If this acctually happens, it would be interesting to see how the international law, aispace trafic control and military missle defence systems develops, so that SpaceX can land one of these in Shangai without having to worry about accidentaly starting a thermonuclear war.
SpaceX BFR [video]
231–240 of 277 posts
Re: SpaceX BFR [video]
#232How many hours early should we arrive to the launch pad? Are laptops allowed?
Laptop manufacturers don't typically include 'maximum operating G' information. Looks like there's a freefall phase during the flight, though, during which a laptop with a physical hard drive would likely enter freefall protection mode. So you'll at least want to use an SSD.
Take off/landing are probably a big chunk of any 30min flight, so you'd really only have 15-30min at most being disconnected from your laptop or phone, not a big deal. I'd be totally satisfied just looking out the window... even on my 20th flight I doubt it'd be boring.
A built-in tablet that turns on automatically in each seat might solve this problem. But then someone will have to offer wireless internet in space.
Re: SpaceX BFR [video]
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that to increase flight rates by 5 orders of magnitude, you need demand to increase by that much. And people are unlikely to demand rocket flights until after they're as safe as plane flights. Early passenger planes were pretty dangerous to, but they got around the above problem by a) being much faster than trains, making the risk worth it, b) having clear military applications, the military being less…
You answered your own question: military applications. The US Armed Forces would pay a LOT of money to move 100+ tons of personnel and materiel anywhere on earth with a flat landing spot in under 60 minutes. You could have tanks on the ground that were fully operational in under 3 hours (probably half that if they left the BFR packed and fueled for takeoff at all times), or a disaster recovery base set up within 24 h…
Its not "anywhere on earth with a flat landing spot" if you want to be able to retrieve the thing. It either needs to go somewhere with the very specialized launch infrastructure and personnel it needs or the ability to transport (how to you transport a 48m x 12m cylinder?) it to somewhere that does.
Re: SpaceX BFR [video]
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that to increase flight rates by 5 orders of magnitude, you need demand to increase by that much. And people are unlikely to demand rocket flights until after they're as safe as plane flights. Early passenger planes were pretty dangerous to, but they got around the above problem by a) being much faster than trains, making the risk worth it, b) having clear military applications, the military being less…
They're going to get around it because this is a secondary market for BFR. Primary market is launching satellites (especially their constellation). Remember, this point-to-point idea was basically an after-thought. It's decades away, but the rocket will be launching within the next 3-5 years. So they'll have decades to get it right, and the manufacturing line and much of the infrastructure will be paid for. But you'r…
Total orbital rocket flights/yr are usually considerably less than 100 though, so I'm sceptical they'll ever approach airplane reliability with so few flights.
Honestly, that's kind of why the BFR idea kind of worries me. It feels like SpaceX analysed the need for orbital space-flights, and realized there was unlikely to ever be the kind demand that would provide the economies of scale needed to do what they want. On the otherhand, there's undeniably a large demand for terrestrial travel, so they came up with a way to use rockets for that purpose. It feels like something to show investors, rather than a workable plan.
But hopefully I'm wrong. Economics aside, its certainly cool, and it would be nice to have an application for terrestrial missiles other than nuclear annihilation.
Re: SpaceX BFR [video]
#235I'm guessing there would be some environmental impact? It can't exactly be carbon neutral burning all that fuel?
Doesn't have to be carbon neutral; just has to be better, or not much worse, than whatever alternative transportation you'd use to get to your destination.
Re: SpaceX BFR [video]
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that to increase flight rates by 5 orders of magnitude, you need demand to increase by that much. And people are unlikely to demand rocket flights until after they're as safe as plane flights. Early passenger planes were pretty dangerous to, but they got around the above problem by a) being much faster than trains, making the risk worth it, b) having clear military applications, the military being less…
They can fly cargo. FedEx would definitely be able to market such a service.
Yea, but the main advantage of the system over air-travel is that it's fast. For most types of cargo, cost rather then speed is the main issue, especially if the difference is just on the scale of a few hours.
Re: SpaceX BFR [video]
#237Why not instead work on ways to reduce the need to move people from one place on Earth to another, thereby eliminating the cost, hassle and pollution of air travel and hypothetical rocket travel? There's a huge amount of progress that can be made in telepresence technology--it seems silly to get hung up on the assumption that in order to do something or experience something somewhere you need your bag of water and meat to physically be there. We're very close to mass adopting remote employment--to the point where the barriers are no longer technical but cultural. Why not work on the same for other areas of business and for personal vacations? Physical travel should seem like a silly inefficiency!
We should focus on making the Holodeck, not rockets.
Re: SpaceX BFR [video]
#238Cost per seat should be about the same as full fare economy in an aircraft. Forgot to mention that. - Elon https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/ Looks like fun. I'd love to see the in-flight safety video! "Make sure there's nothing in your pockets because we'll be hitting 3 Gees. If anything goes wrong, we're all probably toast." I think this was just an interesting idea thrown out at the end of a talk that had mu…
Note that the Instagram post is a little misleading. “Full Fare economy” is not as cheap as you think, it’s more like what you would pay for business class. So, maybe $3k for a transatlantic flight.
I'd rather 30 minutes in economy than 8 hours in business, and when it comes to a jaunt off to Singapore or Sydney....
Re: SpaceX BFR [video]
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Loss rate for space launches is largely due to the fact that the systems are essentially munitions (i.e. expendable, single-use) and flight rates are very low. Rocket failures for crewed rocket launches are extremely rare, occurring once every couple decades. It's hard to improve on that because low flight rates make data very hard to come by. Airplanes fail much more often in absolute terms, giving you a lot more da…
The loss rate for manned space launches over the past 20 years has been 0.79%. What you're pointing out (only once every few decades) is a factor of the small number of manned launches per year. Actual loss rate is very high. 1/130 chance of loss.
Most (all?) of that rate provided by the shuttle program and by early vehicles from the 60s and 70s.
Mercury + Gemini + Apollo had a 0% death rate in-flight. Not that they didn't come very close.
The shuttle had numerous design flaws. The use of solid fuel. A booster that was assembled in seven different sections, fastened, and sealed with rubber o-rings. Go-fever. Foam insulation that was known to fall off and strike the orbiter during launch.
Not that space flight isn't dangerous. My point is we can do a lot better with proper designs and attitudes. SpaceX also gets to examine and improve their stages in a way that has never been possible now that they come back in one piece.
Re: SpaceX BFR [video]
#240Why not instead work on ways to reduce the need to move people from one place on Earth to another, thereby eliminating the cost, hassle and pollution of air travel and hypothetical rocket travel? There's a huge amount of progress that can be made in telepresence technology--it seems silly to get hung up on the assumption that in order to do something or experience something somewhere you need your bag of water and me…
Why not both? Lots of smart people working on both things any ways. I'd rather Elon focus on stuff that will iterate and get us off this planet in any case as he seems built for that.
Since he's focusing on that, why don't you go ahead and focus on making the holodeck. Thanks!