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

211–220 of 305 posts

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#211

Post by nwah1 »

CrazyStat wrote: post #103
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.

> SLS vs Falcon Heavy is simply a battle between two different government contractors. One is not more government-based than the other. This is completely false. SLS was established by Congress with various mandates on the technology and process to design and build it. Falcon Heavy was not. Many of the issues with SLS can be traced to Congress's requirements that they put on the project, like forcing it to reuse 50-y…

If congress asked Intel to build a computer meeting specifications from 50 years ago, regardless of how stupid that request is, and they somehow failed to do that in a resonable amount of time or budget... it would be an astounding display of incompetence. And failing to even try to create a new showcase technology of something better is just additional incompetence.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#212

Post by sneak »

nozzlegear wrote: post #151
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 ?

Just a minor nitpick but I think the part you're referring to (actually at 11:50 in the video) is showing Chinese soldiers specifically, not just random Chinese civilians. I'd bet that there are few people in either the US or Chinese military who would disagree that the other side is an adversary right now, even if they're not at war.

I don’t think the people who defend the territory where ~90% of every Mac, iPhone, iPad, and many other products are created is an “adversary”, any more than the police in Cupertino are.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#214

Post by sebzim4500 »

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.

For Falcon Heavy you are probably right (since there aren't many clients and they all have specific requests) but it is my understanding that the publically listed reusable F9 price is the one being paid by most customers.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#215

Post by bombcar »

bell-cot wrote: post #84
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…

> 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".

Landing gear? Where we're going we won't need landing gear!

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#216

Post by smeeth »

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

Modular space stations are significantly easier to achieve than landing two rocket boosters at the same time. Humanity has been doing modular space stations since the 80s (Mir).

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#217

Post by pavon »

dotnet00 wrote: post #44
dools wrote: post #30

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

And to add to this, SpaceX isn't enriching Musk, quite the opposite. Half of his PayPal wealth was invested into SpaceX to develop Falcon 1 (the other half was invested in Tesla). Then SpaceX was awarded a NASA contract to develop Falcon 9 and Dragon. All the profit they made from commercial use of Falcon 9 was reinvested into developing Falcon Heavy, and all the profit SpaceX has made since has been reinvested into Starlink and Starship. Musk hasn't gotten any return on his investment into SpaceX, and rather continues to invest more money (earned from Tesla) into SpaceX to speed Starship development.

I'm not saying this to play up Musk as some philanthropist, but to clarify that it is the government that has benefited from the investment that Musk and other investors have put into SpaceX, rather than the government enriching these investors. Every other rocket made prior to SpaceX, the full development and operation was funded by the government, and the contractors profited immensely, so it is weird to call out SpaceX/Musk for this when they are one of the few exceptions to that rule (along with RocketLab).

But also to point out that SpaceX is a passion project and would likely never have accomplished the things it did if it was run primarily as a profit-making endeavor, or as a utilitarian government project.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#218

Post by bombcar »

xeromal wrote: post #187
elfchief wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At one point (I don't know if it's still the case) for certain launches the US government laid claim to "100% of the thrust available from a booster" or somesuch, basically not leaving anything left over for landings. I'm not sure it was ever documented why they had this requirement. What surprised -me- was that all three boosters were brand new, rather than, say, expending a booster that's already flown half a dozen…

Just guessing but maybe 100% of thrust available = statistically safer or something like that?

Or gives them more lee-way for maneuvering or - makes it a tiny bit harder for spies to figure out what orbit they're going to place the satellite before the launch.

Or because someone asked "how high" and got back "as high as you can go".

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#219

Post by gpm »

mr_sturd wrote: post #199
pencilguin wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course nobody actually pays that.

Makes you wonder if this customer actually did though. If they were forced to dispose of the central booster due to the needs of the payload, that central booster must be costed in.

They paid more, something like $150M

I think "no one pays that" has more to do with "every mission is actually a negotiated contract" than "the price is inflated".

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/10/falcon-heavy-ussf-44...

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#220

Post by chipsa »

boringg wrote: post #209

I enjoyed seeing it 15k km per hour but i was trying to figure how it accurately measures velocity or is it not that precise?

Range control uses radars to determine the location and speed of it. Also, pretty sure it's got non-COCOM limited GPS receivers to be able to do the landing, which also would give you velocity.
Post reply on HN