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

231–240 of 305 posts

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#231

Post by TOMDM »

Cerium wrote: post #208
TOMDM wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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-…

Wow, thanks for the effort put into answering a passing curiosity!

Of course any change to the aircraft has many other downstream implications (ability to source parts for repairs, lifetime of the part, maintenance requirements), but it's cool to think that for an "all else the same" replacement that the bar is still so high.

With the falling costs of advanced materials I do wonder if next gen aircraft will be substantially different.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#232

Post by dilap »

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.

Which is evidence of intent! -- the intent of the genome being successfully carried out. :-)

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#233

Post by virtuallynathan »

MasterYoda wrote: post #225

I read that last time falcon heavy flied was in june 2019, 3 years since. Why has it not flied to space since then? No mission or problems needed to be resolved?

There were no missions... there are now 4 or 5 more on the manifest for the next 12 months.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#234

Post by eterevsky »

MasterYoda wrote: post #225

I read that last time falcon heavy flied was in june 2019, 3 years since. Why has it not flied to space since then? No mission or problems needed to be resolved?

It's mostly due to the competition from the "normal" Falcon 9, which is quite capable and could be used for most of the existing payloads.

Besides that, currently the payload is limited by the size of the fairing. SpaceX is working on the bigger fairing, but it is not available yet.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#235

Post by dylan604 »

yellowapple wrote: post #56
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'.

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 .

Honestly, I think this would absolutely justify the Contact For Quote.

What's your payload? What size is it? Will it be a dedicated flight, or can we ride share with other customers?

So many questions just to do something silly like "launch something into outer fucking space". Also, nitpick, but is geosync orbit actually outer space?

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#236

Post by dang »

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

That post had a couple software penalties on it. I've removed them, and the post is on the front page now.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#237

Post by Denvercoder9 »

elfchief wrote: post #170
BitwiseFool wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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.

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…

> What surprised -me- was that all three boosters were brand new, rather than, say, expending a booster that's already flown half a dozen times or such.

Using new boosters was probably a contract requirement, but even if it wasn't, the Falcon Heavy center core isn't interchangeable with regular Falcon 9 cores, as it has to be strengthened to handle the additional load the side boosters put on it.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#238

Post by earth_walker »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #145
capableweb wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, they are paid. According to the contract they take various types of payment ranging from: Sunday mornings drinking bad wine, tithes all the way to lifelong celibacy and blood sacrifice.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#239

Post by djkorchi »

dylan604 wrote: post #235
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 .

Honestly, I think this would absolutely justify the Contact For Quote. What's your payload? What size is it? Will it be a dedicated flight, or can we ride share with other customers? So many questions just to do something silly like "launch something into outer fucking space". Also, nitpick, but is geosync orbit actually outer space?

Geosynchronous orbit is at 37,000km (well above ISS which iirc is at 400km), so by most definitions that is in space. Often that threshold is put as low as ~100km, when the atmosphere becomes too thin to support winged flight.

Re: Falcon Heavy Launch [video]

#240

Post by laverya »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #119
rep_movsd wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Oh please, it's perfectly feasible. The catch is you need to put more energy in than you get out, and it won't save you any money. But it's not "against the laws of physics and chemistry" (The reason it might be done despite costing more money is mostly PR.)

> (The reason it might be done despite costing more money is mostly PR.)

And practice for doing so in locations that have access to water + CO2 but not petroleum refining capabilities, such as Mars.

Post reply on HN