Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
So you want to Hire an Astronaut
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 янв 2024
- Let's say you need an astronaut to do something for you in low earth orbit or on the moon. How much will it cost?
@Eager_Space on Twitter
Triabolical_ on Reddit
/ eagernetwork
/ eager-space-1038430522...
Apparently ISS has to be rotated through 90° for Soyuz docking and undocking. Until they figured out how to use the gyros to do this, it was costing a million dollars worth of propellant each time. I would think that in space you could dock at any arbitrary attitude, but maybe the old guidance systems weren't so flexible. I wonder how many of these requirements and their costs are fossils that can be left out of a new design
Yes, the KURS system can only dock to prograde (forward) and retrograde (backward) ports. KURS itself fails about 10% of the time and they are legally required to use it after the intended replacement caused a Progress craft to collide with the Mir station and cause a hull breach.
When I was watching Planetes I was somewhat annoyed that a good chunk of the people on ISPV-7 appear to just be doing desk jobs, which absolutely do not have to be done in space.
Well in their, going to space is much much more cheaper than ours. Its almost like working on an offshore oilrig.
TIL that astronaut appearence office exists
How much is the ISS worth as scrap on earth? What if we bring it back in pieces and sell them as souvenirs, or museum pieces, or tech parts? Imagine climbing to the top of the Air & Space museum to look out at D.C. through the recovered ISS cupola windows!
I think souvenirs alone would pay for one dragon cargo.
Those calculations would be a great episode
The thing is that it's too heavy. There's too much material and in too high volume for any existing spacecraft to bring it back. If shuttle still operated maybe, but nyope.
Is there enough value to overcome those engineering challenges? I don't think anyone is paying to recover the toilets, but there are a number of remarkable things on the ISS that likely have significant human interest value and perhaps practical value.
@@tvre0
@@tvre0 Starship is the only vehicle that'd be capable of bringing down unpressurised cargo apart from Shuttle. Every other vehicle capable of reentry could only bring down what fits through the airlock and docking port.
SpaceX starship could forcibly disassemble it in theory and bring pieces back to earth
I've been looking at this. A video might show up in the near future...
great stuff
Great video! Rates should come down more once commercial stations are up like Orbital Reef, and can support more astronauts (split between a couple stations if NASA funds 2). But if Blue or SpaceX want to do something more long term on the Moon with astronauts, they'll have to figure out how to get crew there without SLS - possibly by transferring crew in LEO with Dragon or Starliner, but it's a good estimate of how much NASA will expect to spend.
The numbers should be even better spread out since they're hoping for 1 month stays later, and eventually even longer once they have a surface habitat, but 6/12 days is a good lower bound I think, and even that comes close to what Apollo spent during its last landing.
so apollo moon time is ~450,000 dollars a second, which is so high that if it was a tone, it would have a frequency insanely higher than human hearing ability lol.
the 63m figure results in 17,500 dollars a second, which is barely within the range of human hearing, really only young people can hear it.
Interesting stuff!
This is why I'm not sold on using In Situ Resource Utilization on early Moon/Mars missions...
Astronaut's time is valuable and spending it drilling ice and troubleshooting mining robots isn't too efficient.
Mining is a messy business and a lot of drills, cutting edges and pump liners get destroyed in the process, it needs tons of spare parts, and I don't think the equipment needed would be that much lighter than the propellant it could make. Light weight equipment is also most likely fragile equipment. Add in the astronaut time wasted on mining instead of doing geology or biology experiments etc and I think ISRU is something to leave until later missions.
of course, not that many people are suggesting it for the moon. For mars missions, of course it may be more necessary depending on which option nasa selects from the various studies they are doing. They released a chemical propulsion only study recently that requires ISRU, although that mission concept is really cool it's pretty impractical since it's chemical only. For the moon definitely the early missions will probably just be testing landing on the moon with crew, and then followed up by lunar bases and shit. It's interesting we don't have a set plan for a lunar base at this time, though, which makes me think that it would be happening until at least the mid 2030s, which does make sense now that I think about it.
Obviously the people first going to Mars will not be doing for the money.
Not only that it's a 26 month journey with isru or not, so that doesn't even matter
Methalox is 5% hydrogen by weight. Might make sense to bring hydrogen and use local CO2 from the atmosphere.
@@Iangamebr We don't have the budget to keep astronauts alive for 26 months on Mars and in deep space, so early crewed Mars missions would of the short variety...
Waiting on Mars for another optimal 26-month window just wouldn't be workable currently, it would be less than a month on the surface and every moment would count.... :)
@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV budget of who? SpaceX is not only profitable, but has basically limitless possibilities for cash injection form external investor and from the owner himself. There's no budget problems for Mars mission (there are for Mars city and Mars colonization tho).
30 day stay on the surface is the absolute worst possibility for a Mars mission, not only medically but architecturally as well, as the only way those missions will work is with isru.
Why are you using the price of the HLS for Artemis 4 on Artemis 3 mission?
Because the price for artemis 4 is the closest thing we have to the incremental cost of an HLS mission.
@@EagerSpace but you know that the price would be incremental? (well that means that would become more and more expensive, so probably you want to say that would be decremental ) Also how do you guess that development costs for SpaceX HLS is 1.8 billion dollars and for Blue Origin 1.9? This isn't even guesswork but wrong numbers, from my understanding NASA would pay 4.1 billion dollars to SpaceX and 3.4 to Blue Origin for two landing each, so the average cost is 2.05(for SpaceX) and 1.7 (for Blue Origin) per flight , and probably both companies would spend more for development and delivery, (at least 5 to 7 billion each of them probably ) , they wouldn't make any profit only from those landers, and NASA wouldn't pay separately for development , but probably they hope that more contracts would come and even private customers, otherwise they wouldn't sign those contracts.
Tens of thousands of dollars per second on the lunar surface. Having the astronauts shovel 100 dollar bills into a furnace as fast as possible would litteraly be orders of magnitude cheaper...
Well, even the high mark of $444,444/sec is about 3.56kg worth of $100 bills. But they'd need to burn that 3.56kg worth of bills every single second without being too slow. That sounds feasible, though supplying the astronauts would be hard since you'd need to ship all those bills to the lunar surface somehow, and have a machine/furnace that burns them that works on the moon.
and actually I wouldn't be surprised if this is done every day with mutilated currency.
Sigh. Imagine if we used that money, and the half century since Apollo, to build teleoperated robotic moon bases and space stations.
Early manned missions are like strapping a naked astronaut to the nose cone of the rocket, so that a person instead of a robot would be the first into space.
Scrap Artemis, and use the money for teleoperated robotic bases and stations. It's the fastest way to get a meaningful, permanent manned presence on the moon, Mars, and beyond.
earth is not supposed to be a prison