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

221–230 of 305 posts

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#221

Post by bombcar »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #205
chroma wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You'd love Gasworks Park in Seattle: https://www.seattle.gov/parks/find/parks/gas-works-park

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#222

Post by chipsa »

zasdffaa wrote: post #213

Did I miss something or did this rocket have no stack - it was a single stage (with boosters, but aside those still one undivided rocket)? Can anyone comment on that please.

It's side boosters, center booster, and second stage. But the second stage is the same diameter as the boosters, so you can't easily see the difference if you don't know what to look for.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#223

Post by bombcar »

TOMDM wrote: post #166
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.

Makes sense for NASA to donate, but say SpaceX could recover $10m in materials from an expended Starship, that's a steep ask. When the time comes, I hope they choose to donate it to a museum, or if not, the funds are raised to buy it off them.

I mean it's a $10m ask/potential write-off, so there is that. The "first one" will be even more rare/valuable and NASA might make a deal for it.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#224

Post by geocrasher »

foobarian wrote: post #49
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.

Brings a tear to my eye every time I see them land ever so smoothly.

You're not alone. I watched it live before work this morning, and I simultaneously got the chills and started tearing up. It hits all of my aerospace nerd, rocket geek, engineering-minded nerves at the same time, and it's quite an experience.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#226

Post by usrusr »

dotnet00 wrote: post #33
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…

I think that due to how much F9 has managed to eat into FH's market, FH flights we see are more likely to only happen when the payload is heavy enough to need the center core to be expended. For example, for a GTO insertion, an expended F9 can do 8.3t while a completely reusable FH can do 8t, but the expended F9 is going to be cheaper overall. Thus FH is only worth using when the payload is heavy enough to require at…

When I skipped through the video to the point where they explain that this was a mission without center reuse I was surprised to hear that they actually do seem to offer a three booster reuse profile. Perhaps my surprise was from confusing "no second stage reuse" with "no center booster reuse"?

But if it's a wash (as you say) between non-reusable F9 and 3x reusable FH I'd probably go for a single EOL core anyways, for the lower total count of failure modes alone. Even more so if launches in that weight class are sufficiently rare to be served from "organic" churn of reusable F9 launches (they clearly are).

In any case, my mention of surprise in the top level comment was not meant as "how wasteful, losers, boooh!", but as an statement of amazement, "have we/they really come that far that a part of me is unimpressed by two of three?", and on a meta level surprise about how a non-reuseable F9 feels less disappointing to me: a non-reuse F9 is a valid compromise to eke out the last bit of payload, whereas the FH raises an expectation of being better in every way that's then disappointed by "a third of a step back" in terms of reuse compared to what we now consider a regular F9 launch. We consider the reusable F9 regular, crazy!

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#227

Post by hydrogen7800 »

binaryblitz wrote: post #190
hydrogen7800 wrote: post #176

I'm always a bit bothered by the cheering during a SpaceX launch. Maybe I'm just historically attached to the scenes of stoic engineers at JSC mission control, but space fight is always hard and risky, and cheering at every event shows a lack of humility, IMO. Cheer when the mission is successful. As an extreme case, imagine cheering as Challenger cleared the launch tower.

As far as I'm aware, the cheering is outside of the main control room (which is where the broadcasters are). Also: there are no people on board. If it blows up, it's "only" money that's lost.

Yes, big distinction between manned vs unmanned. I don't remember if the situation was the same for the first crew dragon launch. It's just something that stuck with me since watching one of the first broadcasts of high profile falcon launch.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#228

Post by dotnet00 »

nwah1 wrote: post #74
Vermeulen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to imagine - just look up the SLS program and it's budget + timeframe

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.

You're confidently incorrect to be claiming that one is not more government-based than the other.

SLS follows the old model of NASA contracting where NASA sets all the design requirements and the contractor follows them (ie the choice of solid boosters, the use of Shuttle technology etc was all set by NASA and the final vehicle is owned and operated by NASA). The contractor is effectively given a blueprint and asked to build it, with all construction costs covered.

This is in strong contrast to F9 and FH which follow the new model where the government only sets the rough requirements (payload capacity, target orbits, vibration tolerances etc) but doesn't care about the specific details (beyond making sure that they make technical sense). Payments are made for reaching specific milestones, how that relates to internal costs is entirely on the contractor and the final vehicle is still owned and operated by the contractor, with NASA acting as just another client. It's a much more hands off approach compared to SLS.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#229

Post by dylan604 »

lxe wrote: post #191
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.

It almost looks like CGI, probably because we've seen this happen countless times in various Sci Fi shows and movies.

Well, Apollo missions used miniatures on a sound stage instead of CGI. /s

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#230

Post by falcor84 »

treis wrote: post #195
nickserv wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Symmetry is part of beauty across time and culture. For example people with more facial symmetry are considered better looking.

Yes, but it's not evidence of intent. It's lack of deformity and disease.

The word for "lack of deformity" is "form" which we generally use to refer to something which was generated based on a rule, as opposed to complete randomness.
Post reply on HN