HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

This from her seemed dangerously like fraud:

https://www.ted.com/talks/gwynne_shotwell_spacex_s_plan_to_f...

Passenger service by 2028 on starship for between an economy and business class ticket.

A couple years later they confirmed they were still going for the same timeline.

⬐ TaylorAlexander

Giving a talk in 2018 to say their new product might be ready in 2028 is maybe too hopeful, but that's not what fraud is.

⬐ runnerup

I'm not a fan of Elon Musk. I can absolutely see regular passenger service on Starship by 2028. Obviously that's a very aspirational price-point but I don't see how even a strict ruling on fraud would uphold that charge.

⬐ codesnik

I'm just a bit of a fan of Elon Musk. It won't happen by 2028 of course. Price isn't a problem at all at scale, but regulatory pressure will be. If a cargo point-to-point flight will happen, it already will be something, but I don't know of any cargo, military included, that requires such a speed.

⬐ beambot

You can't think of any military use for 100 tons of cargo delivered anywhere in the world in 45min? Lats a pretty acute lack of imagination. DoD is already funding it too:

https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-signs-a-deal-to-rocket-mili...

⬐ ethbr0

At the minimum: fuel.

In 1940, the French lost half their strongest armored formations, and subsequently their country, through an inability to supply fuel in a timely manner under combat conditions.

An F-35A is a ~$150M weapon system. An F/A-18E/F ~$60M. Both useless without fuel.

⬐ kisstheblade

Really? In 5 years ROCKETS will be as safe as airplanes? And as cheap? And possible to fly over cities etc (talking about Shotwells promises here)? You really think this?

⬐ hparadiz

You should actually watch the presentation. All these questions are answered.

⬐ CryptoPunk

*reusable rockets. Rocket launches are associated with very high costs because rockets have historically been one-time use.

⬐ alpaca128

Reusable rockets aren't coincidentally many orders of magnitude safer though. They would need to be just to come even with airplanes. It would also involve acceleration forces far beyond anything a normal passenger would accept. I'd be glad to be wrong, but I have yet to see an analysis that actually does the math and doesn't result in something along the lines of "this concept is insane and doomed to fail". Spaceship would probably make a good spaceship. But using it for quick flights between cities is less realistic than airlines reviving the Concorde.

⬐ CryptoPunk

Very true. Though the high costs historically associated with rocket launches have precluded the kind of scale needed to achieve extreme safety. This will change if SpaceX succeeds with Starship, though of course it will take a long time to iterate enough on safety to achieve the extremely high standard seen in aviation, or at least as high of a standard as is possible with rocket transportation, and then establish a long enough track record that consumers can trust it.

⬐ inglor_cz

" They would need to be just to come even with airplanes."

Airplanes of the 1950s or airplanes of the 2020s? That is a huge difference.

It took the aviation industry 120 years to arrive at current levels of safety.

⬐ sjtindell

I hate framing it this way but your passionate hating has me doing it - do you build rockets? Or cars? What exactly do you do that gives you such certainty in bringing down these people who have already achieved so much? Their "dream big" mentality is sorely lacking in a society full of cynical, dead eyed and uncreative drones focused on nothing but financing their own survival or excesses. Applaud it, don't try to bring it down. There's literally no point. At a minimum they inspire others to get out there and get after it tackling problems.

⬐ adampk

Thank you! Push back against the tide of unrelenting cynicism :)

⬐ uxcolumbo

The real problem with Musk is that he seems to be a narcissist and a good hypeman.

His achievements are that he invested in the right companies and then he ousted the original visionaries / founders... and finally claiming he is the founder... see Tesla.

Also a real leader usually gives credit where credit is due. Not once have I seen where Musk has credited his team.

And don't get me started with how he's calling a rescue diver a pedo, because his idea of his rescue submarine was rejected. Fragile ego is a dangerous thing.

He wants to be seen as a real life Tony Stark. It's more about him, not really about moving humanity forward, that's just a side effect.

⬐ inglor_cz

Both can be true at the same time.

He has a fragile ego and weird behavior on the social networks. At the same time, SpaceX is by far the most successful of all the space startups that have emerged in this century. Most of its competitors are not even unsuccessful, but outright dead. Blue Origin, financed by Bezos, hasn't yet managed to reach the orbit after 22 years of operation.

Yes, it is possible that random forces of luck selected SpaceX for a string of successes. But I think it is deeper than that. Musk has an ability to attract engineering talent and give it enough leeway so that interesting concepts may emerge. Shotwell has an ability to keep the company financially sound and on track.

⬐ cma

SpaceX is in big part successful through what looks like corrupt self-dealing and fraud. They bailed out SolarCity with NASA funded bonds and then instead of taking the L when SolarCity was to go bankrupt, Tesla bailed them out with a fake demo of non-functionable solar shingles followed by an acquisition.

⬐ CryptoPunk

SpaceX has delivered fundamental breakthroughs in commercial space launch. Any analysis of the company that omits this is extremely disingenuous and makes me suspect ignoble motivations behind the critique.

⬐ cma

If Theranos had a breakthrough other parts could still have been fraud.

⬐ throwawaylinux

> The real problem with Musk is that he seems to be a narcissist and a good hypeman.

Why? If that is what it seems, even if that's what he is, why is that "the problem" with him? What even is the problem?

> His achievements are that he invested in the right companies and then he ousted the original visionaries / founders... and finally claiming he is the founder... see Tesla.

Why do people care so much about this? They have to find a reason why he didn't really make that money or achieve those things "fairly". Why? What does it matter even if he did get lucky a few times?

I got lucky many times by being born to a good family, having a good education, finding a passion that I can make money from. I don't feel I should be ashamed or undeserving of that money I make even though I certainly couldn't make it if I was not so fortunate.

> He wants to be seen as a real life Tony Stark. It's more about him, not really about moving humanity forward, that's just a side effect.

I think the most negative way Musk affects many peoples is that they upset themselves about him. Being angry about what other people you've never met feel and think is no way to live.

I mean if he moves humanity forward as a side effect but you're angry because you think the biggest problem with him is that you believe he wants to be seen as a real life Tony Stark or because you haven't seen him credit his employees sufficiently to your liking, well that really seems like a pretty small problem in the scheme of things.

⬐ jstream67

he credits his team in every speech he gives, and thanks the team constantly on twitter.

⬐ md2020

From what I can tell Musk is literally a founder of SpaceX. I know he was a dick to the founders of Tesla, and he deserves shit for that, but it is a fact that Tesla has come very far since then under his leadership, and any claim that the founders would have done better is pure speculation. And of course the teams at these companies deserve credit, which he consistently admits. People who are obsessed with tearing down Tesla/SpaceX are often inconsistent in that any good thing these companies do cannot be attributed at all to Elon, because “he’s just a grifter hypeman, the team/other founders deserve the credit”, but any bad press they get is somehow entirely Elon’s fault. The truth is just that he’s partially responsible for all the good and the bad.

From accounts of people who have actually worked with him, he’s a legitimately smart guy with a laser focus on executing, albeit a micromanager. All the people I’ve seen saying he’s just some idiot MBA type who doesn’t actually believe what he’s selling are random media personalities and pundits. I can’t claim to know which is true, but one is certainly more credible than the other.

⬐ uxcolumbo

Good points. I was only talking about Tesla.

What I was trying to get across is that a founder's own value system and motivations of why a founder is doing a thing are an important factor for the longevity of a company.

To me it appears that Musk is only in it for himself and his legacy. Eventually this will become more apparent and the loyalty and followership he's enjoying will drop.

He's more of a hypeman than a true visionary.

See how he hyped up his other ventures... solar city, self-driving cars you can make money with, electric trucks, hyperloop, etc... still waiting for that self-driving car which should be available 'next year' and that was in 2018 or something.

⬐ borkyborkbork

Is there a way to save comments so I can come back and laugh at them when I'm feeling down?

⬐ uxcolumbo

Just hit on the upvote button and then you can find them in your upvoted comments list ;)

⬐ irjustin

> This from her seemed dangerously like fraud

Pretty heavy statement. Which part is the fraud? The timeline or the ability?

I think it's fair to say far-fetched, but the label fraud or even "sounding like fraud" sounds too heavy.

⬐ mlindner

The person thinks it's fraud because they watched videos by a propagandist who goes by the name "common sense skeptic" who makes videos that sound a lot like the people who make videos about flat earth. I say this as they quote all the same talking points of that person.

⬐ masswerk

Honestly, I don't know what to think of a CEO, who publicly puts her authority behind a video suggesting that doing anything off the open coast line of Zürich may be a viable business proposition. (It's a bit like selling a technology driven by the glaciers of New Mexico.)

⬐ borkyborkbork

Almost like someone who would think that they could do something that whole countries haven't been able to do in 60+ years?

⬐ masswerk

I may be able to get my hands on a rare Swiss seaside property. Interested? ;-)

⬐ masswerk

Maybe that the system requires starts at sea because of destructive noise levels, but most of the destinations listed in the video are either land-locked or don't have that kind of access to free coast lines? You can argue future technicalities, but not geography.

I understand that it's not Musk's job to fix these issues. I just take issue with his (and especially his devout followers') claims that electric cars are any sort of "fix" apart from air pollution in densely populated areas. They're a band-aid at most.

By the way Musk did and still does claim to provide "fixes" for these problems: tunnels, hyperloops, and point-to-point rocket flights, because "I would love to see my customers in Riyadh, leave in the morning and be back in time to make dinner" - you know, as one does. [1]

The thinking there isn't visionary at all - it's good old 20th (or even 19th) century thinking with 21st century tech applied to them. I mean - why even fly all the way to Riyadh in the first place if you could instead improve tele-presence to the point that physically going there doesn't make much difference anymore?

> Put in the actual work yourself instead of shifting the blame on others for not enacting the changes you desire.

First of all - cheap shot, especially since it's not me who declares that electric cars are the solution to pollution and climate change and it's not me who advocates for personal lifts into underground tunnels under every home to fix traffic. Secondly - I don't own a car and take the bike, the bus and the train instead. I live by my principles, even if it hurts sometimes. What about you?

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/gwynne_shotwell_spacex_s_plan_to_f...

⬐ TeMPOraL

> I just take issue with his (and especially his devout followers') claims that electric cars are any sort of "fix" apart from air pollution in densely populated areas. They're a band-aid at most.

Oh come on. Electric cars are a fix, just not a total fix. Cars are going to be replaced by new cars anyway, and replacing them with electric instead of ICE is strictly, objectively better for the climate problem, as it cuts emissions down and increases energy efficiency. Would it be better if we had less cars and more public transit? Sure. It's also a completely orthogonal problem. Also, what would be even better than more of current public transit? Fully electrified public transit. That is a possibility now only because of development done for electric cars.

I'm reminded of "Copenhagen Interpretation of Morality" - the view that if you as much as touch or comment on an issue, or worse, try to do something towards fixing a part of it, you suddenly become responsible for it all, and judged by not coming up with a complete solution.

⬐ qayxc

> It's also a completely orthogonal problem.

See THIS is were I disagree completely. An electric car that replaces an ICE is NOT better than an ICE car that's not being replaced at all (be that by using it longer or by simply not needing it anymore).

Actual fixes exist and I listed some of them. You don't even have to get rid of all cars - it'd already be a huge step forward if the average number of personally owned cars per capita went down below 1.

You see, the problem with seeing electric cars as ANY sort of fix or improvement is that it's actually preventing much needed change from happening. This has nothing to do with any bullshit philosophy matters - it's just a facts-based assessment of the situation.

There's even more to the whole fixation on personal transport by means of automobile that I didn't even touch on. Not a single traffic problem will go away with electric cars and the inefficient and destructive suburban lifestyle will be actively supported even longer. Again, and I can't stress this enough - if you actually care about climate change and efficiency, you need to change your LIFESTYLE, not your car.

Lipstick on a pig...

⬐ TeMPOraL

Yup, we disagree here. I still see it as orthogonal.

> An electric car that replaces an ICE is NOT better than an ICE car that's not being replaced at all (be that by using it longer or by simply not needing it anymore).

That's not on the table, though. People who now drive ICE cars will continue to replace their cars. The immediate choice is between buying an ICE and buying an electric, and the latter is strictly better. Over time, this will eventually (hopefully) replace ICE cars with electrics.

> ANY sort of fix or improvement is that it's actually preventing much needed change from happening

It's not preventing anything, as new cars are going to be bought anyway. You can argue that it reduces perceived urgency of reducing the number of cars on the road. That I'm willing to admit.

> Not a single traffic problem will go away with electric cars and the inefficient and destructive suburban lifestyle will be actively supported even longer.

True. But that's exactly orthogonal to the idea that, ceteris paribus, replacing ICEs with electric is an improvement.

> if you actually care about climate change and efficiency, you need to change your LIFESTYLE, not your car.

Yeah, that ain't gonna happen at scale, though. There are three tried-and-true ways to get people to change their lifestyles: economic pressure, religion and new technologies. Just asking isn't going to help.

As far as we know Musk isn't keen on the idea of interstellar travel.

SpaceX's COO Gwynne Shotwell is, and has spoken publicly about it (and has allude to Musk's opinions on it [1]). That said the basic requirement is a significant propulsion breakthrough [2], current technology just isn't good enough.

You don't beat the speed of light, you just travel at an appreciable fraction of it an accept the fact that by the time you arrive everyone on earth will have aged n (>11?) years.

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/gwynne_shotwell_spacex_s_plan_to_f...

[2] https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/11877454453611806...

⬐ nickpeterson

Another thing is that human lifespan might well improve in the meantime. Pair that with deep sleep/suspended animation and you have a pretty potent combo for conquering long distances.

⬐ einpoklum

In the near future, human lifespan might improve, but mostly in the form of surviving in poor health at old age.

⬐ kitsunesoba

I think the first strides in interstellar travel will probably occur once long-term habitation and manufacturing in space have been mastered, because then it's feasible to construct ships that are either too large to drag out of a planetary gravity well and/or too dangerous to build in the gravity well of an inhabited body (nuclear propulsion).

Highly recommended TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/gwynne_shotwell_spacex_s_plan_to_f...

⬐ bmcusick

The main thing I'm thinking of is noise pollution. You think living near an airport is loud? I cannot even imagine what living near a BFR spaceport would be like. For coastal cities maybe it would be worth it to build a landing pad on an ocean platform some miles out to sea, but what about for cities like Atlanta or Beijing? There's nowhere around them to build that isn't already a suburb.

⬐ rst

Floating platforms do, in fact, feature prominently in their point-to-point travel concept video. No clue what they'd do for travel to, say, Denver or Paris.

⬐ ceejayoz

I'd expect a city like Atlanta to be served by an off-shore landing zone, with high speed rail (hyperloop!) as the connection.

⬐ XR0CSWV3h3kZWg

Atlanta is very open to running public transit lanes into the area and land acq is cheap OTP. /s

⬐ bdamm

Perhaps, but maybe the model ends up being only a handful of BFR ports on each continent. Would you fly 1 hour to Mojave so you could rocket to SE Asia and fly another 1 hour to Singapore? Sign me up!

⬐ WhompingWindows

I think SpaceX should just sell this service to military clients. The other comments here are talking about noise pollution, G-forces, bank angles, and other negative downsides of the service. However, if you have a bunch of active-duty, trained personnel who need to get across the globe ASAP, this is something I could see the military paying for. Moreover, most bases are not directly next to large population centers, which helps with the noise pollution argument.

⬐ larrydag

As a business model I think SpaceX should be a manufacturer and not in the transportation business akin to Boeing or Airbus. There is a ton of logistics involved in transporting people globally. Of course there is the safety issues as well.

⬐ sandworm101

>> safety issues as well.

And vomit. 4+G on launch. Freefall during cruise. 5+ G on reentry. Give me the first class ticket on a BA flight any day.

⬐ zip1234

The vomit can be fixed by the standard issue vomit bag! \s

⬐ Ajedi32

That sounds amazing actually. As of today, I'd consider a few minutes of micro gravity to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. If that ever becomes something you can experience for the price of an airline ticket, I'd consider the ride itself to be worth the price of admission all on its own.

Obviously not for everyone, but you don't really need to be able to service _everyone_ to be profitable.

⬐ ksherlock

You can do it today for the price of a reduced-gravity aircraft ticket (~$5,000, https://www.gozerog.com)

⬐ huslage

SpaceX already are in the transportation business...they launch payloads into space today. Boeing and Airbus are manufacturers of those payloads and aircraft and whatever else, but they don't routinely operate them.

⬐ mulmen

Boeing (later United Aircraft) used to operate their own airline (later United Airlines). They also bought Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Standard, Chance Vought, National Air Transport, and Pacific Air Transport. They were vertically integrated across the airline industry by the end of the 1920s.

This all culminated in the Air Mail Act of 1934 [1] which prohibited airlines and airplane manufacturers from operating under the same corporate umbrella.

It will be interesting to see where this ends up with SpaceX integrating the consumer facing airline operation with rocket manufacturing. Something commercial airlines are not able to do.

⬐ jacquesm

Betting against Elon Musk is historically unprofitable but if there was one of those bets saying that SpaceX will never actually field this other than for PR purposes then I'd probably take it.

⬐ ChuckMcM

I'm glad Gwynne is talking about this rather than Elon as I always take what Elon says with a large grain of "execution" salt (as in sure you can do that but not when you think you can).

Things will be very different when BFRs are flying regularly. BFRs imply full reusability, and full reusability implies a short 'cycle' time, which implies a much greater earth to orbit capacity, with implies a greater supply and more reliability to orbit, which implies that it stops being crazy to require that you have three or four launches in a single year to get all of your "stuff" into orbit.

The logistics of space launch are still crazy. You can launch two rockets in a weekend using two launch pads but you can't yet launch multiple rockets a week from the same launch pad.

⬐ hackpert

I think a major point that isn't being talked enough about in public (although I'm sure people in SpaceX have considered it before coming up with numbers) with the "point-to-point" transport system is simple demand-supply economics. Sure, let's say they can run 10 100-person flights per day from New York to Shanghai but do that many people even want to travel that route on that particular day?

⬐ sounds

More speculation here, I don't have any knowledge on the matter, but...

If the flight time drops from 12 hours to 30 minutes, and prices are in the same ballpark of $2,000, then there would be more demand.

The execs could all be in Shanghai for the board meeting and some of them could be back in NYC for dinner.

⬐ elif

Ugh..

a crown jewel of human innovation, used to make sure the plutocrats don't have to suffer from the terror of foreign 5 star chefs.

can We call it "The Integral" instead of BFR? [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)

⬐ bdamm

Not so, due to time zones. Although I fully realize that if you can rocket out, meet, and rocket back, and go to sleep in the same time zone you woke up in, it would be a very significant development.

⬐ Animats

This is going to be big with the crowd that has jumbo jets as a personal airplane.[1]

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-747-8-vip-private-jet-...

⬐ pjmorris

How do you tell the difference between commercial scheduled rocket flights and incoming ICBM's?

⬐ ninkendo

Heavy regulation and requiring all flights to be registered with NORAD with high precision, probably.

⬐ ceejayoz

We'd also know where the launch comes from, and how many got launched.

Russia can already stick a nuke in a commercial airliner and set it off over NYC, if they want.

⬐ ChuckMcM

Presumably you see where they take off and where they are headed for its pretty straight forward. Current ICBM's seem to have "relatively" minor down range maneuverability so once you're ballistic you can plot a big circle of where you can land. Is that near a spaceport? cool. Is it near a missile silo? better check into it.

Bombers are the same way, there is nothing that prevents building a nuclear bomber in the shell of a 747 and calling it a cargo plane on its transponder.

⬐ soared

Same way you differentiate between an airplane and an alien spaceship. One is common, the other is so absurdly rare its not even worth considering.

⬐ cryptonector

You just build second strike capabilities and call it a day. If {Russia, U.S.} gets off a first strike, then {U.S., Russia} can still get off a second strike, therefore neither will strike first.

Well, that's one option. Russia will need an early warning network to rival the American one either way, and given that and proper flight path registration... maybe there would be no confusion. Maybe.

⬐ walrus01

Something like a rocket version of ADS-B that feeds to a central data collection point, from which nation-states that are nuclear powers (permanent UN security council members, for the most part) can receive a read-only data stream of rocket traffic.

Would require rockets with speed/altitude limit uncrippled GPS.

⬐ jccooper

The ICBMs are usually not 9m wide, made of carbon fiber, carrying transponders, and making a gliding reentry.

⬐ Ajedi32

The same way you tell the difference between commercial scheduled airline flights incoming kamikaze pilots?

⬐ XR0CSWV3h3kZWg

Assume that there aren't commercial scheduled airline flights going straight through a warzone?

⬐ Ajedi32

Assume there aren't commercial scheduled spaceline flights taking off from nuclear missile silos.

⬐ XR0CSWV3h3kZWg

I haven't heard of missile defense systems that are capable of determining the origin of an ICBM while deciding if it should try and take it out.

⬐ jccooper

Infrared boost phase detectors on satellites have been around since the 60s. The US and Russian detection systems, at least, certainly know the origin of any ICBMs. There's not many parties that don't have that data and also have counter-measures.

⬐ None

None

⬐ jacquesm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

⬐ Semirhage

What would be the environmental impact of ubiquitous rocket launches for business travel?

⬐ Rebelgecko

Most people replies are focusing on carbon footprint, but it might also be worth considering noise (e.g. how does the sound of a rocket launching off the coast of California affect whales?) and any atmospheric perturbations caused by the rocket. Launches damage the ionosphere, which hasn't been an issue in the past because as far as we know the damage doesn't have a huge impact, and the ionosphere usually is back to normal within a few hours (or even less depending on trajectory and some other factors). If launches are happening every hour in the same area, that might cause some problems with things like radios.

⬐ jerf

Does it damage the ionosphere? According to what definition of "damage"?

I honestly don't know, so if someone can explain how it really is damage, please do so by all means. But despite some popular suppositions to the contrary, "affects" != "damage". I know it affects it, probably from the same article from a week or so back as you, but that doesn't mean it's "damaged".

⬐ Rebelgecko

I guess "damage" is a judgement call I'm not really qualified to make. Someone could probably make the argument that humanity can't "damage" a natural system because we're part of nature. When half the electrons disappear over a few thousand square kilometers, it's not inherently better or worse. It may annoy someone at Arecibo Observatory or a HAM radio operator or a GPS user, but maybe there's also some positive aspects of that temporary depletion.

⬐ btcindivist

Depends on how many. Flying airplanes is around 1-2% of our total CO2 footprint. Of course, for an individual, doing 1 intercontinental flight with a full plane is equivalent to months if not a year of driving a car to work every day, but in total, not many people fly.

Depending on the efficiency of the rocket and the reduced number of people doing this, the numbers shouldn't be that much higher.

⬐ Retric

That's not really the case. Per passenger mile commercial aircraft get ~70MPG with longer flights tending to have better fuel economy. The trend is really interesting: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/business/the...

So, they are actually very efficient transportation for long trips. Absolute worst case flying around the world is 24,901 mi which uses the same fuel per person as a 35 MPG car commuting 26 miles each way for one year.

PS: You can double check this by considering ~1/3 of the cost of a seat as being spent on fuel.

⬐ btcindivist

What is not the case? 1-2% of total CO2 footprint? That flying a full plane is equivalent to months if not a year of driving a nontrivial distance every day?

I'm not saying cars are more efficient. It's just that the distance travelled is huge when one uses an airplane.

⬐ Retric

Many people use more fuel in a month getting to and from work than a round trip NYC to London flight. It comes down to both distance and fuel economy with some commuters putting in over 1000 miles a week. The range for commuting fuel uses vs transatlantic flight is much wider than 10x months to year.

⬐ CarVac

Longer flights have better fuel economy only in short range regimes where the BFR is definitely not a consideration.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:777-224_fuel_burn-...

Fuel economy improves at first due to reduced overhead of taxiing, takeoff, and ascent, but as you go farther the fuel consumption increases due to the need to actually carry the fuel.

⬐ Retric

Aircraft choice plays a role here. Airlines tend to use more efficient aircraft for longer flights.

⬐ jryle70

Airlines use longer range aircrafts for longer flights. That should be obvious, shouldn't it?

⬐ Retric

Efficiency is one way to increase range. Wingtip devices can reduce drag by inhibiting vortex formation, however they increase weight so there is a minimum flight distance before they are a net gain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device

There is a tradeoff of needing carry more fuel over a portion of the flight, but the aircraft also spends a higher percentage of it's fuel on flying vs taxiing etc.

⬐ InclinedPlane

Pretty similar to the environmental impact of jumbo jets. A 777-200LR burns around 145.5 tonnes of jet fuel to transport around 300 people 15,800 km. That's 31 grams of fuel per passenger-km, about 86% of the fuel is Carbon so that's roughly 27 grams of Carbon emissions per passenger-km. A BFR/BFS contains about 3,240 tonnes of propellant and allegedly will be able to transport around 850 passengers up to 20,000 km. The oxidizer to fuel ratio of the Raptor engine is currently unknown but it's likely it's around 3:1, meaning that 1/4 of the total propellant is Methane while 3/4 is liquid Oxygen, giving 810 of Methane per trip, give or take. Methane is 75% Carbon so a BFR flight should produce roughly 608 tonnes of Carbon emissions, or 36 grams per passenger-km (30% more than a conventional flight, seemingly).

However, it's possible to generate Methane fairly easily using solar power, so such launches have the potential to be nominally carbon neutral with some investment.

⬐ csl

The BFR runs on a mix of liquid oxygen and methane, according to Wikipedia.

Ignoring obvious scalability problems, wouldn’t it be possible to manufacture that with a pretty decent environmental footprint from various carbon neutral bio sources?

⬐ wcoenen

SpaceX plans to refuel the BFR on Mars with methane and oxygen produced via the Sabatier process and electrolysis [1]. They might do the same thing on Earth, even if only for the bragging rights of being carbon neutral.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction#Manufacturin...

⬐ DiThi

It will eventually be very low, much lower than planes. The same technology that is being developed to make propellant on Mars can be used on Earth to extract CO2 from the air and/or sea water. A few squared km of solar panels on floating structures can produce enough propellant for one BFR trip a day.

The same propellant (methane) can also be used on planes, eventually, so BFR will bring many technologies advances independently of the outcome of the project.

⬐ DiThi

Much lower than planes nowadays*

Obviously planes in the future can use cleaner propellants too.

⬐ Symmetry

Not too huge. This person[1] did some math and found that a BFR trip across the world should take 40% to 240% as much carbon as a regular plane flight. For short trips this would be worse, though, because a plane's range goes up almost linearly with fuel use while a rocket's goes up much faster than linearly.

Rockets that use solid boosters like the Space Shuttle, SLS, or Atlas V do a good amount of ozone damage as they go up but the ozone damage from cryogenic propellants of the sort that a BFR uses is pretty small.

[1]https://www.quora.com/Elon-Musk-suggested-that-the-SpaceX-BF...

⬐ byw

Also I'm not sure where SpaceX gets its methane from. If it's from above-surface sources wouldn't its net carbon contribution essentially be zero?

⬐ et2o

Did a little googling. Methane is primarily obtained from natural gas fields which are below ground. Atmospheric concentrations are relatively low (on order of parts per billion) although it is still an important greenhouse gas (30x more potent than CO2 per ton). There's a lot of ongoing research into generating CH4 from CO2 using renewable energy but it's relatively energy intensive to date.

⬐ Semirhage

So there’s noise pollution on a grand scale, it depends on natural gas extraction or a breakthrough in electrolysis, and it will produce CO2 when burned in flight. Great. It will also cost a fortune, and even SST isn’t viable, yet somehow this will be?

I could not be more skeptical.

⬐ jedisct1

Does that mean no food, no snacks during the flight? That sucks.

⬐ tintor

The entire flight would be around 30min. Short airline flights don't serve meals already.

⬐ Diederich

There would be neither the time nor the inclination for food service. A non-trivial percentage of passengers will be dealing with nausea during the thankfully brief 0g float.

⬐ mkirklions

SpaceX is promising something that is feasibly decades away?

Do people still believe in Elon? Or have we figured out these are advertisements.

⬐ Diederich

As far as timelines go, Gwynne Shotwell is in an entirely different class than Elon Musk. If you haven't watched the video, you should, there's some interesting tension going on between her and Elon.

If she says it'll happen in the next X years, I'll put it at a >75% chance of being accurate. If Elon said something like that, i'd put it at 33% chance.

⬐ randyrand

He's not promising it. Despite the optimistic language, its a somewhat-realistic dream that he'd like to do and plans to work on. At least that seems obvious to me.

⬐ cthulhujr

>This is the only time I've out-visioned Elon ... I want to meet other people in other solar systems.

You're not out-visioning Elon; it's a petty attempt at one-upmanship. It just doesn't seem genuine. I want to meet people in other Superclusters. Now she's been out-visioned!

⬐ gfosco

It was an attempt at humor. Take a deep breath and try to do something useful today.

⬐ ncallaway

> "it's a petty attempt at one-upmanship"

I think it was just a light-hearted joke.

⬐ igravious

Employee #7 at SpaceX didn't you hear? Relax, they're on the same team.

⬐ AskewEgret

And a really interesting life story. I like how she randomly ended up in the job:

https://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/spring2012/feature/roc...

> Four years into the job, Shotwell had lunch with a co-worker who had just joined the then-startup company SpaceX. They walked by the cubicle of CEO Elon Musk. “I said, ‘Oh, Elon, nice to meet you. You really need a new business developer,’” Shotwell recalls. “It just popped out. I was bad. It was very rude.”

> Or just bold enough to capture Musk’s attention. He called her later that day in 2002 and recruited her to be vice president of business development, his seventh employee. She wrestled with the decision. “The history of startup rocket companies isn’t exactly great,” explains Hughes, SpaceX senior vice president and general counsel. “This was not necessarily the safest play.”

⬐ bluGill

You will never meet anyone from another solar system. Even if we assume such life exists (it might or might not - either is extraordinary), there is every reason to believe it is far away. It would be extraordinary again if that life is close enough to earth that the round trip of a radio transmission is within a human lifetime. There are just a few hundred (I wasn't able to find an exact number) starts within 25 light years - 50 year round trip time for a radio signal. We know of hundreds of earth like planets, but only by a definition that includes mars which is pretty much dead.

⬐ JumpCrisscross

> it's a petty attempt at one-upmanship

Gwynne Shotwell is SpaceX's President [1]. She and Elon are on the same team.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell

⬐ aphextron

Rocket based travel will never ever ever happen on a widespread scale simply because of the G forces involved. Passengers on an airliner will begin feeling uncomfortable at around 1.2 G's and > 20 degrees of bank angle. The thought of subjecting regular paying passengers to 3+ G's and a full 360 degrees of pitch/roll is absurd. It could definitely be a niche thing for people that are physically fit, but this just isn't the way to go for high speed transportation. More traditional airframes and scramjets are far more likely to make hypersonic travel a reality.

⬐ mikeash

Don’t underestimate the discomfort of spending a dozen hours in economy class. I’d take the rocket ride every day and twice on Sunday over that, and I’m not terribly fond of crazy rides.

⬐ 3pt14159

I'm guessing C-levels are going to start getting into shape if they have 20+ less hours on planes during their day.

⬐ FullMtlAlcoholc

You seem to underestimate how annoying modern air travel is, at least in America. One has to stand in at least 3 different lines (baggage, security, boarding) before getting on the plane. Whether in the terminal or on the aircraft, the seating feels like it was designed to be as uncomfortable as possible.

I imagine that there will be people willing to travel via rocket just because of the 3+ G's. And I'd take a 30 minute roller coaster ride over a 10 hr first class flight any time, all the time. Less time spent flying > comfort while flying. One immediate benefit is that one doesn't have to take a week or more off of work for intercontinental travel. Weekend jaunts to Pattaya or the Alps are possible when you aren't spending 20+ hours in transit.

⬐ sunstone

I wonder if 3G's while lying on your back on a gel cushion isn't a lot easier to take than 3G's standing on your feet?

⬐ Diederich

It certainly is more comfortable; is it more comfortable enough? I'm betting a lot of people would be fine with it.

⬐ huhtenberg

> a full 360 degrees of pitch/roll

Can't this be somewhat alleviated with some sort of free 360 deg. rotating suspension of the passenger cabin? So that the G forces are at least pointing "down".

⬐ dangero

This may be a stupid question, but could people be put under for 30 minutes and just be woken up at landing?

⬐ ceejayoz

No. General anesthesia is a risky procedure, requiring constant one-on-one monitoring by a anesthesiologist.

⬐ mulmen

Sounds like an industry ready for disruption. If only these damn regulations weren't holding us back.

/s (sort of).

⬐ glbrew

GE has been trying to disrupt anesthesia for quite some time:

http://www3.gehealthcare.com/en/products/categories/anesthes...

Edit: Since its not obvious, they have some machines that can go in autonomous mode and alert the hospital if the patient needs an actual doctor to fix something.

⬐ assblaster

Can you show me a GE product which doesn't need an anesthesiologist present at all times?

As far as I can tell, none of those devices acts autonomously or even close to it.

⬐ Ajedi32

So you'd need a licensed anesthesiologist monitoring every passenger? Sounds expensive.

⬐ assblaster

It's a matter of monitoring and dosage. You can easily do mass scale sedation with proper monitoring and appropriate patient selection. If your BMI is over 25 or you have OSA, you wouldn't qualify. If you're healthy, fit, and consenting, you could be sedated for a long haul flight and have minimal hangover, perhaps even feeling rested.

⬐ ceejayoz

If John Glenn could do a Shuttle flight at 77, I suspect you're overstating the difficulties here. People voluntarily subject themselves to 3+ Gs and 360 degrees pitch/roll at amusement parks daily, with fairly minimal levels of physical fitness being required.

⬐ chapium

John Glenn is an exceptional case however. His career was in rocket travel and experimental aircraft.

⬐ jjeaff

If the full 30 minute flight is like a roller coaster, I would be green by the time we got there and probably have a full puke bag. But I'd still prefer that to a 12 hr long haul flight in coach.

⬐ samastur

If you could afford flying on a rocket, I bet you can also afford flying first-class. Would that alter your preference?

⬐ TallGuyShort

You know John Glenn's name precisely because he is exceptional. I would certainly choose the discomfort of a 2-minute roller coaster over the discomfort of a 2-hour commercial flight, but... a man who set milestones in American spaceflight and was trained by NASA for a shuttle mission is hardly the baseline.

⬐ soared

20 minutes of discomfort to save 12+ hours of flight time? Sounds worth it to me.

⬐ None

None

⬐ aphextron

Sure, but will your grandma say the same? My point is that this will never be a normal every day thing for the masses like air travel today.

⬐ jjeaff

My grandma isn't travelling on a plane 12 hrs to anywhere. Long haul travel is more for the youngish anyway (think baby boomers). And my parents would take a 30 minute roller coaster over a 12 hr flight even if that meant using a puke bag every time.

⬐ ithinkinstereo

At the price point, I imagine it won't be as competitive as a business class fare, which 99% of people will choose over 30 mins of non-stop barfing. No?

⬐ phyller

If you can bear with modern air travel today, the process, the rush, the waiting, the hassle with luggage, and worst of all being cramped in little seats with hundreds of other people around for really long periods of time, then I think you will probably be able to handle the rocket. The devil is in the details though.

Regardless, not only do I think I would I appreciate the shorter, more violent flight more as I got older, I would also appreciate the roll of the dice that if anything goes wrong we just all die instantly. Not a bad way to go, really.

⬐ craftyguy

> we just all die instantly

It's surprising (to me at least) that it's not always instant. For example on the space shuttle Columbia, the astronauts went unconscious after a few seconds as the spacecraft was tumbling and breaking apart [1] but it's plausible that they could have regained consciousness if they survived the violent episode inside the shuttle as it broke apart.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/science/space/31NASA.html

⬐ None

None

⬐ abakker

Ever been bobsledding? I question how well even a fit adult deals with G forces that high. I consider myself pretty fit, but I found my experience at 4Gs to be completely unexpected. I could barely keep my head out of my lap. Sure, it was fun, and I didn't die, but they would not let the elderly, those with spinal injuries, or pregnant women ride a bobsled even for 90 seconds.

⬐ phyller

To that I would say the G-force strength and direction should be predictable, known even when they are designing the seats before building the rocket. So the passengers should be in an optimal position where they don't need to hold up their heads against the Gs but are cradled by the seat. I think that is very different from the bobsled analogy where the G-forces are changing intensity and direction all the time and you are not in an optimal position.

If the G-forces are unpredictable, well something went really really wrong.

But you are probably right in that there will be more medical restrictions than there are now. But someone with a spinal injury, or who is very pregnant, or very weak from age probably isn't going to be flying in today's aircraft either.

⬐ acchow

Normal people won't be able to afford this. It will serve a small market of wealthy, willing, healthy people.

⬐ soared

True, but I don't think BFR is ever meant for the masses. And airplanes, which are gentle but can be uncomfortable, are barely for the masses (in 2015 only 45% of Americans flew on a plane).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/2016/04/14/americans...

⬐ baq

...only? that's a first world problem if i've ever seen one :)

⬐ soared

haha well I meant only 45% of the population isn't really "the masses"

⬐ lccarrasco

I'd argue that it is, that's almost half the total population and an even larger percentage of working age adults.

⬐ manicdee

How many of that 45% took a first class or business class international flight?