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

201–210 of 305 posts

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#201

Post by cryptoz »

samizdis wrote: post #93
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.

When I was a kid, I used to watch Thunderbirds [1], which I loved dearly - except that I always thought it fanciful to show Thunderbirds 1 and 3 landing upright back at the Tracy Island base. Many, many years later, of course, my scepticism was erased by watching exactly that happen in real life, courtesy of SpaceX's Falcon 9. Inspirational and astonishing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_(TV_series)

SpaceX Crew-1 and Thunderbirds mashup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loPxTnJc9Zk

I cannot wait for the Starship version...

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#202

Post by nwah1 »

nrb wrote: post #92
nwah1 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point you are trying to make is that that government is unlikely to succeed in terms of timeframe or budget, and that is probably true. Yet, your argument doesn't support that point. SLS is also a project that is built by private corporations. SLS vs Falcon Heavy is simply a battle between two different government contractors. One is not more government-based than the other.

Research how and where SLS must be designed, manufactured, integrated, and tested. Then research who designated that process and how. Calling Falcon Heavy and SLS equivalently government-led is laughable. The amount of by-design government red tape and congressional district handouts is astounding.

SLS is a joint project between many large bureaucratic private organizations, and thus design-by-committee is more of a function of the way that those institutions operate, and their need to coordinate with one another.

Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. That these institutions were unable to deliver within reasonable time and budget limits is a result of their own dysfunction.

Since rocket production is extremely capital-intensive, the market is very thin. The number of players capable of even giving it a go is low. And thus, it has all the hallmarks of a typical market failure.

Private companies the entire time could've realized the potential profits and competently worked to achieve them, even outside of begging for government contracts. That they didn't do this for many decades is their own fault.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#203

Post by obiefernandez »

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 ;)

Only a sucker would buy this property. It'll be underwater within a decade or two...

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#205

Post by MichaelCollins »

chroma wrote: post #175
oorza wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure the first couple will be preserved, but they'll quickly become as common as derelict airplanes or ships. Has SpaceX kept any of their Falcon 9 boosters besides the first one that landed? I think the old ones are disassembled for analysis, then scrapped.

> I'm sure the first couple will be preserved, but they'll quickly become as common as derelict airplanes

I've always been a fan of putting such things on pedestals outside of public buildings, VFWs, etc. A bit less feasible with full rockets, but the engines at least would be fairly easy to put in parks so kids can climb on them.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#206

Post by boringg »

systemvoltage wrote: post #183
rippercushions wrote: post #118

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

It is basically a rivalry now so not surprised. Same thing happened with China's mars rover. In some ways, I am down with this type of rivalry than wars. I want an intense space race between China and US.

I mean its not a rivalry at this point. China is just playing catch up.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#207

Post by hllooo »

kortilla wrote: post #186
brookst wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our brains are wired to see twins (and symmetry) as evidence of intent as opposed to randomness. Lots of examples in art, and of course both the WTC twin towers and the 9/11 attacks. There’s more power seeing two of something.

I see one frog, it’s random. I see two frogs..??? The WTC twin towers were replaced by a single big tower. If someone blew that up we sure as fuck would get the clear message on that one. What a silly statement.

I mean people didn't know it wasn't an accident until another plane hit the second tower...

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#208

Post by Cerium »

TOMDM wrote: post #162
elil17 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

$1,000,000 per lb for R&D is steep, but at this stage in the game makes sense. I wonder what the unit price for a break-even 1lb saving would be. Is it worth spending $20,000 to shave off a pound with expensive materials?

About $2600 per pound.

Based on this forum thread [1] the marginal cost per pound to fuel efficienciy is about "0.0155 gallons per pound per 1,000 statute miles". Over a 737's life it may fly about 50 million miles [2]. Combining facts one and two results in a fuel consumption per marginal pound of 775 gallons. Current jet fuel prices are about $3.40 per gal [3].

[1] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/712294-anyone-kno...

[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2012/11/...

[3] https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#210

Post by kwertyoowiyop »

pencilguin wrote: post #123
yellowapple wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gotta ask for the AAA discount.
Post reply on HN