
SpaceX will now let you book a rocket launch online starting at $1M - ajaviaad
https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/05/spacex-will-now-let-you-book-a-rocket-launch-online-starting-at-1-million/
======
no1youknowz
I know at the moment there is some controversy with the spacex satellites
blocking astronomy viewing and I really hope there is a fix soon.

But I would really like to see the day when governments aren't the only ones
who build telescopes like the Hubble or James webb.

That instead amateur enthusiasts crowdfund and build custom telescopes,
launched on sub $250k rocket launches which then can allocate hours of control
at a time at cost or at least give the telemetry for free. Imagine 25, 50, or
100 telescopes in space all looking out and mapping the night sky at ever
increasing rates.

Couple this with advanced ML techniques for anyone to go over the data. I'm
sure a golden age for star gazing would just be beginning.

According to [0], we have only discovered a small glass in comparison to a sea
on earth.

[0]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwtC_4t2g5M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwtC_4t2g5M)

p.s If you haven't see The Age of A.I. on youtube, it's an amazing documentary
consisting of 8 episodes.

~~~
themagician
Why?

This is one thing that "governments" are really, really good at. NASA
routinely launches things into space designed to last a few weeks that end up
lasting for a decade or more because they are so amazingly overengineered.
They don't do it for profit. They do it for science.

Private business is almost always about short term gain (because it kind of
has to be). I don't think I want a bunch of crowdfunded garbage just adding
more crap to the skies hoping to turn a quick buck. We have enough crowdfunded
garbage here on earth. The only crowdfunded thing I'd support at this point is
filling a rocket with a bunch of e-scooters and shooting it into the sun.

I know it's super trendy now more than ever to hate on the "government" but
space exploration is one that that all governments—the US in particular—seem
to do really, really well.

~~~
BurningFrog
Private business has much longer term perspective than government.

Typically, governments are run to make things look good by the next election.
That's a planning horizon of 2 years on average, assuming 4 year terms.

Meanwhile, forestry companies routinely plant trees that won't be harvested
for 50 years.

~~~
gamblor956
Government routinely plans projects on horizons spread over decades. See for
example, the MTA, the Big Dig, LA's Metro system, pretty much everything
handled by NASA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the NPS, the Dept of
Transportation, DARPA, etc.

Private business has trouble seeing beyond this quarter's financials...
especially when said business is publicly traded.

 _Meanwhile, forestry companies routinely plant trees that won 't be harvested
for 50 years_

Depends very heavily on the type of tree. Red Oak is on a 50-year timeline,
but Douglas fir is usually on a 5-10 year timeline (depending on whether it's
grown for Christmas trees or for lumber), most big box store lumber is on the
10-20 year timeline, and bamboo is frequently harvested the same year it's
planted (but is also technically not a tree...). This is a matter of
necessity, not far-term vision. If they could get away with not thinking long-
term they would, but the modern lumber industry has learned from the excesses
of the colonial and pre-Industrial lumber industry.

~~~
BurningFrog
> _Private business has trouble seeing beyond this quarter 's financials...
> especially when said business is publicly traded._

I know that's the snarky cliche, but where is the empirical evidence?

I see major public corporations staying competitive for decade after decade.

It's hard to understand how organizations that bet everything on the 2020 Q1
results while ignoring 2020 Q2 accomplish that.

> _This is a matter of necessity, not far-term vision._

I'd say the far-term vision is a necessity to flourish far-term. therefore
surviving companies have it.

~~~
AndrewBissell
> I see major public corporations staying competitive for decade after decade.

Not sure what "competitive" means in this context, but there is no shortage of
examples of large companies which have been run into the ground for the sake
of short term payouts for executives and insider stakeholders: Lehman
Brothers, AIG, PG&E, Boeing, likely IBM, any number of the drained husks left
in the wake of private equity like Toys R Us and Payless, etc.

Corporations can be run well or badly, and governments can be run well or
badly. It's just a question of the competence and moral character (or lack
thereof) of decision-makers.

~~~
BurningFrog
By competitive I just mean that they keep performing well decade after decade.
Many Fortune 500 companies have been on that list for decades.

> _Lehman Brothers, AIG, PG &E, Boeing, likely IBM, any number of the drained
> husks left in the wake of private equity like Toys R Us and Payless, etc._

I doubt all of those were victims of shortsightedness. Sometimes, it's time
for institutions to die and leave room for new things.

But of course you're right that this happens. I wasn't claiming that all
private companies are run perfectly with epic time horizons and no executive
ego involved etc. I was just arguing against the idea that they never think
beyond the next quarterly result report.

> _Corporations can be run well or badly, and governments can be run well or
> badly._

Sure!

> _It 's just a question of the competence and moral character (or lack
> thereof) of decision-makers._

I'd focus a lot more on what incentives the decision-makers are under. And I
claim the politician who will be fired in 2 years unless he makes himself look
awesome on Election Day has more short term focused incentives that a company
CEO.

~~~
avmich
> And I claim the politician who will be fired in 2 years unless he makes
> himself look awesome on Election Day has more short term focused incentives
> that a company CEO.

Here's where the disagreement starts. We have insufficiently different facts
on the table, but those unspoken are on the different sides. So you decide
that governments are under more short-term pressure to demonstrate results,
while I think modern corporations have shorter periods when shareholders can
allow CEOs not to bring them tangible results. And for corporations existing
for decades I have examples of governments existing at least as long.

I guess we have to keep disagreeing.

~~~
BurningFrog
Agreed. I don't mind disagreement at all.

------
ethagknight
Tangential, but I've wondered about the opportunity for a company like Fedex
to send freight on rockets between Fedex's major hubs, like Memphis to
Guangzhou, so that you could get literal 'next day' service to the other side
of the globe. Obviously very expensive, but also, at just $2,200/lb, there
might be plenty of things that would be viable, like rushing an organ
transplant or delivering an iPhone prototype, cutting out the 14-16 hour
flight from Memphis to Guangzhou. Surely there are some scenarios where it
starts to make sense, even at $10,000/lb

~~~
dannyw
There’s usually a fixed overhead cost to offering such a service, especially
across large orgs. Think about training customer support staff to know about
it, developing procedures on how to handle it, etc.

So if it’s used 2 or 3 time’s a year, you might be looking at $2,200/lb plus
$1 million divided by 2 or 3.

~~~
darkmighty
Plus the last mile problem. If the journey to/from spaceports each side takes
a few days, the hours of savings w.r.t. air travel won't matter.

------
teruakohatu
I don't understand the economics of space launches but it has reported that
Rocket Lab charges about $5.7 mil to launch a 150-225kg payload. SpaceX seems
to be miles cheaper at $1 mil for a 200kg payload. How can rocket lab compete?
More flexibility?

~~~
torpfactory
If you get on a SpaceX ride share, you don't get to choose your own orbit.
You'll have to make-do with an orbit that may (or may not) be close to your
desired one. Unless you want your satellite to have propulsion, which might
eat up any cost advantage. With Rocket Lab, you'll get the orbit you want
typically, since you'll probably be the only vehicle on board.

I suppose if SpaceX had an enormous manifest of small sats they could bin them
into similar orbits, but that would really depend on just how successful they
are.

~~~
SirLotsaLocks
What are the major differences between the different orbits from the
perspective of the passengers?

~~~
torpfactory
Well it really depends on what you want to do with your satellite. Are you
trying to view earth? If so, then inclination and altitude matter, as they
will determine what parts of earth’s surface you can see at all. Do you want
to take pictures? Then you probably want something sun synchronous so the
lighting is reliable. Need to do communication at high latitudes? You’ll want
something like a polar orbit. At lower altitudes your orbit will decay faster
due to aerodynamic drag.

It’s totally like riding the bus: you wouldn’t typically get off at just any
stop and call it good.

Here’s a good YouTube on different types of orbits. Not sure if it covers
everything but certainly entertaining:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PZAkiXNJIqc](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PZAkiXNJIqc)

------
swalsh
How does a million dollar credit card transaction work? Is it still the $.27 +
3% deal? (or whatever it typically is now)

~~~
savrajsingh
Unlikely the remainder is on a credit card. Probably a wire transfer.

------
simonswords82
There's a ride share user guide that's got some incredibly interesting
information: [https://storage.googleapis.com/rideshare-
static/Rideshare_Pa...](https://storage.googleapis.com/rideshare-
static/Rideshare_Payload_Users_Guide.pdf)

------
jedberg
I couldn’t find the exact dimension limits, but it sounds like you could
launch a bunch urns for $1M.

Seems like a business opportunity for a funeral home.

~~~
jlmorton
Already exists. SpaceX launched ~150 sets of cremated remains back in July,
organized by a company called Celestis [1].

[https://www.celestis.com/](https://www.celestis.com/)

~~~
jborichevskiy
Wow, TIL thanks.

> The Voyager service is a true mission of exploration, sending the Celestis
> spacecraft carrying cremated remains or DNA on a permanent celestial
> journey, well beyond the Moon.

> Starting at $12,500

(This is the most expensive option)

------
yingw787
This is soooo cool! I’m excited for them to keep lowering the cost of access
to space. Maybe one day it will be a few thousand dollars, and I can buy a
satellite to hack around with.

~~~
anfractuosity
This sounded interesting, on the topic of having your own little satellite
(for a short time anyway, by the sounds of it) -
[https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/04/kicksat-2-project-
launches...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/04/kicksat-2-project-
launches-105-cracker-sized-satellites/)

------
lmilcin
Now, this is direct path to Kessler Syndrome. $1M is in a range I can imagine
many people and companies will want to drop something just for bragging rights
and it is very likely to go down in price in future.

I think it should be recognized that safe space around Earth is a limited
resource as every item added increases the chance of everything being
effectively wiped in a short time.

------
zomg
From an accounting perspective, this is a strategic way to pump up your
balance sheet.

And I agree with @paxys, I'd love to get those credit card points too! :)

~~~
AndrewBissell
How does this pump up the balance sheet? SpaceX takes in $1 million in a
rideshare deposit, and now has a corresponding and equal liability to provide
the service (hopefully for $1mm or less in costs) at a future point in time.

It helps the cash balance, sure.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Falcon fleet sitting in the Cape warehouse is paid for. It's just opex for
each launch at this point. They're optimizing for revenue traditionally
ignored by launch service providers.

~~~
Diederich
> It's just opex for each launch at this point.

Almost...the 2nd stage is one use only. I saw a post on Reddit that estimated
that each 2nd stage costs SpaceX about $10M...which is peanuts.

~~~
SEJeff
There was an internal SpaceX presentation video which was leaked to r/SpaceX
that stated their launch cost to be $30 million per launch. The video was
taken down later that day, but that's the currently best known number for how
much a fully loaded reusable Falcon 9 launch costs.

~~~
Diederich
Thanks for the reference, I missed that.

I know one way or another that SpaceX's internal launch costs are a lot lower
than the others. Good stuff.

------
transitivebs
Self-serve rocket launches -- AMAZING

------
oyebenny
Waiting for rappers to put their money where their mouth is and brag about
doing this.

------
Geee
Anyone has an idea for a satellite? What kind of satellite would be useful?

I hope it becomes possible to connect any satellite directly to Starlink, so
that it's easy to control / connect to them over the Internet.

~~~
csours
I want one that goes PING!

~~~
SEJeff
I want one that goes PONG!

------
sorenn111
One thing I love about Spacex is just how more accessible they make space
feel. Between the livestreams of launches, the car in space, this, etc.

Good on Spacex

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
Their HD live streams have been amazing. If we had any Saturn V rockets still
around, I would pay to see a launch with all their cameras installed.

~~~
Robotbeat
You're in luck. SLS is the rocket being built by NASA (and contractors) and is
the same class as Saturn V and will launch in a year or two. (SpaceX's
Starship likely to do the same.)

~~~
geerlingguy
Hopefully they will build in the same level of remote cameras as SpaceX does.
It's way more fascinating to watch a live view from the rocket, 2nd stage,
etc. on SpaceX's streams than to see a 90s-era-quality 3D rendering of a 2nd
stage in orbit with a few data points in Courier on the screen.

~~~
Robotbeat
The last decade of Shuttle launches had fantastic remote camera and ground
tracking coverage (including 4K and views from the SRBs and external tank
after separation), even better than SpaceX's. In part they did this because
they were watching for potential foam strikes, etc, but it makes for a
fantastic view.

SLS is likely to have an even greater level of video documentation since
technology will have progressed another decade and it will be such a high
profile event (versus the regular Shuttle launches). I suspect many of these
views will be live, too.

------
AndrewKemendo
I really want SpaceX to get into the end of life care market.

I would much rather get on a one way rocket with big windows (that runs out of
air after a few hours probably) than go to Hospice and die slowly over a few
months or a year.

~~~
dahfizz
A rocket launch is a very violent thing to experience. If you're months away
from being dead, there's a good chance the G forces during launch would be too
much for your body to deal with.

~~~
Diggsey
There's a lot of vibration, but the G forces are not that high, and they are
particularly low during launch. The highest G force is right before the main
engines cut off, once the rocket is already in space, at which point you
presumably don't care anymore...

For falcon 9 you don't even reach 2G until more than 60 seconds into the
flight when the engines throttle back up after passing through max Q.

Acceleration graph: [https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-
qimg-23ba4a3fe7f535430bed80...](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-
qimg-23ba4a3fe7f535430bed80f039d3e720) (from [https://www.quora.com/What-is-
the-acceleration-of-a-Falcon-9](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-
acceleration-of-a-Falcon-9))

~~~
livingmargot
The passenger would feel one extra 'g' from gravity itself. Meaning it would
reach a total of 4.5G, which is substantial.

~~~
dandelany
Not without the ground pushing back against them, they wouldn't. Turn off the
engines and the passengers feel weightless (because both vehicle and pax are
accelerating earthward at 1G); therefore turn them back on @3.5G and they'll
feel 3.5G, no?

~~~
strainer
That acceleration graph starts at 1G and goes up to 4.5 Freefall is 0G. The G
force we feel is the difference between gravitational acceleration and our
motion towards the center of gravity, so most of our lives we experience 1G.
The complication is that gravitational acceleration doesn't feel like
acceleration so remaining stationary in gravity does.

------
jaimex2
Well then, that's my funeral expenses sorted.

------
new_realist
Orbital launch customers don’t have trouble buying launches because they can’t
find a phone. Ordering online smacks of desperation.

------
paxys
Just think of the credit card points on that one.

~~~
CarVac
It'll use up all your miles though.

------
gibolt
Do they charge more for a window seat? I'd imagine their extra luggage fee is
out of this world.

~~~
stetrain
Riding on the back of a commsat probably isn't very luxurious. You'll have a
hell of a view though between the cargo fairing opening up and the point where
you run out of oxygen.

~~~
wolf550e
The payload fairing has holes, it's not hermetically sealed. The air escapes
as the rocket ascends. It's a windshield, not a pressure vessel. Falcon 9
reaches above breathable air seconds after launch.

~~~
jandrese
200kg capacity so you could build a tiny space capsule with enough air to keep
you alive for a few hours. Getting back to Earth alive is an exercise left up
to the reader.

You'll also have to fit yourself (and your spacecraft) into a 24"x24"x24"
space so I suggest consulting with some contortionists and losing some weight.
Do you really need legs?

~~~
dmurray
So how long before the first space stowaway? Maybe when launches become 100x
or 1000x more common, one firm will have lax enough security that some
teenager can sneak aboard in a homemade spaceship or spacesuit.

~~~
YawningAngel
100kg to space is a _lot_ of fuel, I think they'd notice. I'd be shocked if
weight isn't checked on the launch pad.

