Live data from Hacker News

Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

smh.com.au

241–250 of 251 posts

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burning a log you just cut is no different from burning a log you dug up. You've accomplished nothing whatsoever in reducing CO2 emissions.

It literally does reduce emissions if you factor in the fact that I grew the tree, offsetting an equal amount of carbon. Maybe this will help you think about it: If I drove over to the supermarket and back, and then planted a tree that would sequester an equal amount of carbon to the amount I released driving to the supermarket, would you agree that I am offsetting/reducing my emissions?

The CO2 released from burning a new log or an old log makes no difference whatsoever. If you want to plant a tree, it has nothing to do with whether you burned an old or a new log.

Do you know the reason why England set up the Jamestown settlement? Because they wanted to make glass. Why set up a glassmaking operation in America? Because they ran out of trees in England for fuel for the glass furnaces.

A lot of places in the world have been deforested for fuel - and this was before coal. Do you really think biofuels from wood, cow fat, and algae ponds are going to make any difference? It's just a fantasy.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#242
post #207
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely can't be a price of first class ticket (10-20k$). Let's take for example Elon's completely fantasy figure of eventual 2 mil dollars per launch. That's 20k$ per seat, so it looks like comparison checks out? Well no. First you need to include price of the floating megaports at each destination in the world. The cost of a single such human rated platform divided by a number of physical rockets using it per…

Well, you're consistently negative about this. First, you're doing a ton of double counting. The estimated $2 million/launch already includes necessary infrastructure, servicing, and so on. Second you're assuming a ton of totally unnecessary gold plating. For example you talk about "floating megaports". In actuality they've been taking barges (available for about $1 million) and retrofitting them. Starship needs a bi…

Of course I'm negative. The mere list of blocking problems for such idea can fill several pages even without expanding them.

First of all - nobody including Elon himself can estimate eventual Starship launch cost. Second - Elon have said that maybe it can come down to 2 mil and that most of that price would be fuel. So he was wildly optimistic as for production and maintenance of the actual hardware. In that interview iirc he was going from an assumption that Starship is already at the high end of reusability (multiple tens of flights or more) and flying regularly.

No one including himself published any total esimations for the total costs of the E2E system as whole and I'm pretty sure that 2 mil does not include any costs for platforms, transit to them, spacesuits, training facilities and dispatchers (new ones, outside of the existing in USA). Maybe he included start gantry, and some preflight checks. Maybe not even that.

Regarding platform cost, I think your estimate is way off. You are forgetting that unlike Elon's barges it need to be a) human rated, b) civilian human rated, c) internationally civilian human rated. It would need a lot of facilities for human on board, it will need some elaborate start rescue systems for 100 space suited passengers. Platform would need extensive protections from them the launch of this insanely powerful rocket (repeated and low on maintenance). Platform would need some kind of armored bunkers for the cryogenic fuels or an extra powered platform which can come for fueling and go away (x2 costs for two platforms). Some kind of evacuation facilities for hundreds of humans in case of a platform fire. A billion of things really. Each one platform will go to hundreds of millions, definitely not a mere 10 mil.

Fortunately I work in IT, so nope, any amount of automation added will simply require the same amount of even more experienced humans supervising them PLUS new people manufacturing, debugging and maintaining said automation.

Starship pilot would cost much more than an airline pilot. Maybe on par in the best case.

And I have to repeat myself - that's ONLY cost considerations. There a lot of other problems.

International permissions for airspace

Total time for the end to end trip (platforms will be VERY far from the cities, exponentially depending from the city size). As soon as that time exceeds 10-12 hours this whole idea is junk.

Total time to train civilian passenger. Total time to train old aged civilian passenger. Tha includes both for rocket, for escaping it, for using a spacesuit etc.

G forces. Why would older billionaires suffer that, potentially risking some aneurism or trombosis or worse?

100 passengers together. So you think 100 billionaires would voluntarily be packed liked sardines in the same confined space with one another? Lol, high society doesn't work like a lowly public bus to the factory.

100 billionaire passengers planning the same trip weeks/months in advance to the same city at the same time? Business does not work like that. They need to go anywhere at the moments notice, when they want, without waiting for a bus... erm.. Starship to fill up. And doing this not as a stunt once a year, but many times a day? Forget about it :) .

Things missing from the regular flight - comfortable private seat in the 1st or a jet (remember price would be so high that a even a big jet price would be cheaper, with all the seats together still cheaper). Comfortable talking and working conditions. Comfortable transit on land, not on a choppy sea. Comfortable suit instead of spacesuit. Gourmet food and alcohol. Chosen company. A lot of things.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#243
post #242
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you're consistently negative about this. First, you're doing a ton of double counting. The estimated $2 million/launch already includes necessary infrastructure, servicing, and so on. Second you're assuming a ton of totally unnecessary gold plating. For example you talk about "floating megaports". In actuality they've been taking barges (available for about $1 million) and retrofitting them. Starship needs a bi…

Of course I'm negative. The mere list of blocking problems for such idea can fill several pages even without expanding them. First of all - nobody including Elon himself can estimate eventual Starship launch cost. Second - Elon have said that maybe it can come down to 2 mil and that most of that price would be fuel. So he was wildly optimistic as for production and maintenance of the actual hardware. In that intervie…

OK, this is going to be my last response in this sad thread.

First, the specs for Starship mean it can hold about $1 million in fuel in its tanks. So we can externally estimate fuel costs. His aspirational goal is $2 million for a launch. His stated initial target is $10 million. There is room in his aspirational target for lots of things other than fuel.

Second, you keep insisting on a ton of people doing unnecessary things. SpaceX already has a tracking system in place to keep track of everything in space and make sure that none of their about 4000 StarLink satellites hit anything. Adding a few hundred Starship rockets to this system does not require an army of dispatchers. You're now talking about rocket pilots despite the fact that essentially nobody bothers with rocket pilots, and they can't be used in SpaceX flights because human reaction time is too slow to do anything useful.

Third, you've talked over and over again about packing billionaires in like sardines. But the target passenger is NOT billionaires. It is executives in companies who currently fly first class, but would rather avoid a 20 hour flight from Los Angeles to Dubai. Every day, literally tens of thousands of people fly first class over an ocean. The Concorde demonstrated that a sufficient volume of them are willing to pay more for a shorter ride in a less comfortable plane to enable regular commercial flights.

Fourth, your set of requirements for civilian rating should be seen as negotiable. Elon's position is that Starship IS a rescue system. He has a point. For example external analysis has found that if the Space Shuttle had simply put the shuttle on top of the rocket, nobody would have been hurt in either accident. If he provides a compelling service, but only offers it where local authorities allow, authorities are likely to figure it out. Just look back on the history of how the Concorde was allowed to land in the USA despite our laws against sonic booms.

And fifth, I DO NOT AGREE that I should accept, on your authority as an IT person, that automation cannot reduce the cost of people for a given task. History is full of counterexamples that represent far better evidence than your claim to authority. Granted, Jevon's paradox is common. We reduce the cost, which increases the demand, which leads to more overall usage. But on the per unit economics, the cost really does go down. Were it otherwise, nobody would be particularly interested in automation.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> equates to a mid six figure salary here based on what you can afford. So they can convert it to six figures USD? > Boeing messed up. FAA not once in it's reports nor any aviation experts blamed the code, Boeing went cheap and removed a redundant device the MCAS system needs during a malfunction. McDonnell Douglas-Boeing messed up indeed. The 9$/h coders are just one of the many symptoms of a culture that lead to th…

You are just not able to comprehend, the difference in USD and INR. I will give you a simple example for you to comprehend. The cost of Unlimited 5G internet in India with 2GB allowance per day billed at 1 YEAR is 43 USD. It's 80 USD at minimum in US per MONTH. The cost of groceries for a 4 person family per month is 243 USD. The mortgage payment on a decent 3BHK house I pay is 182 USD per month. The cost of living a…

> The cost of Unlimited 5G internet in India with 2GB allowance per day billed at 1 YEAR is 43 USD. It's 80 USD at minimum in US per MONTH.

That's for mobile internet I can only use in India, getting an Indian IP address. It costs 43 dollars but it useless once I land in America.

> The mortgage payment on a decent 3BHK house I pay is 182 USD per month.

For a house in India, in an Indian school district, under Indian jurisdiction. It is not the same asset because there's more to it than the number of bedrooms. See how many Mainland Chinese purchase real estate in America specifically because the assets are now under US jurisdiction and can't be seized by the ruling party, only by a US court of law.

> but can hire the same level of talent

Can you? Last I checked, Silicon Valley talent was pretty expensive worldwide. Partly because it's easy to relocate to the valley.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#245
post #243
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I'm negative. The mere list of blocking problems for such idea can fill several pages even without expanding them. First of all - nobody including Elon himself can estimate eventual Starship launch cost. Second - Elon have said that maybe it can come down to 2 mil and that most of that price would be fuel. So he was wildly optimistic as for production and maintenance of the actual hardware. In that intervie…

OK, this is going to be my last response in this sad thread. First, the specs for Starship mean it can hold about $1 million in fuel in its tanks. So we can externally estimate fuel costs. His aspirational goal is $2 million for a launch. His stated initial target is $10 million. There is room in his aspirational target for lots of things other than fuel. Second, you keep insisting on a ton of people doing unnecessar…

If that's your last response then I won't bother responding properly too. Believe in whatever you want.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It literally does reduce emissions if you factor in the fact that I grew the tree, offsetting an equal amount of carbon. Maybe this will help you think about it: If I drove over to the supermarket and back, and then planted a tree that would sequester an equal amount of carbon to the amount I released driving to the supermarket, would you agree that I am offsetting/reducing my emissions?

The CO2 released from burning a new log or an old log makes no difference whatsoever. If you want to plant a tree, it has nothing to do with whether you burned an old or a new log. Do you know the reason why England set up the Jamestown settlement? Because they wanted to make glass. Why set up a glassmaking operation in America? Because they ran out of trees in England for fuel for the glass furnaces. A lot of places…

You did not answer the question. It's really not complicated: Can I offset my burning of one tree by planting another? Yes or No.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#247
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pilot is not flying the plane at cruise, the autopilot is. The autopilot can definitely have an effect on how smooth the flying feels, depending on how autothrottle and altitude hold control loops are implemented.

My understanding is that pilots frequently fly parts of the cruise so that they have adequate "stick time" to stay fresh and familiar with the machine.

Flying an airliner by hand at cruise is dangerous and usually constitutes an emergency. ATC expects the plane to stay precisely at its assigned altitude, especially in RVSM airspace. It's difficult to keep that altitude by hand at speed. Cruise is also normally done close to the edge of the plane's abilities, so small deviations can have catastrophic effects (overspeed or stall).

Airline pilots routinely do takeoffs/departures/approaches/landings by hand to practice their skills, but not cruise. See this Airbus doc: https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/high-altitude-manual-flying/

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#248
post #120

The A380 is a really interesting case study. Boeing had literal decades of owning the commercial aviation market thanks to the 747. The 747 was a 4 engine plane and the elevated cockpit made it elegant for cargo. So 20 or so years ago it was believed we needed a new 747. Boeing had their own variant (based on the 747) that failed to attract interest from airlines. Boeing didn't make a smart machine here. They just lo…

Slightly odd to imply that Europe has relatively few airports, and operates hub and spoke. Ryanair alone operates to over 200 destinations in Europe, and the point-to-point model totally dominates the European market. That's twice as many as Southwest in the US.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#249
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something will need to change to spur competition in the engine space, Isn't SpaceX going to use Starship for international travel. That might motivate these engine makers.

That's an insane plan no matter how anyone looks at it.

If you tell someone 100 years back that 100's of people will be flying in a metal cylinder with wings and engines(aka planes), they will think you are insane.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#250
post #20

I like the a380 because it treats the lowly economy passenger (i.e., me) the best of all the large planes. It has the most headroom (even though it has two stories) so the cabin feels more airy and less cramped. So this is good news.

I love the A380 but the 787 is pretty cozy on the headroom too. Seems very dependent on the selection of baggage bins the airline makes.

“Cozy" would imply "small (and usually comfortable[1])", to me, and thus be a (partial) contrast to the previous person's claim of plenty of headroom.

[1] Except that real-estate seems to use it to mean "inadequate space for intended purpose" (-:

Post reply on HN