26:49If its in the crew configuration it can take 7 passengers, if you are really [illegible, something that sounds like crowd..surfing] and about a ton of pressurized cargo and 2-3 tons of unpressurized cargo.
Helodriver - did you get to talk to Robert Bigelow, as per your exchange with Musk @ 31:50 ?If so, what did he have to say?
Linked here is the full video recorded of Elon Musk's question and answer session after the reveal of Dragon V2. Originally filmed as four separate clips due to breaks and interruptions, they are spliced together along with a few minutes of Q&A with astronaut Garrett Riesman and are otherwise presented unedited. Run time is around 50 minutes, and includes a wide range of topics beyond just Dragon V2. Included are a shoutout to NSF for their work on the CRS-3 splashdown video as well as Elon graciously signing a few pictures I shot of the first Falcon 9 V1.1 launch vehicle at Vandenberg AFB. This was originally going to be up on L2, but after discussions with Chris, it is now here on the public side.After rewatching this video, its apparent that I was asking much more technical questions than the assembled press, but how many "How does this make you feel Elon?" questions do we really need?
Yes, this one will land on land. Just like the video you just saw(garbled) We want to land this back at Cape Canaveral... Initially we may land it someplace else. Unless it's an emergency, all landings will be on land.
It could probably handle twice that kinetic energy, maybe more.
The most stunning revelation from this interview for me was how far 3 D printing has advanced from its beginnings in 1984.We are talking about going from printing plastic toys to high strength space engines. At this point there is even talk of printing human organs. This technology at this rate will be the big changer in future of human space endeavors.
Helodriver at about 42:30 (just after Elon signed your photos) the video cuts out and when it resumes Elon is saying something about 'vertical blades'. I think this is in response to a question about the placement of the rear legs but could you elaborate on what was said?
My favorite quote. Don't mess with Jersey! Helo..... did you do your own camera work as well as the reporting? If so, ABC should be giving you call any minute to replace the reporter that kept trying to stick his/her mic in your face.Awesome work and thanks Helo!!
Manned testflights with either a combination of SpaceX en NASA astronauts or all NASA astronauts, the rule is a least one NASA astronaut.
Quote from: WM68 on 06/01/2014 06:06 pmManned testflights with either a combination of SpaceX en NASA astronauts or all NASA astronauts, the rule is a least one NASA astronaut.Interesting so who imposed this "rule", NASA or SpaceX?
I think we've got most of the key points, but keep them coming if your ears prick up at anything else - as article one from all of this will be tomorrow all being well. Was going to use the PICA-X v3 notes in the EFT-1 Orion Heat Shield article I've just put on, but I think it's best to keep separation, otherwise we're going to end up mentioning SpaceX in every bloody article! (Have to be honest, while I was writing the Orion story, I was kinda thinking...."sooner I get this on, sooner I can start building the first SpaceX article from the Q&A video". Hope that doesn't make me a bad person )
Helodriver you are fantastic.Here is my full transcript. If anyone sees any errors, feel free to fix them, or let me know.
No, we're not replacing NASA. NASA is our core customer. I think there's always a role for NASA. There's always going to be things where there's no obvious way to commercialize something - think of something like Hubble space telescope or the James Webb, or some of the exploratory probes that go to Mars and elsewhere, it's always going to be important for NASA to be doing those things because there's no obvious economic model for those things.
Sports stadiums are most certainly dependent on all sorts of government support/hand-outs.
4:28 He says that long-term there should be '1000s of flights a year, a base on the Moon and a base on Mars'. I thought he had no use for the Moon...
He said he never had much use for the Moon. He never said he didn't know how to use it.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/02/2014 02:34 amHe said he never had much use for the Moon. He never said he didn't know how to use it.Musk could make a lot of money off space tourism by trying the Moon first, rather than waiting for MCT to get people to Mars. Even if he himself doesn't have much use for the Moon, all these others like Golden Spike would pay him a lot of money to bring people there. Money is fungible, and trips to the Moon would sell like hotcakes if Musk could bring down the cost threshold far enough. LEO is so last-century, and trips to Mars are likely to be too strenuous for the near future. But the Moon is the right distance for a vacation, or a sightseeing tour, or a short trip. It could be the next exotic "Down Under".
(Have to be honest, while I was writing the Orion story, I was kinda thinking...."sooner I get this on, sooner I can start building the first SpaceX article from the Q&A video". Hope that doesn't make me a bad person )
[So, Elon said he would defer to NASA on who flies first?] Yeah, so the rule is that at least one of the crew on the test flights has to be a NASA astronaut. Now its up for interpretation whether the other crew members are NASA, they're SpaceX, or a combination thereof.[Do you think it's gonna be like a taxi model where SpaceX will ferry people up, or a...] When we're flying regularly, (I was talking about the test flights), ...When we're flying regularly it's a rental car. So it'll be all NASA astros. [So the test flights are gonna be SpaceX & NASA, or...] It could be a hybrid, or it could be all NASA, so it's one or the other.[But don't think they are gonna sell them directly to NASA and it'll be hands off from that point on. So Sp will always have some control or responsibility for the vehicles at all time?] Oh, we'll run mission control, and we'll be controlling from the ground, but we're not gonna have anyone inside other than the NASA astronauts.[So, compared to Shuttle, what do you think of the V2 here?] Oh, man, they're very, very different. [Oh, clearly, it's a totally different class of vehicle.] Yeah, totally different. The thing about V2 is, it has the potential to be a lot safer than shuttle. [You can abort at any time during flight, right?] Abort at any time, that's something the Shuttle couldn't do. You know, it's got very robust design for entry, it can sustain a number of failures and still be safe. The Shuttle was a wonderful, wonderful vehicle, but it was very... [fragile?] Fragile.It operated very close to the edge of it's operating envelope. [What are the standouts between this model and the previous one?] Dragon V2 and V1? Oh, the biggest difference is the SuperDraco engines so we can do a launch abort, but also like Elon said, a propulsive landing. And there's a lot of other, more subtle differences. ... The other biggest one is that this can dock to Space Station all by itself. It doesn't have to be grabbed by the Space Station#'s robot arm.[Will that be controlled by the astronauts inside and actually run the docking internally, or will it be done by the guys on the...] Well, nominally, it will be automatic, so if everything has gone well it's gonna do it all by itself. But there'll be the capability for the crew to take over if they need to.[Is there a simulator for this? Have you tried it? How does it compare to the Shuttle?] You know, it's kinda similar. We do have a simulator, and it is basically flying into the Space Station feels the same in Dragon as it did in the Shuttle.[Will they do the short duration rendezvous like the Russians do, like the six hour rendezvous?] Yeah, that's what we'd like to do, yeah. [You trained in the Soyuz, right?] I trained in the Soyuz, yeah. [How does it compare to the Soyuz inside?] Oh, man. There's so much more elbow room in there compared to the Soyuz. Plus, instead of just taking two of your buddies, you can take six, so there's a lot of advantages. Plus, it's got modern electronics, modern materials in the heatshield, I mean just technologically speaking, it's a giant leap beyond Soyuz.[Propulsive landings, do you know where they intend on landing initially, or is it gonna ... I know Elon said the first ones are gonna parachute in the water, like V1 did?] Our very first V2 is gonna come down on land. [Do you know where?] They have the capability as a backup to come down in the water, in an emergency, but yeah we have a couple places picked out where... I don't want to get ahead of Elon, let him tell you where.[What do you do here, what is your title here, what are you in charge of?] I'm the programme lead for this vehicle, for the crew Dragon, the crew vehicle, so I'm the programme lead for that and I'm also our capture manager, so I'm in charge of our proposal team that's working with NASA for the next phase of commercial crew.[inaudible, something about roles?] Yes, we have.[I'm curious, the next phase on CCtCap, you think there should be one, or should they retain competition?] Frankly, it's in NASA's interest for there to be more than one. [Absolutely.] You always want to have a plan B. [In the nation's best interests.] Yeah.Now, just gotta convince Congress to pay for it, that's all. [The House, especially.] Especially, yeah.
Great video and excellent questions. I truly enjoyed. Now that commercial space is advancing quickly maybe the mainstream press should invest a little into a reporter that could ask some intelligent questions. Elon seemed to gravitate toward you as he became aware that you were much more intelligent than the average journalist. As the press criticizes the education system for lacking in developing STEM skills they should take some time to look in the mirror to recognize that they are also very weak in this area.
Quote from: getitdoneinspace on 06/01/2014 11:40 pmGreat video and excellent questions. I truly enjoyed. Now that commercial space is advancing quickly maybe the mainstream press should invest a little into a reporter that could ask some intelligent questions. Elon seemed to gravitate toward you as he became aware that you were much more intelligent than the average journalist. As the press criticizes the education system for lacking in developing STEM skills they should take some time to look in the mirror to recognize that they are also very weak in this area. I remember the press conference of CRS 1 (I think), where SpacePete from NSF asked Mike Suffredini (I am paraphrasing here) "Where exactly on the P1 truss will the [external paylod] be stored before it will be used in a later spacewalk". Suffredini answered something like "You know, that's a really good question, I have to look that one up..." I laughed really hard at how specific this question was. All the other journalists were asking the "normal" (aka "boring") questions and then this über-intelligent, ISS-Hugger question You guys really know your stuff! NSF is just the coolest place of all
I think that was Chris G representing us, as I remember that too.
To which I started running around the room like a little girl who's been told she's getting a pony for her birthday.That was a good day!
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 06/02/2014 01:18 amI think we've got most of the key points, but keep them coming if your ears prick up at anything else - as article one from all of this will be tomorrow all being well. Was going to use the PICA-X v3 notes in the EFT-1 Orion Heat Shield article I've just put on, but I think it's best to keep separation, otherwise we're going to end up mentioning SpaceX in every bloody article! (Have to be honest, while I was writing the Orion story, I was kinda thinking...."sooner I get this on, sooner I can start building the first SpaceX article from the Q&A video". Hope that doesn't make me a bad person )Honestly I was trying to remember the stats for the Dragon heat shield as I was reading the Orion shield article - the mental comparison is hard not to make. I mean, the long and the short of is that the (privately funded) craft expected to fly in 2 years has a Mars-return-rated heat shield, where as the (congress funded) craft expected to fly in 5(?) years does not, correct? Is there anything that Orion has over Dragon v2?
Is there anything that Orion has over Dragon v2?
Quote from: mikelepage on 06/02/2014 02:03 pmIs there anything that Orion has over Dragon v2?Average number of jobs per district.
Quote from: Lar on 06/02/2014 07:40 pmQuote from: mikelepage on 06/02/2014 02:03 pmIs there anything that Orion has over Dragon v2?Average number of jobs per district.Come on Lar be nice. Orion has better radiation shielding and should be able to stay up longer.
Completely agree Chris. I have said on numerous occasions that the membership on this site has so much more institutional knowledge and information then some of those who inform decision makers. Between Crowd Sourcing on the public side with the video to L2 - this place is a gold mine.
@ ~ 36:00 Musk gives a tidbit on the Mars/MCT rocket, about looking forward to using LCH4 /LOX to do tank pressurization instead of pesky helium (since there's no helium on Mars). He also says that MCT will be fully reusable.
Next launch, I think we're just double checking everything on the rocket and we expect to probably launch on June 10th or thereabouts. We had a helium leak. Helium is a pernicous little molecule, I've got to say. [Question about getting past helium.] Well yeah, so here I'll give you a little bit of a tidbit on the Mars vehicle which will be methane powered. Mars vehicle will be autogenously pressurized with methane and oxygen. So instead of helium pressurization - there's no helium on Mars. So, we'll gasify the liquid oxygen and liquid methane to pressurize their respective tanks. Looking forward to that. [Fully reusable?] Yes, absolutely. Fully reusable.
Quote from: mikelepage on 06/02/2014 02:03 pmIs there anything that Orion has over Dragon v2?Yes. More internal volume, a more capable ECLSS allowing for up to 3 weeks crew time vs "several days" for Dragon v2. It has a service module capable of imparting significant deta-v. A navigation and communication system built for BEO. Orion crews can EVA. Some of these will be easier and some significantly harder to build into Dragon v2.
Does anyone know what such a pressurization would look like? Could the heat for gasification come from the two Raptor preburners?
Quote from: enkarha on 06/02/2014 11:23 pmQuote from: mikelepage on 06/02/2014 02:03 pmIs there anything that Orion has over Dragon v2?Yes. More internal volume, a more capable ECLSS allowing for up to 3 weeks crew time vs "several days" for Dragon v2. It has a service module capable of imparting significant deta-v. A navigation and communication system built for BEO. Orion crews can EVA. Some of these will be easier and some significantly harder to build into Dragon v2.I think the question should be: Is there anything that CST-100 has over Dragon v2?One thing is, it has more buttons and switches: http://www.universetoday.com/111655/boeing-cst-100-space-taxi-maiden-test-flight-to-iss-expected-early-2017-one-on-one-interview-with-chris-ferguson-last-shuttle-commander/
One question that wasn't asked but I wish had been - will Dragon v2 require a particular type of space suit, or will it be compatible with whatever suit NASA chooses to use? What about Bigalow? Will the preliminary designs we saw of SpaceX suits be ready for flight?
Quote from: happyflower on 06/01/2014 11:52 pmThe most stunning revelation from this interview for me was how far 3 D printing has advanced from its beginnings in 1984.We are talking about going from printing plastic toys to high strength space engines. At this point there is even talk of printing human organs. This technology at this rate will be the big changer in future of human space endeavors.we have the start of an excellent data base on this site.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1202919#newshameless plug
Quote from: aero on 06/02/2014 11:27 pmI think the question should be: Is there anything that CST-100 has over Dragon v2?Abort propellant that's less toxic than hypergolics. The ability to use unused abort propellant in gimbaled thrusters for ISS reboost. More experience with in-space ECLSS. Willingness to use whatever launcher is most promising rather than only the one made by the company that made the spacecraft.
I think the question should be: Is there anything that CST-100 has over Dragon v2?
~7:47100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.
Quote from: zd4 on 06/03/2014 03:59 pm~7:47100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.He's pretty clear on that point. The destinations are...1.)Mars2.)Mars3.)Moon4.)Mars
Quote from: zd4 on 06/03/2014 03:59 pm~7:47100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.
At a "guess" I'm suspecting that the majority would be to and from orbit, not any particular "destination" as it were. While he might not expect a great increase in the number of "dedicated" satellite launches hes got to "see" an increased requirement for payload to LEO including space stations, cargo and people to get to the point that something like the MCT is "justified" in operation. Its a simple matter of the scales (of economy and operations) needed to support the activities he sees.<snip>The kicker in the mix is that unlike any other transportation system we've ever dealt with on Earth, space travel doesn't have any "pre-existing" transportation market/system to tap into with the promise of increased "efficiency" over the "old" system in order to fund itself. There are no pre-existing destinations that will be faster or more economic to "get-to," no pre-existing market of goods and materials that can be transported at "reduced" cost, nothing. The ONLY current customer is really NASA for cargo and personnel, and the ONLY current market is commercial satellite launch. Everything and anything beyond those currently is going to require some sort of "bootstrapping" program to PROVIDE the basis for commercial space flight as envisioned by Musk. Its a "do-or-die" situation in that the only way to get there from here is to TRY it and see if it works.
Pretty much right now the 'ball' is very much in the court of anyone and everyone who has claimed that the thing that "commmercial space operations" every needed was a "ride" to and from orbit. The "ride" has arrived and it is fully dependent on SOMEONE stepping up and taking the NEXT leap of faith in order to suceed.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 06/03/2014 05:25 pmQuote from: zd4 on 06/03/2014 03:59 pm~7:47100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.He's pretty clear on that point. The destinations are...1.)Mars2.)Mars3.)Moon4.)Mars100s of flights a year to the moon and Mars by the 2030s? I am quite sure that isn't what Elon meant.
Yeah, a BFR fleet with 24 hour turn around doing hundreds of launches per year yielding a mars ticket price of $500,000. It is exactly what he meant. Never said it was going to happen or even remotely likely but he has made enough public comments to know his stance. He would be seriously bummed if rockets aren't flying like airlines by the time his is 60.
It's interesting to compare the videos of the interiors of the Dragon V2 and the Orion. See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33728.0. I was struck by how robust and sturdy the Orion hardware looked compared to the Dragon's. Is it possible that the hatch, the retractable instrument panel, the seats, etc. are conceptual mock-ups and not flight-capable designs?
Quote from: WindyCity on 06/04/2014 04:54 amIt's interesting to compare the videos of the interiors of the Dragon V2 and the Orion. See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33728.0. I was struck by how robust and sturdy the Orion hardware looked compared to the Dragon's. Is it possible that the hatch, the retractable instrument panel, the seats, etc. are conceptual mock-ups and not flight-capable designs?It's possible. But keep in mind that the Orion controls you're seeing in this video are in a mock-up of the capsule, while the Dragon controls are in a unit that is intended to be flown to orbit. I don't see any reason to believe the Orion controls are more likely to be what really flies than the Dragon controls.The only reason people seem reluctant to believe the Dragon controls are real is that they don't fit people's preconceived notions of what a spacecraft panel should look like.
Quote from: Lar on 06/02/2014 07:40 pmQuote from: mikelepage on 06/02/2014 02:03 pmIs there anything that Orion has over Dragon v2?Average number of jobs per district.Ok that was a flippant answer, but it happens to actually be serious too. (and I was answering for the Boeing CC entry which is what I figure mikelepage meant,, rather than for Orion, but it does apply to both) ...What's nifty though is that folks developed a pretty good list of other advantages (or believed/perceived advantages)... Here's what I gathered at least one person believes ... did I miss any?...But as someone else said, this probably isn't the place for this, I just wanted to capture what had been written in one place.
If people are now willing to spend $100k for a 3 month cruise around the Mediterranean, I can't imagine there not being a huge market inside of 12-15 years for $1 million/1 month trips to a properly spec'd space hotel if safety was relatively assured. Bigelow is going to be richer than ever if he plays his cards right.
Thanks Heliodriver for great video.2:50 Seat pricing. <$20m seat for low flight rates and down <$10m for high flight rates.I'm guessing the <$10m assumes LV reusability.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/03/2014 07:08 amThanks Heliodriver for great video.2:50 Seat pricing. <$20m seat for low flight rates and down <$10m for high flight rates.I'm guessing the <$10m assumes LV reusability.Perhaps this has been covered before, but i stumbled over something Elon said in the video: I don't have the exact quote, but didn't he say "20m assuming 4 flights per year" ? A dragon mission to ISS for 7 crewmembers costs 140m. The falcon 9 (commercial) price is around 60m, that leaves 80m for dragon +integration +overhead. That leaves 40-60m per dragon per mission.In my opinion there are two possible interpretations of the "assuming 4 flights per year"-part: 1) reuse-related: 4 flights of the same dragon vehicle (assumes production cost of ~200m per dragon)2) production related: 4 vehicles produced per year (assumes production cost of ~50m per dragon)The prices are simplifications... I just wanted to illustrate my train of thought... Which one is it in your opinion?
The price SpaceX charges NASA might have more to do with how much they think they can get out of NASA than the marginal cost to produce additional vehicles. And why not? As long as they're charging less than the competition, it's good for both NASA and SpaceX.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/04/2014 09:00 amThe price SpaceX charges NASA might have more to do with how much they think they can get out of NASA than the marginal cost to produce additional vehicles. And why not? As long as they're charging less than the competition, it's good for both NASA and SpaceX.Of course there is profit in there, too! My question is: Do you think someone at SpaceX said: 1) "We can offer a price of 20m assuming no reuse of dragon, but the production line has to spit out 4 dragons per year for this price to work" or2) "We can offer a price of 20m assuming reusing dragon 4 times"?
Elon corrected himself and said the $20m per seat figure was for 2 flights per year.
Since DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?What would NASA do with these additional seats?
Quote from: lele on 06/04/2014 04:07 pmSince DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?What would NASA do with these additional seats?Bring all Astronauts home in one vehicle in case something happens on the ISS, maybe?
Since DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 06/04/2014 04:21 pmQuote from: lele on 06/04/2014 04:07 pmSince DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?What would NASA do with these additional seats?Bring all Astronauts home in one vehicle in case something happens on the ISS, maybe?Are we forgetting our past? Remember how things worked with the Shuttle. I could easily imagine them sending up seven people at a time, 3-4 of them to stay on the ISS, and bringing back an equal number. The return trip, of course, would use the Dragon that's been sitting up there as lifeboat for 4-6 months.
IIRC they relied on Shuttle ECLSS, EG for sleeping.
The question is: do we know if they intend to move PMA-3 to a new location, like perhaps the upper port of Harmony? It seems to me that the current location on Unity is a less than optimal location because of physical obstructions to clean docking and undocking.
Quote from: lele on 06/04/2014 04:07 pmSince DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?No. NASA needed just 4 and 4+ is what it specified.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 06/04/2014 04:21 pmQuote from: lele on 06/04/2014 04:07 pmSince DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?What would NASA do with these additional seats?Bring all Astronauts home in one vehicle in case something happens on the ISS, maybe?That seems like the obvious advantage, but it seems likely they wouldn't have those extra three seats in there at the cost of cargo.
Quote from: Nomadd on 06/06/2014 07:10 pmQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 06/04/2014 04:21 pmQuote from: lele on 06/04/2014 04:07 pmSince DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?What would NASA do with these additional seats?Bring all Astronauts home in one vehicle in case something happens on the ISS, maybe?That seems like the obvious advantage, but it seems likely they wouldn't have those extra three seats in there at the cost of cargo.On the SpaceX vehicle, at least, the extra seats could easily be taken up once only to stow on the ISS and thereafter the space used for (light) cargo.
I'm surprised nobody has brought up what seems to me the most obvious reason these commercial crew vehicles are designed to seat seven: because the Space Shuttle seated seven, and they were designed to replace the crew-carrying capability of the Shuttle.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/08/2014 01:04 amI'm surprised nobody has brought up what seems to me the most obvious reason these commercial crew vehicles are designed to seat seven: because the Space Shuttle seated seven, and they were designed to replace the crew-carrying capability of the Shuttle.This seems realistic.I would also imagine the 7 seat focus, even if NASA only needs 4, is PR/Marketing. Making sure that any new projects (like Bigelow) who are doing pencil math for some commercial space venture can get the cost per person for transport low enough.In the speculative threads about tourism (cis-lunar or to a habitat) there is usually an assumption of a single pilot. My guess, just looking at airlines, and issues of redundancy, is that you will definitely need 2 trained crew, not 1. Not just redundancy incase the pilot is incapacitated, but I imagine there may be procedures that require 2 sets of eyes and you would want to avoid training the tourists to handle anything.With 2 dedicated crew, a 7 seater still only brings up 5 people.
Volume of spacecraft / Volume of standard human tissues = # of people that can fit in spacecraft (assuming perfect flesh/volume packing)Probably pretty cheap that way.
Quote from: RanulfC on 06/03/2014 09:42 pmAt a "guess" I'm suspecting that the majority would be to and from orbit, not any particular "destination" as it were. While he might not expect a great increase in the number of "dedicated" satellite launches hes got to "see" an increased requirement for payload to LEO including space stations, cargo and people to get to the point that something like the MCT is "justified" in operation. Its a simple matter of the scales (of economy and operations) needed to support the activities he sees.<snip>The kicker in the mix is that unlike any other transportation system we've ever dealt with on Earth, space travel doesn't have any "pre-existing" transportation market/system to tap into with the promise of increased "efficiency" over the "old" system in order to fund itself. There are no pre-existing destinations that will be faster or more economic to "get-to," no pre-existing market of goods and materials that can be transported at "reduced" cost, nothing. The ONLY current customer is really NASA for cargo and personnel, and the ONLY current market is commercial satellite launch. Everything and anything beyond those currently is going to require some sort of "bootstrapping" program to PROVIDE the basis for commercial space flight as envisioned by Musk. Its a "do-or-die" situation in that the only way to get there from here is to TRY it and see if it works.Your 2 comments fall together quite neatly. But I don't think he means LEO launches. (edit:… but he was saying 100s of Dragon V2 launches?)
On a related note, you say "space stationS". The old ideas of space stations had an industrial base (Mars/Moon/Asteroids) as part of their history, but the recent interest has approached them as a first step. ie: Mars comes first, then space stations built with Mars materials.
Of course it was based on the premise that launch from Mars was far cheaper than launch from Earth, but perhaps that assumption will need to be revisited in the near future.
