micromanage and direct work down to the nuts and bolts, literally and figuratively.

By analogy, they are the head Chef in the kitchen. With SpaceX, they are the customer at the restaurant.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#150

Post by dotnet00 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #108
dotnet00 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Addit…

The $67M price is for a reusable F9, though. The price of an expendable F9 used to be $90M, but public SpaceX prices have since gone up ~10%.

Hmm yeah, digging around it seems that Wikipedia is probably incorrect with the expendable pricing. Seems like there aren't really any recent numbers available for expendable F9s as the last intentionally expended F9 was 3 years ago.
Post reply on HN