5 ms·

Honest question, can I hire one of these companies to send a turd to space?

by postit 6y ago

Johnny555 6y ago
I was going to ask a related question -- with prices as low as $50/kg, what's preventing people from launching a bunch of useless sh*t into LEO? Does someone need to approve? Or does that orbit decay so quickly that it's not much of an issue?
- ivalm 6y ago
  They won’t be launching individual turds, instead it would be a turd cluster with thousands of turds which will decay in orbit at the same time, raining an ultra-hot turd rain which will hopefully evaporate prior to reaching sea-level, instead making clouds slightly turdier.
- zeroxfe 6y ago
  > with prices as low as $50/kg, what's preventing people from launching a bunch of useless sh*t into LEO? Demand. The market price for sending stuff to space will be significantly higher, pricing out _almost_ all of the useless shit.
  - njarboe 6y ago
    Until Blue Origin is offering similar pricing with their New Glen rocket, I'm sure SpaceX will keep launch costs at a good premium to their costs while using this moat to make money in other areas like the SkyLink project.
  - iguy 6y ago
    At a few hundred dollars per kg, I bet you could run a business scattering people's ashes. Maybe even at a few thousand. I wonder if they would turn you down? Edit -- turns out this is a thing, already, I just didn't know. SpaceX apparently does not mind. Flights to the moon are planned.
    - xcskier56 6y ago
      Had to have a recent loss to learn this, but in the funeral home's options package was to send some of the ashes to space for $2500. The director skipped over that page quickly, but it was a picture of a Falcon 9 taking off
- marsokod 6y ago
  The government of your country will need to approve, since they are covering the damage your turd could make to some other satellite. Also, you can send the turd alone, you need to attach it to a launcher, and have a deployment mechanism. You are looking at a few thousands $ minimum regardless of the weight.
  - criddell 6y ago
    > they are covering the damage your turd could make to some other satellite Is that by treaty?
lostlogin 6y ago
Dennis Tito went as a tourist in 2001 for $20 million. If you can get a turd generator to space for that price, I’d imagine it’s considerably cheaper to get the finished product up there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Referring to human beings as "turd generators" is truly fantastic.
laurent92 6y ago
That is exactly what I thought too. As things go cheap, they become encumbered with their local version of « turd ». We are now sending dozens of thousands of microsatellites, which, in 20 years, may well be considered as Earth’s manure floating around. I wonder if the market or human incentives will increase some other variables which will make it just as inaccessible to the lowly (as it should - Even Elon Musk shouldn’t be able to send non-necessary stuff up in low orbit), such as: Increasing testing requirements to ensure it does ejects itself away from the LEO, or increasing legal authorizations required. On the other hand, assuming we could indeed send our manure for $1400/kg, would it be the most reasonable way to get rid of radioactive waste? It sounds like a Simpsons episode, but the cost seems so low that it sounds like the next step.
- smorephism 6y ago
  >Increasing testing requirements to ensure it does ejects itself away from the LEO You actually specifically want things to go to LEO before they die; when they're sufficiently low, atmospheric drag takes care of them quickly. I agree with the overall direction of your point-that we need to be careful about our space junk-though :)
- khazhoux 6y ago
  I had the exact same thought! LOL Now I wonder what exactly about the headline made all three of wonder about sending poop to space? I guess poop is a universal answer to "most ridiculous thing that weighs under a pound"?
- KingMachiavelli 6y ago
  LEO isn't a great place for radioactive waste as it would be in the path of many satellites plus their is some orbital decay meaning it would eventually fall back to earth. Higher orbits take more energy to reach and thus are more expensive. There is also politics involved, any country putting nuclear 'waste' in high orbits would be a suspect for putting nuclear weapons in space as well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 6y ago

Honest question, can I hire one of these companies to send a turd to space?

by postit 6y ago

Honest question, can I hire one of these companies to send a turd to space?

I was going to ask a related question -- with prices as low as $50/kg, what's preventing people from launching a bunch of useless sh*t into LEO? Does someone need to approve? Or does that orbit decay so quickly that it's not much of an issue?

ivalm 6y ago
They won’t be launching individual turds, instead it would be a turd cluster with thousands of turds which will decay in orbit at the same time, raining an ultra-hot turd rain which will hopefully evaporate prior to reaching sea-level, instead making clouds slightly turdier.
zeroxfe 6y ago
> with prices as low as $50/kg, what's preventing people from launching a bunch of useless sh*t into LEO? Demand. The market price for sending stuff to space will be significantly higher, pricing out _almost_ all of the useless shit.
- njarboe 6y ago
  Until Blue Origin is offering similar pricing with their New Glen rocket, I'm sure SpaceX will keep launch costs at a good premium to their costs while using this moat to make money in other areas like the SkyLink project.
- iguy 6y ago
  At a few hundred dollars per kg, I bet you could run a business scattering people's ashes. Maybe even at a few thousand. I wonder if they would turn you down? Edit -- turns out this is a thing, already, I just didn't know. SpaceX apparently does not mind. Flights to the moon are planned.
  - xcskier56 6y ago
    Had to have a recent loss to learn this, but in the funeral home's options package was to send some of the ashes to space for $2500. The director skipped over that page quickly, but it was a picture of a Falcon 9 taking off
marsokod 6y ago
The government of your country will need to approve, since they are covering the damage your turd could make to some other satellite. Also, you can send the turd alone, you need to attach it to a launcher, and have a deployment mechanism. You are looking at a few thousands $ minimum regardless of the weight.
- criddell 6y ago
  > they are covering the damage your turd could make to some other satellite Is that by treaty?

lostlogin 6y ago

Dennis Tito went as a tourist in 2001 for $20 million. If you can get a turd generator to space for that price, I’d imagine it’s considerably cheaper to get the finished product up there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism

cbozeman 6y ago
Referring to human beings as "turd generators" is truly fantastic.

laurent92 6y ago

That is exactly what I thought too. As things go cheap, they become encumbered with their local version of « turd ». We are now sending dozens of thousands of microsatellites, which, in 20 years, may well be considered as Earth’s manure floating around. I wonder if the market or human incentives will increase some other variables which will make it just as inaccessible to the lowly (as it should - Even Elon Musk shouldn’t be able to send non-necessary stuff up in low orbit), such as: Increasing testing requirements to ensure it does ejects itself away from the LEO, or increasing legal authorizations required. On the other hand, assuming we could indeed send our manure for $1400/kg, would it be the most reasonable way to get rid of radioactive waste? It sounds like a Simpsons episode, but the cost seems so low that it sounds like the next step.

smorephism 6y ago
>Increasing testing requirements to ensure it does ejects itself away from the LEO You actually specifically want things to go to LEO before they die; when they're sufficiently low, atmospheric drag takes care of them quickly. I agree with the overall direction of your point-that we need to be careful about our space junk-though :)
khazhoux 6y ago
I had the exact same thought! LOL Now I wonder what exactly about the headline made all three of wonder about sending poop to space? I guess poop is a universal answer to "most ridiculous thing that weighs under a pound"?
KingMachiavelli 6y ago
LEO isn't a great place for radioactive waste as it would be in the path of many satellites plus their is some orbital decay meaning it would eventually fall back to earth. Higher orbits take more energy to reach and thus are more expensive. There is also politics involved, any country putting nuclear 'waste' in high orbits would be a suspect for putting nuclear weapons in space as well.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
6y ago