• NASA Orders Second SpaceX Crew Mission to International Space Station
    12 replies, posted
[QUOTE]NASA took another important step Friday in returning U.S. astronaut launches from U.S. soil with the order of a second post-certification mission from commercial provider SpaceX in Hawthorne, California. Commercial crew flights from Florida’s Space Coast to the International Space Station will restore America’s human spaceflight launch capability and increase the time U.S. crews can dedicate to scientific research, which is helping prepare astronauts for deep space missions, including the Journey to Mars. "The order of a second crew rotation mission from SpaceX, paired with the two ordered from Boeing will help ensure reliable access to the station on American spacecraft and rockets," said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. "These systems will ensure reliable U.S. crew rotation services to the station, and will serve as a lifeboat for the space station for up to seven months." ... "We’re making great progress with Crew Dragon, with qualification of our docking adapter and initial acceptance testing of the pressure vessel qualification unit completed" said Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX president and chief operating officer. “We appreciate the trust NASA has placed in SpaceX with the order of another crew mission and look forward to flying astronauts from American soil next year." [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-orders-second-spacex-crew-mission-to-international-space-station"]Source[/URL]
I wonder how many *000's there are on the invoice for that.
[QUOTE=shadowboy303;50797524]I wonder how many *000's there are on the invoice for that.[/QUOTE] $2.8 billion for six missions iirc. Works out at a cost of $66,666,666 per seat (if using the max of 7 people per launch). Boeing's costs for the CTS-100 are a bit higher at about $105 mill per seat. Currently pay Russia $80 mill per seat I think.
Well it's great that we're launching from our soil again, but I wish we had a reusable system in place that let us carry huge shit like the Space Shuttle could do. I wonder if SNC's Dream Chaser will turn out to be cheaper than SpaceX, part of me hopes so because spaceplanes are fucking cool as hell. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;50797609]$66,666,666[/QUOTE]Satanic pricetag confirms Elon Musk made a pact with the dark lord Lucifer, presumably he can also play blues guitar now.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50798037]Satanic pricetag confirms Elon Musk made a pact with the dark lord Lucifer, presumably he can also play blues guitar now.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.baldcelebrity.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/elon-musk-hair-transplant.jpg[/img] How do you think he got his hair back?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50798037] Satanic pricetag confirms Elon Musk made a pact with the dark lord Lucifer, presumably he can also play blues guitar now.[/QUOTE] I wholeheartedly accept him as our saviour
I have to wonder how many Tesla's worth of CO2 SpaceX pumps into the atmosphere each launch and if the total amount actually defeats any CO2 gains made.
[QUOTE=download;50800087]I have to wonder how many Tesla's worth of CO2 SpaceX pumps into the atmosphere each launch and if the total amount actually defeats any CO2 gains made.[/QUOTE] SpaceX was always going to pump that into the atmosphere, regardless of whether Tesla or even Solar City existed.
[QUOTE=download;50800087]I have to wonder how many Tesla's worth of CO2 SpaceX pumps into the atmosphere each launch and if the total amount actually defeats any CO2 gains made.[/QUOTE] They also developed the alloy that makes Ludicrous mode possible. So the real question is: "Does SpaceX's tech cause enough extra Tesla's to be bought that it offsets it's own CO2 output?". I'll just paste Hohmannfan's [URL="answer"]answer[/URL] off of the Space stack exchange community [QUOTE]The mass of the RP-1 fuel of the first stage of Falcon 9 is 119,100 kg. That is around 100,000 kg of carbon, corresponding to 360,000 kg of carbon dioxide. However, according to This pdf, only a little less than half the carbon is completely burnt in hydrocarbon based rocket propellants, the rest becoming carbon monoxide or mono atomic carbon. The figure is then closer to 170,000 kg. The RP-1 fuel of the second stage is 27,850 kg, adding another 40,000 kg of carbon dioxide. The total is then somewhere around 210,000 kg of carbon dioxide. The CO will eventually oxidise further to carbon dioxide, so the final amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere is roughly 440,000 kg. [/QUOTE] 1 US gallon of gasoline contains about 20 lbs of carbon. So if you wanted to put it into miles then a car that got 30 MPG would produce the same amount of CO2 in 1,455,051 miles. A little over a year ago Tesla said the Model S's combined did 1 billion miles. So SpaceX do three full cycles for each launch (engine static fire, full static fire, and launch). Works out at 230 launches to offset Tesla (not including CO2 for electric generation). They have done 27 Falcon 9 launches. Or if you want to just compare it to a 747 then a 747 would emit that much if it flew for 14 hours.
[QUOTE=download;50800087]I have to wonder how many Tesla's worth of CO2 SpaceX pumps into the atmosphere each launch and if the total amount actually defeats any CO2 gains made.[/QUOTE] It's nothing compared to the amount of gasoline that is burnt every day in cars around the world or even just the USA.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50798037]Well it's great that we're launching from our soil again, but I wish we had a reusable system in place that let us carry huge shit like the Space Shuttle could do. I wonder if SNC's Dream Chaser will turn out to be cheaper than SpaceX, part of me hopes so because spaceplanes are fucking cool as hell..[/QUOTE] I too wish we had a return to shuttles, though they usually require a lot of fuel if the old Space Shuttle program is any example (it's kind of the main example that comes to mind), with that big ol' orange fuel tank and the white boosters that fall off once the shuttle's high enough. I imagine Musk would probably be able to design a big ol' mass driver to do most of the boosting Earthside without needing too much rocket fuel. It'd exert a lot of G-forces in order to hit the ludicrous speeds needed to get into orbit, but it mean less mass stuck to the shuttle, and thus more of the required launch energy is converted into ludicrous speed. Plus it'd probably be cheaper than building boosters and tanks, making space flight more affordable per kilogram.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50797609]$2.8 billion for six missions iirc. Works out at a cost of $66,666,666 per seat (if using the max of 7 people per launch). Boeing's costs for the CTS-100 are a bit higher at about $105 mill per seat. Currently pay Russia $80 mill per seat I think.[/QUOTE] but the costs are expected to drop as time goes on one would hope also nasa intends to only launch 4 man crews, using the extra space for cargo. Additionally they have already stated that US astronauts will still fly on the soyuz, only that we will swap tickets between the US and russian launch systems [editline]30th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ironman17;50800937]I too wish we had a return to shuttles, though they usually require a lot of fuel if the old Space Shuttle program is any example (it's kind of the main example that comes to mind), with that big ol' orange fuel tank and the white boosters that fall off once the shuttle's high enough. I imagine Musk would probably be able to design a big ol' mass driver to do most of the boosting Earthside without needing too much rocket fuel. It'd exert a lot of G-forces in order to hit the ludicrous speeds needed to get into orbit, but it mean less mass stuck to the shuttle, and thus more of the required launch energy is converted into ludicrous speed. Plus it'd probably be cheaper than building boosters and tanks, making space flight more affordable per kilogram.[/QUOTE] the problem with mass drovers hasnt been the acceleratoon its finding enough space to build one so that it doesnt accelerate too fast to kill everything
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.