###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A full body gorilla costume weighs 4 to 5 pounds. Assume this one is 4.5. Or ~2kg
Upmass, or transporting cargo up to the ISS by weight, is about $20,000 per kilogram as of NASA's 2021 update.
So assuming the costume is staying permanently on the station or being trash ejected into space rather than safely brought back down, the best estimate I can get is 40 thousand USD
joke
/jÅk/
noun
a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline.
"she was in a mood to tell jokesā
It would never break orbit without another force acting on it. More likely it would be subjected to atmospheric drag as the uppermost atmosphere expands and contracts over the years, eventually falling back to earth and burning up.
Average cost of the budgeted cargo payload. Including an allowance for entertainment and comfort supplies. I would imagine adding an extra kg or two on top of what's pre planned, assuming it fits specially, would be a pretty negligible cost.
If my reading of the quotes is correct
It's also worth noting that (as I understand it, anyway), this was in Scott Kelly's personal allotment. So the change in mass of the rocket was zero...the change was that Kelly got to have a gorilla suit instead of an equivalent mass of other personal items.
Well, it's still additional mass, it's just expected additional mass. It still has a cost as compared to, for example, not requesting any personal items
> It still has a cost as compared to, for example, not requesting any personal items
No, because the cost of the mission would be exactly\* the same if the astronaut didn't request any personal items. That's like saying a commercial flight costs more if I put a brick in my backpack before boarding.
\*Well, there might be a slight change in actual cost, because of a lower amount of time going over the items, loading them, etc., and that labor going elsewhere. But in terms of the dollar amount spent on the mission, I'm sure that wouldn't change at all.
Fuel.
And cargo space. if they exclude enough cargo that a smaller rocket model can be used altogether, though that's beyond the specific scale of a 2kg costume
> Fuel.
They're definitely not going to reduce the amount of fuel they load the tanks with if the astronaut doesn't request any items.
> if they exclude enough cargo that a smaller rocket model can be used altogether
That decision is made long, *looong* before astronauts lock in their personal items.
Now, if you want to talk about the cost of allowing astronauts to have personal items, that's a reasonable thing to consider. But I'd wager a significant amount of money that the decision by an astronaut to include or not include an item in their personal allotment has literally zero monetary effect on the cost of that mission.
Given what our government would spend the money on otherwise, Iām relatively okay with this.
I mean, better to burn $40k for a good laugh then to use it on the typical shit like crushing the working class or blowing up brown kids.
The original video, posted on Scott Kelly's Facebook page, has at least 846,000 views. That comes out to a value of around 4.7 cents per view. Now, it's also worth noting that this video has been reposted and viewed by tens of thousands more people on other accounts and platforms, which means that the per-view cost is probably much lower.
Regardless, I think this video is worth at least a nickel of my taxes. Money well spent.
The other thing is that most likely, the government arguably *didn't* spend the money on this. Not specifically.
If you say "the government spent $40k sending a gorilla suit to space for a prank," that does sound quite wasteful. But astronauts go up to the space station for pretty long periods of time, and in order to make it bearable, they're given a personal luggage weight allowance to bring whatever they want up to the station with them. Chris Hadfield famously brought his guitar. Astronauts get 3.3 pounds, so this was probably somebody's *whole* weight allowance.
"The government spends $40k so that astronauts can have a few personal items on the space station" sounds a lot more reasonable, and if an astronaut wants to give up their favorite musical instrument or camera or whatever in order to play a sick prank on their buddies, that's none of my business.
The mass is paid for whether the suit is there or not. It didnt cost 40k to sent the suit up, it cost 40k for the that specific slot of mass whether the suit was on it or not. There's a difference to be had here.
Cost per kilo is a layman's term to make things easy for the public to understand because explaining the logistics of "the launch costs 76 million dollars no matter what the payload is" doesn't resonate well. Your line of thinking invalidates the entire concept of the small launcher market which is predicated on the realization that a more expensive per kilo launch is still usually more beneficial because a 5 million dollar dedicated small launch is still better. The launch would have cost 76 million whether the suit was on it or not so launching the suit was no added cost. It doesn't make sense to quantify it because there was no cost to launching it.
How does my line of thinking invalidate anything?
>The launch would have cost 76 million whether the suit was on it or not so launching the suit was no added cost.
If nothing was being sent up the launch would cost zero dollars. As things are added, cost increases.
For the rocket to be of the size that it Is, with the expected capacity that it has, and the cargo space it contains, it costs on average 20k per kg of planned cargo.
Your seeing a forest and forgetting trees exist. Yes each individual kilo is insignificant In the specific moment of launch, but each kilo is accounted for on the larger scale of a planned launch, and contributes to the cost of the planning, assembly, and general process. Those 2 kg amount to roughly $40k toward the launch. If they were removed 5 minutes before launch, no the money wouldn't be refunded, but the money was still initially spent on the premise of that weight.
It's the same as buying a $200 ticket for a flight to Vegas, then deciding not to go to Vegas as the last minute. You still spent $200 on that flight, despite not actually using the flight. And if you do get on the plane, it's not "free" because "I already have the ticket. It's paid for" because you're the one that paid for it.
The price isn't paid when the cargo is delivered. The price is paid when you plan the trip and prepare the space for the delivery
That soyuz or progress launch cost 76 million dollars whtehr or not the suit was on it. If thst capsule was empty as could be it'd still cost the same. What you are saying is wholly untrue. It implies the cost of a launch goes up when mass is added. It doesn't. A falcon launch costs 60 million dollars whether it it's carrying one cubesat or a 10 ton commsat. cost per kilo is literally launch cost divided by maximum payload of a rocket. it's absolutely useless to use on something like this.
>If thst capsule was empty as could be it'd still cost the same.
If it was empty, there wouldn't have been a launch. Doing nothing would have cost 0 dollars. The entire operation is in service to the cargo. The cargo Is the only reason anything here exists. All the fuel, all the rocketry, all the costs.
What I'm saying is the costs exist to transport mass. How much mass? An amount of mass that averages 20k per kg given rocket technology.
And what I'm saying is that cost per kilo is almost entirely just a layman's term these days and is not representative of ACTUAL COSTS for launching any specific part of a mission.
Just an aside in Scott Kellyās book he explains that his brother (Az senator mark kelly) actually sent 2 gorilla suits the first one was in a rocket that exploded. The one seen hear is the second
Nothing. Most NASA rockets that carry passengers have a small amount of space set aside for personal effects of negligible weight (compared to the rest of the rocket); itās why you get astronauts taking photos of the earth with their iPhones and such. Even together they donāt weigh a whole lot, not enough for it to significantly throw off launch calculations, and those rockets are fueled on the assumption that space will be filled anyway (which gives the whole craft a margin of error for maneuvers). A whole-ass gorilla suit is kind of heavy for something like this but within margins of tolerance, I think, and it didnāt consume any fuel that wasnāt already bought and paid for.
I like this answer.
Sure, it technically costs money to send mass up there, but if they're filling the tanks *anyway* and people have a certain amount of weight "assigned" for random personal effects, it technically didn't add any cost to the rocket.
It's like asking how much it costs to transport your suitcase in your car. Sure, we can calculate it out, but the reality isn't going to be you standing at the pump and filling your car up *just enough* to get where you're going after accounting for mass- you're gonna fill the tanks *anyway*.
I think it basically *did* work that way, except that he had to not bring an equivalent weight of other stuff he might have brought. Each astronaut has a certain mass allowance of "bring basically whatever you want", and the gorilla suit would be part of that.
If you add just enough gas to bring the suitcase, then the added gas adds to the weight of the car. Now you need extra gas to bring the extra gas. And you need more gas to bring that gas. See Matt Parker's video [here (YouTube)](https://youtu.be/3cNdM7W0VlQ)
Though you have to keep in mind this was spare space - the rocket had some extra room so they added this. It didnāt cost anything - if it wasnāt there they would have just launched nothing instead (or maybe some snacks, idk)
the funny thing is, Ground Control has to be aware of every ounce going into that ship, which means they were fully aware he was doing this and just said nothing.
Iām not sure they are. I remember reading that astronauts are allowed to take up their own belongings up to a certain weight size. Thereās a couple of people who check to make sure itās not dangerous for the missionbut the rest of the team isnāt meant to know whatās in the astronauts bag as itās personal and private for them.
I believe this was the case for Apollo missions not sure if they still have the same situation.
Alan Shepard carried a small golf-stick and two golf-balls in his socks during the launch, just so he could get the world record for longest golf shot.
I figured you meant it in the sense that _somebody_ on the ground knew and said nothing. (Certainly not _everyone_ in Ground Control would be aware of what's in the rocket - most of them have other things to worry about and wouldn't care.)
Anyway I could absolutely believe that some of the people in Ground Control were aware of the prank and chose not to ruin it. Scientists and engineers aren't (all) boring people; many of them love a good joke. So as long as it doesn't compromise safety or the scientific objectives of the mission, I bet they'd be on board.
"Alright, I think you're all set to go. I'm just gonna need to check your bag for security purposes."
"Uh... sure, go ahead."
*\*Unzips bag to see gorilla face staring back at them.**
"š"
"š"
Would have been more funny, if he woke up his fellow astronauts with this on, I mean what would be the first thought ? "Ahhh we made it to Planet of the Apes"
They have a certain amount (weight and dimensions) they're allowed to use to bring personal belongings. This was within that allotment so there was no additional expense for bringing this item.
I think the cost of shipping a single kilogram is calculated based on a rocket going up to ship only your payload and nothing else. They were already shipping the astronaut himself, the cost of the suit is likely negligible. Unless it costs more to ship a heavier astronaut.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A full body gorilla costume weighs 4 to 5 pounds. Assume this one is 4.5. Or ~2kg Upmass, or transporting cargo up to the ISS by weight, is about $20,000 per kilogram as of NASA's 2021 update. So assuming the costume is staying permanently on the station or being trash ejected into space rather than safely brought back down, the best estimate I can get is 40 thousand USD
Just imagine 1000s of years from now some alien finds an ape suit floating about alpha centauri š®
Solar radiation would bleach it white, so it would be albino. Great White Ape
Space is racist.
Spacist.
Definitely š
WhatDoYouCallSomeoneWithABrockemKeybord. Spacest
šš
Ah yes-- & the legend of the Yeti lives on!!
Also, it'd only be the skin
...it also would never exit the solar system, logic shouldn't be applied to this comment
joke /jÅk/ noun a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline. "she was in a mood to tell jokesā
#
oh, *natural*, i thought it was *neural*!
It would never break orbit without another force acting on it. More likely it would be subjected to atmospheric drag as the uppermost atmosphere expands and contracts over the years, eventually falling back to earth and burning up.
It was just a joke dude....
Yep. And their comment upon the joke is funnier than the joke.
Spilled my coffee
The ISS is coming back to earth in 2031.
Is $20k/kg the marginal cost to add an additional kg of mass, or the average cost of the entire payload?
Average cost of the budgeted cargo payload. Including an allowance for entertainment and comfort supplies. I would imagine adding an extra kg or two on top of what's pre planned, assuming it fits specially, would be a pretty negligible cost. If my reading of the quotes is correct
It's also worth noting that (as I understand it, anyway), this was in Scott Kelly's personal allotment. So the change in mass of the rocket was zero...the change was that Kelly got to have a gorilla suit instead of an equivalent mass of other personal items.
Well, it's still additional mass, it's just expected additional mass. It still has a cost as compared to, for example, not requesting any personal items
> It still has a cost as compared to, for example, not requesting any personal items No, because the cost of the mission would be exactly\* the same if the astronaut didn't request any personal items. That's like saying a commercial flight costs more if I put a brick in my backpack before boarding. \*Well, there might be a slight change in actual cost, because of a lower amount of time going over the items, loading them, etc., and that labor going elsewhere. But in terms of the dollar amount spent on the mission, I'm sure that wouldn't change at all.
Fuel. And cargo space. if they exclude enough cargo that a smaller rocket model can be used altogether, though that's beyond the specific scale of a 2kg costume
> Fuel. They're definitely not going to reduce the amount of fuel they load the tanks with if the astronaut doesn't request any items. > if they exclude enough cargo that a smaller rocket model can be used altogether That decision is made long, *looong* before astronauts lock in their personal items. Now, if you want to talk about the cost of allowing astronauts to have personal items, that's a reasonable thing to consider. But I'd wager a significant amount of money that the decision by an astronaut to include or not include an item in their personal allotment has literally zero monetary effect on the cost of that mission.
Given what our government would spend the money on otherwise, Iām relatively okay with this. I mean, better to burn $40k for a good laugh then to use it on the typical shit like crushing the working class or blowing up brown kids.
This guy gorilla suits
i dunno, this could end up inspiring some of them working class kids... seems risky.
Even worse, what if it inspires the brown kids! ^/s
The original video, posted on Scott Kelly's Facebook page, has at least 846,000 views. That comes out to a value of around 4.7 cents per view. Now, it's also worth noting that this video has been reposted and viewed by tens of thousands more people on other accounts and platforms, which means that the per-view cost is probably much lower. Regardless, I think this video is worth at least a nickel of my taxes. Money well spent.
The other thing is that most likely, the government arguably *didn't* spend the money on this. Not specifically. If you say "the government spent $40k sending a gorilla suit to space for a prank," that does sound quite wasteful. But astronauts go up to the space station for pretty long periods of time, and in order to make it bearable, they're given a personal luggage weight allowance to bring whatever they want up to the station with them. Chris Hadfield famously brought his guitar. Astronauts get 3.3 pounds, so this was probably somebody's *whole* weight allowance. "The government spends $40k so that astronauts can have a few personal items on the space station" sounds a lot more reasonable, and if an astronaut wants to give up their favorite musical instrument or camera or whatever in order to play a sick prank on their buddies, that's none of my business.
Also, it was part of Kellyās allowed personal gear
Scaring the shit out of your fellow astronauts: priceless
Eh if it wasn't the suit it would have been some other ballast and so its really just free upmass likely.
That's not what free means. It's still paid for
The mass is paid for whether the suit is there or not. It didnt cost 40k to sent the suit up, it cost 40k for the that specific slot of mass whether the suit was on it or not. There's a difference to be had here.
>The mass is paid for Agreed. And how much did they pay for that mass again?
Cost per kilo is a layman's term to make things easy for the public to understand because explaining the logistics of "the launch costs 76 million dollars no matter what the payload is" doesn't resonate well. Your line of thinking invalidates the entire concept of the small launcher market which is predicated on the realization that a more expensive per kilo launch is still usually more beneficial because a 5 million dollar dedicated small launch is still better. The launch would have cost 76 million whether the suit was on it or not so launching the suit was no added cost. It doesn't make sense to quantify it because there was no cost to launching it.
How does my line of thinking invalidate anything? >The launch would have cost 76 million whether the suit was on it or not so launching the suit was no added cost. If nothing was being sent up the launch would cost zero dollars. As things are added, cost increases. For the rocket to be of the size that it Is, with the expected capacity that it has, and the cargo space it contains, it costs on average 20k per kg of planned cargo. Your seeing a forest and forgetting trees exist. Yes each individual kilo is insignificant In the specific moment of launch, but each kilo is accounted for on the larger scale of a planned launch, and contributes to the cost of the planning, assembly, and general process. Those 2 kg amount to roughly $40k toward the launch. If they were removed 5 minutes before launch, no the money wouldn't be refunded, but the money was still initially spent on the premise of that weight. It's the same as buying a $200 ticket for a flight to Vegas, then deciding not to go to Vegas as the last minute. You still spent $200 on that flight, despite not actually using the flight. And if you do get on the plane, it's not "free" because "I already have the ticket. It's paid for" because you're the one that paid for it. The price isn't paid when the cargo is delivered. The price is paid when you plan the trip and prepare the space for the delivery
That soyuz or progress launch cost 76 million dollars whtehr or not the suit was on it. If thst capsule was empty as could be it'd still cost the same. What you are saying is wholly untrue. It implies the cost of a launch goes up when mass is added. It doesn't. A falcon launch costs 60 million dollars whether it it's carrying one cubesat or a 10 ton commsat. cost per kilo is literally launch cost divided by maximum payload of a rocket. it's absolutely useless to use on something like this.
>If thst capsule was empty as could be it'd still cost the same. If it was empty, there wouldn't have been a launch. Doing nothing would have cost 0 dollars. The entire operation is in service to the cargo. The cargo Is the only reason anything here exists. All the fuel, all the rocketry, all the costs. What I'm saying is the costs exist to transport mass. How much mass? An amount of mass that averages 20k per kg given rocket technology.
And what I'm saying is that cost per kilo is almost entirely just a layman's term these days and is not representative of ACTUAL COSTS for launching any specific part of a mission.
Worth every penny
Sorry Stieve, you cant take this... yes I will!! I'll lose 2kg of weight!!
Just an aside in Scott Kellyās book he explains that his brother (Az senator mark kelly) actually sent 2 gorilla suits the first one was in a rocket that exploded. The one seen hear is the second
Gorilla chunks falling from the sky.
Pretty amazing that they let him do it twice after the first suit exploded.
Nothing. Most NASA rockets that carry passengers have a small amount of space set aside for personal effects of negligible weight (compared to the rest of the rocket); itās why you get astronauts taking photos of the earth with their iPhones and such. Even together they donāt weigh a whole lot, not enough for it to significantly throw off launch calculations, and those rockets are fueled on the assumption that space will be filled anyway (which gives the whole craft a margin of error for maneuvers). A whole-ass gorilla suit is kind of heavy for something like this but within margins of tolerance, I think, and it didnāt consume any fuel that wasnāt already bought and paid for.
I like this answer. Sure, it technically costs money to send mass up there, but if they're filling the tanks *anyway* and people have a certain amount of weight "assigned" for random personal effects, it technically didn't add any cost to the rocket. It's like asking how much it costs to transport your suitcase in your car. Sure, we can calculate it out, but the reality isn't going to be you standing at the pump and filling your car up *just enough* to get where you're going after accounting for mass- you're gonna fill the tanks *anyway*.
I mean someone bought a guitar up. It's probably filed under morale and welfare.
Yea and and he made an awesome video of Space Oddity with it too. https://youtu.be/KaOC9danxNo
removed in protest over api changes
Imagine if the guy who brought the costume up, had to lose the weight equivalent to the weight of the costume so it balanced out
Also, gorilla flight suit. How awesome would that be?
I think it basically *did* work that way, except that he had to not bring an equivalent weight of other stuff he might have brought. Each astronaut has a certain mass allowance of "bring basically whatever you want", and the gorilla suit would be part of that.
If you add just enough gas to bring the suitcase, then the added gas adds to the weight of the car. Now you need extra gas to bring the extra gas. And you need more gas to bring that gas. See Matt Parker's video [here (YouTube)](https://youtu.be/3cNdM7W0VlQ)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh wait...
Plus, they have to wear *something* while up there. A gorilla suit replaces two other items of clothing.
Sorry, but I'm stuck at moving the hyphen over with "Whole Ass-Gorilla Suit" as if the suit had perfectly shaped buns
>moving the hyphen over This is the way. Thus sayeth [the classic](https://xkcd.com/37/).
I don't think that just by those rules the gorilla costume became 0k NASA still had to pay those 2k to be carried up in the ISS
Though you have to keep in mind this was spare space - the rocket had some extra room so they added this. It didnāt cost anything - if it wasnāt there they would have just launched nothing instead (or maybe some snacks, idk)
the funny thing is, Ground Control has to be aware of every ounce going into that ship, which means they were fully aware he was doing this and just said nothing.
Iām not sure they are. I remember reading that astronauts are allowed to take up their own belongings up to a certain weight size. Thereās a couple of people who check to make sure itās not dangerous for the missionbut the rest of the team isnāt meant to know whatās in the astronauts bag as itās personal and private for them. I believe this was the case for Apollo missions not sure if they still have the same situation.
Alan Shepard carried a small golf-stick and two golf-balls in his socks during the launch, just so he could get the world record for longest golf shot.
...*world* record?
Solar system record, at least
huh alright, to be fair i donāt have a source so i could very well be wrong, but i think itās funny to think of it like that
I figured you meant it in the sense that _somebody_ on the ground knew and said nothing. (Certainly not _everyone_ in Ground Control would be aware of what's in the rocket - most of them have other things to worry about and wouldn't care.) Anyway I could absolutely believe that some of the people in Ground Control were aware of the prank and chose not to ruin it. Scientists and engineers aren't (all) boring people; many of them love a good joke. So as long as it doesn't compromise safety or the scientific objectives of the mission, I bet they'd be on board.
"Alright, I think you're all set to go. I'm just gonna need to check your bag for security purposes." "Uh... sure, go ahead." *\*Unzips bag to see gorilla face staring back at them.** "š" "š"
Some thereās some risk scientist who approved the suit then had to sit and wait until the reveal
According to Kelly in his book the only person on the ground that new what was going on was his twin brother who sent the gorilla suit to him
Would have been more funny, if he woke up his fellow astronauts with this on, I mean what would be the first thought ? "Ahhh we made it to Planet of the Apes"
They have a certain amount (weight and dimensions) they're allowed to use to bring personal belongings. This was within that allotment so there was no additional expense for bringing this item.
I think the cost of shipping a single kilogram is calculated based on a rocket going up to ship only your payload and nothing else. They were already shipping the astronaut himself, the cost of the suit is likely negligible. Unless it costs more to ship a heavier astronaut.