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

191–200 of 277 posts

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#191

Post by mikeash »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #165
thinkcontext wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will have to do intercontinental cargo flights for a while before it can be FAA human certified. They'll probably need to invent whole new classes of safety requirements before it can take passengers.

I doubt they will have any cabin crew and different regulation could potentially mean cheaper operation.

The primary purpose of the cabin crew in an airliner is to handle emergencies. When SHTF, they'll figure out the right course of action, open emergency exits, and get people outside.

I'm not sure if the BFR ship would have any emergency survivability. It looks to me like the sort of thing where the flight goes well or everybody dies. In which case, yes, no need for cabin crew!

(And to be clear, I have nothing against "goes well or everybody dies" as long as the probability of "goes well" is sufficiently high.)

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#192

Post by stcredzero »

piquadrat wrote: post #96
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?

You'll also be under significant g-forces or zero gravity for large parts of the flight. I, for one, would probably be preoccupied with myself, trying (and failing) not to puke all over the place. For the few minutes I don't stare into my vomit bag, I'd rather enjoy the incredible view out the window than a random excel sheet on my laptop.

I, for one, would probably be preoccupied with myself, trying (and failing) not to puke all over the place.

Something that many 20-somethings have already perfected over many iterations.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#193

Post by stcredzero »

davepage wrote: post #105
jpatokal wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't fly NYC to Shanghai on a private jet (unless it's a 777 or equivalent, which 99.9% of private jets aren't). This is a real game changer in aviation terms.

Possible in a G650ER http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/05/gulfstream-offers-l...

At what per-passenger cost?

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#194

Post by OrwellianChild »

idlewords wrote: post #121
drcross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be different if this was coming from the mouth of the Comcast CEO but it's coming from Musk who has a series of successful achievements of his own, a profitable space company with the worlds first re-usable rockets, the first company to successfuly market an electric car, fastest growing battery storage solution on the market. These things matter.

They do, but the crux of every Musk fantasy is a radical drop in the cost of these things, a promise he has never delivered on.

Tesla Roof is cheaper than many traditional roofing materials and provides solar. See the chart here. [1]

Air Force launches with SpaceX are less than half the price of ULA launches. [2]

Can you clarify how you believe Musk's companies haven't delivered?

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-10/tesla-s-s...

[2] https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/16/us-air-force-spacex-ula-...

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#195

Post by dexterous »

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 /…

Wasn't the commute to and from the terminals also one of the things that killed the Hyperloop?

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#197

Post by mikeash »

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…

The trouble with supersonic jets is that they aren't that fast, they're limited in where they can fly, and range is problematic because they're much less efficient than subsonic jets.

Concorde shaved about three hours off the trip between NYC and Paris or London. It burned ungodly amounts of fuel (two tons of fuel just taxiing to the runway), cost a ton, didn't have enough range for Pacific routes, couldn't fly transcontinental routes because of the sonic boom, and after all of that it only saved a few hours.

Of course, Concorde is old technology and it could be done a lot better now. But you'd still be saving a limited amount of time (roughly a factor of 2), burn more fuel, and be more limited in range compared to a traditional airliner.

BFR would have enough range to connect any two points on Earth. It would have no restrictions on overflight (although it would most definitely have restrictions on where it could launch and land). And it would save 10-20 hours over a direct subsonic flight.

Cost? Well, I don't know. Elon says it'll be pretty cheap, but I'm skeptical. However, given how much more capable it would be than a supersonic airliner, it might be worth a much greater cost. Part of the problem with Concorde is that it just didn't save that much time.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#198

Post by stcredzero »

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?

And if it becomes that common, in 150 years time, New York will be under water.

If it becomes that common, it will be well within the major power's ability to block 1.5% of the sunlight that hits the Earth by posting sunshades at L1.

Surely burning a country's worth of rocket fuel every time you want to travel long distance is not sustainable?

It doesn't take that many airliner flights to match that power output.

Re: SpaceX BFR [video]

#199

Post by stcredzero »

mrec wrote: post #160
mtgx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fusion power doesn't really help with rocketry, though.

It helps a hell of a lot, once you're in orbit!
Post reply on HN