2014 Olympic Torch In Space

[Moon Goddess]

There is weight to be looked at...

It did cost some amount of fuel to lift that guitar. Now, the STS always dropped unused fuel that might not have been a concern but Soyuz is differently designed there,

EDIT: Wow, I need to refresh page before I reply.... I'll just leave this anyways.

[Kryten]

I understand your thinking, but it does not work that way. See my previous comment about 10.000 guitars. According to you, none of those guitars would cost anything to add seperately, but I assume you are not claiming that getting 10.000 guitars to space will be free. Payload is payload and the cost of a kilogram of payload is the total cost devided by the amount kilograms to orbit. You cannot pick and choose which part of the payload you include in the costs and which part you do not.

That makes no sense. On the mission where the guitar was sent up, NASA already had a launch of an MPLM ready, and it already included the payload they considered necessary to take on the mission. Adding the guitar would only have added the cost of working out the effect on CoM and carefully strapping it in, which can't have been a terribly large amount. This doesn't apply to 10,000 guitars because it's effectively impossible for a launch to have that much excess payload.

[Camacha]

This doesn't apply to 10,000 guitars because it's effectively impossible for a launch to have that much excess payload.

Exactly the point I am making. Guitars do have an effect, so they cost money to launch

[Kryten]

They don't have a meaningful effect. It's not like they'll bother putting slightly less fuel in the rocket or anything of that sort.

[Camacha]

They don't have a meaningful effect. It's not like they'll bother putting slightly less fuel in the rocket or anything of that sort.

Like I said, you cannot go and pick and choose what part of the payload you choose to ignore. What goes up is the payload, so the cost per kilogram is cost devided by payload.

[Kryten]

Cost per kilogram isn't some kind of constant. In this case you've got slightly highly payload at the same price, the cost per kilogram goes down. It gets closer to the ideal 'cost-per-kilogram' people might use to compare rockets.

[Camacha]

Cost per kilogram isn't some kind of constant.

That is exactly what I was saying. As the guitar is included in the payload, it is included in the costs, so sending a guitar to space costs money. Q.E.D.

[drakesdoom]

That is exactly what I was saying. As the guitar is included in the payload, it is included in the costs, so sending a guitar to space costs money. Q.E.D.

If I owned a commercial launch company, that had many launches over time paid for in advance by the owners of the payload, and some of my rockets had excess space/cargo mass, and I spread it out over enough launches, yes I could launch 10,000 guitars into space for free.

[Bacterius]

That is exactly what I was saying. As the guitar is included in the payload, it is included in the costs, so sending a guitar to space costs money. Q.E.D.

It's obvious what he meant is that because the rocket would have taken off with the exact same amount of fuel, cost the exact same amount of money to launch, and reached its target at exactly the same time, regardless of whether the guitar had been on board or not, from that perspective adding a guitar did not affect the cost of the launch (beyond the cost of purchasing the guitar in the first place, if you include that). Your argument is only valid if the rocket is designed to only take its current payload to orbit with exactly zero fuel left over. That doesn't happen, except perhaps if the rocket is considerably underutilized (which is not the case here). The rocket has a rated maximum payload and takes off with the same amount of fuel and resources no matter the size and weight of the payload.

[Camacha]

If I owned a commercial launch company, that had many launches over time paid for in advance by the owners of the payload, and some of my rockets had excess space/cargo mass, and I spread it out over enough launches, yes I could launch 10,000 guitars into space for free.

I feel I have said this too often already: you cannot pick and choose what is part of the payload. Payload is payload, cargo is cargo. You cannot arbitrarily decide that item X is magically not part of the payload when it quite evidently is.

[Camacha]

Your argument is only valid if the rocket is designed to only take its current payload to orbit with exactly zero fuel left over.

No, it is not. Total cost divided by payload is cost per unit of weight to orbit. As the guitar is included in the payload, the guitar is included in the costs. Ergo, launching a guitar has a cost.

I am not saying something that is really hard to grasp. I understand what you are trying to say, but you cannot do that without arbitrarily picking what is part of the cargo and what is not.

[Kryten]

If the guitar hadn't been on board, nothing would have replaced it. It was a last minute addition, and not part of the contracted payload. The cost to launch the rocket would have been exactly the same.

[Bacterius]

No, it is not. Total cost divided by payload is cost per unit of weight to orbit. As the guitar is included in the payload, the guitar is included in the costs. Ergo, launching a guitar has a cost.

I am not saying something that is really hard to grasp. I understand what you are trying to say, but you cannot do that without arbitrarily picking what is part of the cargo and what is not.

Are you just trying to have the last word? The cost that matters is the cost to launch, not some "cost per unit of weight". Yes, launching anything which has mass to orbit has a cost, well done. But the question was about a specific guitar on a specific launch, not about some payload item on an arbitrary launch that just happened to be a guitar. You are not really saying anything relevant to the conversation, I'm sorry.

[Camacha]

If the guitar hadn't been on board, nothing would have replaced it. It was a last minute addition, and not part of the contracted payload. The cost to launch the rocket would have been exactly the same.

I highly doubt this. The extensive testing that is done before an instrument is allowed on board does not allow it, and the number of instruments on board suggest that is a lot more than a trivial afterthought. Actually, astronauts confirm the psychology people consider instruments important to the spirits and sanity of the astronauts. That would make them essential long term mission assets to most people.

And a surprising variety of musical instruments have found their way into space: in addition to the keyboard, there's been a flute, a guitar, a saxophone, and an Australian aboriginal wind instrument known as a didgeridoo.

Source.

Now what I am interested in is this other space guitar I have found. I can only find one picture of it. Does anyone know more about this one? It is clealy not the famous acoustic version we all know.

[Camacha]

Are you just trying to have the last word?

I am having some fun at least.

Yes, launching anything which has mass to orbit has a cost, well done.

There we go.

You are not really saying anything relevant to the conversation, I'm sorry.

Such a rude thing to say while we were having such a nice conversation. We do not have to agree, but let us be civil.

[Bacterius]

There we go.

I rest my case.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Well, I don't know about being an astronaut but, would it really be THAT special to hold a torch. When you are in space.

[Camacha]

I rest my case.

I will not be trying to have the last word and hereby give it to you:

Are you just trying to have the last word?

[Camacha]

Well, I don't know about being an astronaut but, would it really be THAT special to hold a torch. When you are in space.

Good point. 'Yay, Olympic flame, can I look out of the window now?'

[OtherDalfite]

Dateline: Day of the Olympics

Olympic Torch lost in space! Clumsy astronaut allows torch to slip away from the ISS while on EVA! Details at 11.

[kujuman]

Olympic flame in space? Here's my thoughts:

1) The flame device must be self-contained (that is, keep the flame in an enclosed space)

2) The flame device must be capable of a long-ish duration burn (3-7 days)

3) Lighting another torch should of course be feasible on the ground, doing it on EVA would be a nice if possible feature

To minimize fuel mass, the flame should be at a barely sustainable rate during transportation and be able to be increased during lighting of another torch. Depending upon the total mass of fuel required for the duration of the burn, a regenerative fuel system might reduce total mass. This also solves the problem of containing exhaust and heat.

Consider an enclosed volume with an H2 tank, an O2 tank, a flame "nozzle", fuel flow control equipment, and electrolysis plates. There would also likely need to be additional plumbing, but that is abstracted away for these purposes.

The set-up is that the nozzle combines and combusts H2 and 02, generating a flame and water vapor as exhaust. The water vapor would be collected in some manner and be broken down into H2 and O2 by electrolysis. The H2 and O2 would then be recycled into the system which feeds the nozzle.

During EVA torch transfer, removal of the "lid" for a sufficiently short duration should minimize fuel loss on the target torch. Alternative torch lighting could be through a conductive wire which is attached at the nozzles and just transfers heat produced by the flame without the need to remove a lid.

There you go, a "practical" space-proof Olympic torch.

[Forte]

This would totally be the coolest thing ever!

Pardon my idea, you may scream at me if you want, but you know those fake plastic candles, using LED's? what if NASA, or Roscosmos, or the people in charge of the olympics, or whoever, create a special one that looks like an olympic torch, works on batteries, and can survive and shine its light in space?

[Savage117]

Dateline: Day of the Olympics

Olympic Torch lost in space! Clumsy astronaut allows torch to slip away from the ISS while on EVA! Details at 11.

I was thinking this very same thing, its not easy keeping hold of something and keeping yourself correctly oriented for a photo op while in a space suit. I’m betting they will have some sort of tether attached to the torch during EVA to circumvent this very real possibility. Not sure how people would react if this happened, if I were the astronaut in question id be mortified, but here down on the ground I might laugh at the irony and cringe at the empathy of it.

This would totally be the coolest thing ever!

Pardon my idea, you may scream at me if you want, but you know those fake plastic candles, using LED's? what if NASA, or Roscosmos, or the people in charge of the Olympics, or whoever, create a special one that looks like an Olympic torch, works on batteries, and can survive and shine its light in space?

I was thinking this too, its just a symbolic gesture, why does it have to be a complex system of gasses and flame when it could just be a bright light run on a battery? Its safer, still symbolic, and doesn't require much dangerous effort on the part of the astronauts. Also I thought the tradition of passing the torch was supposed to be about endurance and perseverance, if the torch goes out you didn't try hard enough. Yet all the work is being done by rockets and even then the torch is unlit. Seems a bit off tradition to do this, despite it being awesome.

[deadshot462]

There's a livestream going right now from the ISS astronauts in EVA with the torch:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.Un59c_lPZ8E

Also checking the condition of the station from micrometeorite damage. Looks cool.