Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX BFR [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 277 posts

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#111

Post by krisroadruck »

drinchev wrote: post #91

I think if we measure the travel time from door to door the benefits of the fast rocket shrink in a relation to where is located. With airplanes this is solved, by the big infrastructure ( cities sometimes have even 2-3 airports ). Where I live ( Berlin ) with a flight to NYC would look like : 1. City center -> TXL - 20m 2. Check-in / security - 30m ( no joke, the airport is small ) 3. Flight - 9h 15m 4. Check-out /…

Total Time is only one portion of the suckage of air travel though. It's that long window of time where you are cramped in a small seat, potentially with large strangers spilling into your space from either side that I dislike the most. If I only have to deal with that bit for 30 minutes, the rest of the trip can take as long as it reasonably wants.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#112

Post by mmjaa »

I think this is amazing - but what are the military implications? I mean, the military-industrial complex is not likely to stand by and watch this capability become so commonplace that it invalidates the purpose of having fast-attack forces at the readiness.

I mean, I guess the answer is pretty clear: the US Military will be the first customer for the BFR, before any transportation companies get it .. they already hold technology in reserve for their war-fighting abilities, so .. its going to be interesting to see what the MIC version of this is going to be .. assuming they don't already have it. (Some people think they do ..)

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#113

Post by bergie »

wayanon wrote: post #8
jacquesm wrote: post #2

Interesting. Two little issues: safety and ticket costs. Also, your average overweight tourist isn't going to be very happy at several G's.

My thought also, how will landing feel?

The Raptor engine can throttle lower than the current Merlin they use in Falcon 9. This means they should be able to make a much softer/slower landing

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#114

Post by zyb09 »

jokoon wrote: post #61

Aren't supersonic jets more affordable? I mean I know SpaceX is about changing the world, and I know SpaceX is about rockets, but in terms of market, I think having a new Concorde would better fit the idea of earth to earth travel. I like how SpaceX innovates, but I think this is a "too soon", bad product idea because it will be too expensive at first, and supersonic jets would be a better competitor. Although I have…

They have enough money to give building the first ever BFR a shot. If it turns out good and the reusability works, they can do a lot of contracts with it, like servicing ISS, and launching a new big space telescope. From there on the advantages and possibilities of having a reusable high payload system will be very clear, and with 3-4 of them, a moon base would already be possible. We'll see what happens but the plan looks solid at least.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#115

Post by bergie »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #64

It's not like people will be able to reach their destination within an hour of booking their ticket. These flights will probably occur once or twice a day, which kind of defeats the purpose?

Regular intercontinental flights have the same problem. With transport this fast, you could theoretically fly in the morning, have a full day of meetings, and be home by the evening. With regular flights you'd spend a full day traveling both ways

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#116

Post by planteen »

mtgx wrote: post #80
suprfnk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are laptops allowed? No idea. But the fastest flight (non stop) from NYC to Shanghai right now is almost 15 hours. This promises 39 minutes. Would you rather fly 15 hours with a laptop than 39 minutes without?

I think that depends on whether or not the ticket is something like 50x more expensive. If Musk is proposing this idea then I assume it won't be too expensive, even for rich people. So it should cost significantly less than what private jet trip costs them (because the BFR is not so private after all). Of course, the faster time to destination should also balance things out, but I have a feeling a trip would be more…

Latest claim: "elonmusk Fly to most places on Earth in under 30 mins and anywhere in under 60. Cost per seat should be about the same as full fare economy in an aircraft. Forgot to mention that."

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/

What's a NYC to SHA full fare one way, about $800? I wonder if he is also getting into the fuel business? So if this rocket holds 200 people, that only gives him $160k in revenue. Fuel for the smaller Falcon is more than that per launch. Or is this baseless hype?

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#117

Post by skykooler »

willyt wrote: post #53
pvsukale1 wrote: post #49

I know people have valid reasons to be skeptical about such projects. But maybe after 50 years or so when this kind of transport will be very common we will remember this day as one of the most historic events in the course of humanity.

And if it becomes that common, in 150 years time, New York will be under water. I remember reading that the instantaneous power output of one Apollo rocket taking off is roughly the equivalent of the entire average electricity load of the UK. Surely burning a country's worth of rocket fuel every time you want to travel long distance is not sustainable?

This was brought up in the presentation as well - they have plans to eventually use the same technology they will use on Mars, on Earth as well, to take CO2 out of the air and combine it with water to create methane and oxygen. If it happens, the rockets would be carbon-neutral.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#118

Post by frafra »

mtgx wrote: post #82
frafra wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk said that the fuel (methane and oxygen) for Mars expeditions has to be produced on Mars, using solar panels, water and capturing carbon dioxide available in the atmosphere, and he also stated that the very same procedure could be used on Earth.

That doesn't mean it's anywhere close to being economical. It's just one of the few options they have there, or it's perhaps a little cheaper/more practical than carrying everything from Earth. Perhaps capturing it from Mars instead of bringing it from Earth means the project can cost "only" $5 billion per trip rather than $20 billion. But that says absolutely nothing about doing that on Earth vs all the other much c…

Sure, but the discussion was about energy and carbon footprint, not economics; I just reported what Elon Musk said the last presentation about how to produce the fuel starting from carbon dioxide. Economic viability has to be proved, but I think they are more closer to it now than when they presented the BFR for the first time.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#119

Post by leonroy »

mtgx wrote: post #85
willyt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if it becomes that common, in 150 years time, New York will be under water. I remember reading that the instantaneous power output of one Apollo rocket taking off is roughly the equivalent of the entire average electricity load of the UK. Surely burning a country's worth of rocket fuel every time you want to travel long distance is not sustainable?

Fusion power can't come soon enough. Maybe it's time for Musk to start working on that. He actually said in an older interview that he would like to tackle it eventually.

He recently said (paraphrasing) that it wasn’t particularly productive investing in Fusion when there’s a giant, very efficient fusion reactor in the sky. We’d be better off improving solar panel efficiency and energy storage solutions.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#120

Post by rtkwe »

sschueller wrote: post #107

Virgin galactic seems to be a more reasonable solution which could probably use existing airport with slight modification.

Their craft are much smaller though. To get to Musk's full fare economy equivalent price you kind of have to go to larger scale craft I'd think.
Post reply on HN