Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

Wow. This is big!

One seat is given to the guy who started this thing.

Second seat is for someone with close ties to St. Jude's children's hospital.

Third seat will be given away in some sort of entrepreneurial contest with an online store and judges and whatnot.

Fourth seat will be given away in a raffle. Donations to St. Jude's give more raffle entries for more money.

The odds are doubtless extremely low, but it's awesome to think that normal people have at least a tiny chance of being able to go to space!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eleventy-first! (not quite, Mr. Baggins)

 

18 minutes ago, tater said:

Hah! Sorry to be pessimistic, but for now (and the foreseeable future), orbital space tourism will be the realm of multi-millionaires, their friends, and maybe a few random people for PR reasons. Suborbital will just be a lesser degree of wealth.

 

Friendly reminder that we have not one, not two, but THREE Falcon Heavy launches scheduled for this year!

USSF 44

USSF 52

ViaSat 3
 

!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My back-of-the-napkin guesswork suggests somewhere around the 2e-7 mark for your chance of being selected upon entry as an average person. That's 0.00002%. Might be as good as 0.0002%, for the optimist?

Edited by cubinator
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

"Everyday people" who happen to have over $50M to spend on a one-week trip to the ISS.

The specific mission I just linked is raffling off the other seats to benefit St. Jude's Children's Hospital, and I don't think it is going to ISS. While the number of entries scales to the donation level, as a "sweepstake" it has the legal requirement of no cost for entry (noted at the bottom of the page after mentioning the $10 min donation (you get more entries with a dollar donation, vs 1 for free).

So it's possible to go for nothing, though everyone donating $1000+ gets 10,000 entries.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tater said:

The specific mission I just linked is raffling off the other seats to benefit St. Jude's Children's Hospital, and I don't think it is going to ISS. While the number of entries scales to the donation level, as a "sweepstake" it has the legal requirement of no cost for entry (noted at the bottom of the page after mentioning the $10 min donation (you get more entries with a dollar donation, vs 1 for free).

So it's possible to go for nothing, though everyone donating $1000+ gets 10,000 entries.

 

Yes, it's a multi-day mission with a "customized flight path", whatever that means besides the usual aerospace stuff, and a $10 donation gets you 100 entries, which is 100 times more than 1, but a lot less than the probable total amount. 

Spoiler

Probably only a few people will donate the big bucks, so the average position is maybe the $500 mark. That's 500 million entries. So if you donate for 100 entries out of 500 million, your odds are 2e-7.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cubinator said:

it's a multi-day mission with a "customized flight path", whatever that means besides the usual aerospace stuff

If it's a few days long I hope they won't need to hold their stomach. Maybe this will be the first time we see the potty in Dragon.

 

It's still a big news however, orbital flights from a company and processing that have little backing from a national space agency. I know there were tourists onboard Mir but they had Roscosmos for training, plus it goes to Mir. Still willing to bet that whoever they elect to fly still have to pass medicals, and I guess the accommodation would be the same as on an ISS ferry flight.

Edited by YNM
Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

  

7 hours ago, tater said:
7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

"Everyday people" who happen to have over $50M to spend on a one-week trip to the ISS.

The specific mission I just linked is raffling off the other seats to benefit St. Jude's Children's Hospital, and I don't think it is going to ISS.

Am I the only one who recalls:

hqdefault.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, tseitsei89 said:

What requirement/regulation did they not comply with exactly? That piece of text doesn't really tell us much about anything...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, tater said:

 

Yeah, that doesn't tell anything either. How was "maximum public risk allowed" exceeded? What exactly was the thing they should have done differently with SN8  and did differently with SN9 now to get the approval?

edit: I mean of course if they didn't have FAA approval they shouldn't have launched but that text still doesn't explain why they didn't get the approval for SN8 and what they did differently to get it for SN9 now.

Edited by tseitsei89
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...