4 ms·

Agree. The challenges are still real in that with enough of these you'll lose people (just like you do in airplanes occasionally) but this is a pretty significa

Agree. The challenges are still real in that with enough of these you'll lose people (just like you do in airplanes occasionally) but this is a pretty significant moment. I haven't seen any mention of any "science" they are going to do which was a late add to the qualification list for astronaut, and it was really apparent the difference between having access to the NASA deep space network vs not having that access. Once Starlink is a bit more populated the access to the NASA DSN should not be a problem. The other interesting thing to note is that SpaceX needed to use pad 39A for this but they are actively building a launch facility in Boca Chica. So this will force the issue of launch air traffic control which appears fairly primitive given that the US only has 2 launch locations. And finally there is the whole, 3 days in orbit vs the 3 minutes of free fall that Virgin and Blue Origin offer. Certainly there is an interesting value proposition there. I don't know if it covers the $62M which is the 'cost to LEO' that SpaceX nominally charges. Let's say it did, then a tourist flight with a ticket price of $20M[1] each would have a nominal gross margin of nearly 30% suggests a pretty viable business model. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos#:~:text=Roscosmos%20also%20provides%20space%20tourism%20for%20fare-paying%20passengers,estimated%20fee%20of%20at%20least%20%2420%20million%20%28USD%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos#:~:text=Roscosmos%20....

zlsa 5y ago
We don't know the public price of Inspiration4, but the $62m list price of Falcon 9 does not include Crew Dragon, which is a substantially more expensive vehicle to operate.
- dweekly 5y ago
  Is this the right way to think about flight pricing given that the vehicles are not expendable?
  - gpm 5y ago
    SpaceX doesn't sell the vehicles, they sell the launch services. From an external perspective it's still a cost per launch. From an internal perspective they launch enough that it amortizes nicely as a cost per launch.
    - dweekly 5y ago
      This doesn't seem a long-term take. Historically pricing was based on vehicle cost because the vehicles were expended. With reusable vehicles the companies can make a handsome margin well above launch cost (and covering the fixed up front research) that is much lower price than vehicle cost. In the same vein that an Uber ride costs a bit less than buying a car. This isn't idle speculation; SpaceX has already made clear target $/kg pricing for Mars delivery that incorporate vigorous reuse.
- ChuckMcM 5y ago
  True, although NASA paid for Crew Dragon but not for the refurbishment to fly it again. The news channels were stating "$200M" for the whole thing and I don't find that particularly credible. I reminded one of my adult children that when I was their age I paid nearly $5,000 for a computer that had specs that were not even close to one that you can buy for $35 today. Perhaps more comparable air travel became 10x cheaper over the first 40 years. The thing that excites me most about this is that Congress isn't the one funding this work[1]. As a result SpaceX is motivated to make it more economical and more efficient. What I read about as a kid in the 70's about moon bases and orbital hotels, SpaceX is actually on a path to make real. I only hope that before I die I can ride into orbit. [1] Yes they buy launch services from SpaceX, but they have been buying such services for decades, SpaceX was the first company that decided to be commercial rocket company from the start, AFAICT.
blendergeek 5y ago
> I haven't seen any mention of any "science" they are going to do Apparently they will be researching human body fluid distribution in microgravity using ultrasound. I learned this from the Livestream.
Sanzig 5y ago
> So this will force the issue of launch air traffic control which appears fairly primitive given that the US only has 2 launch locations. It's at least three, is it not? Vandenberg, Wallops, the Cape? Edit: there's also Kodiak.
- ChuckMcM 5y ago
  True, I always seem to ignore wallops. Adding a civilian run launch facility is new though.

zlsa 5y ago

We don't know the public price of Inspiration4, but the $62m list price of Falcon 9 does not include Crew Dragon, which is a substantially more expensive vehicle to operate.

dweekly 5y ago
Is this the right way to think about flight pricing given that the vehicles are not expendable?
- gpm 5y ago
  SpaceX doesn't sell the vehicles, they sell the launch services. From an external perspective it's still a cost per launch. From an internal perspective they launch enough that it amortizes nicely as a cost per launch.
  - dweekly 5y ago
    This doesn't seem a long-term take. Historically pricing was based on vehicle cost because the vehicles were expended. With reusable vehicles the companies can make a handsome margin well above launch cost (and covering the fixed up front research) that is much lower price than vehicle cost. In the same vein that an Uber ride costs a bit less than buying a car. This isn't idle speculation; SpaceX has already made clear target $/kg pricing for Mars delivery that incorporate vigorous reuse.
ChuckMcM 5y ago
True, although NASA paid for Crew Dragon but not for the refurbishment to fly it again. The news channels were stating "$200M" for the whole thing and I don't find that particularly credible. I reminded one of my adult children that when I was their age I paid nearly $5,000 for a computer that had specs that were not even close to one that you can buy for $35 today. Perhaps more comparable air travel became 10x cheaper over the first 40 years. The thing that excites me most about this is that Congress isn't the one funding this work[1]. As a result SpaceX is motivated to make it more economical and more efficient. What I read about as a kid in the 70's about moon bases and orbital hotels, SpaceX is actually on a path to make real. I only hope that before I die I can ride into orbit. [1] Yes they buy launch services from SpaceX, but they have been buying such services for decades, SpaceX was the first company that decided to be commercial rocket company from the start, AFAICT.

blendergeek 5y ago

> I haven't seen any mention of any "science" they are going to do Apparently they will be researching human body fluid distribution in microgravity using ultrasound. I learned this from the Livestream.

Sanzig 5y ago

> So this will force the issue of launch air traffic control which appears fairly primitive given that the US only has 2 launch locations. It's at least three, is it not? Vandenberg, Wallops, the Cape? Edit: there's also Kodiak.

ChuckMcM 5y ago
True, I always seem to ignore wallops. Adding a civilian run launch facility is new though.