4 ms·
Genuine question: What does not using oil for mass transit have to do with reducing cost to orbit?
by TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Genuine question: What does not using oil for mass transit have to do with reducing cost to orbit?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ianai 9y agoI didn’t say mass transit.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoYou wrote: > once oil is disrupted as an energy source for the masses I'm confused, what else do the masses use oil for? If I'm not mistaken the production of fuel for transportation is the lions share of oil use. But regardless, how does that help us get things to orbit?
- wpietri 9y agoThe phrase "mass transit" is generally used to mean public transit: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mass_transit https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mass_transit
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoOkay, sure. At risk or repeating myself, what does any of this have to do with getting to orbit?
- Footkerchief 9y agoMass transit is public transportation, not all transportation. Many rockets use fuels derived from oil and other fossil fuels, e.g. kerosene and methane.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoI meant mass transportation in the general sense, cars, busses, trains, planes. I just kind of typed the wrong thing. This article[1] claims Falcon 9 launch list price is $61.2 million and "Musk said the fuel used on a Falcon 9 is between $200,000 and $300,000." So the fuel cost is 0.5% of the launch price. It could be argued that if we stop using oil for transportation the price of oil derived kerosene and methane could go up as production scales down and fewer refineries sell in to the market. 1. http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/ http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-...