HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

The referenced talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA

>The fact is SpaceX launched 50% of the global payload to Orbit, and over around 30% of all spacecraft.

Again, I'm not arguing that SpaceX isn't capable of ferrying people or cargo into orbit, or that they don't have a viable business, or that they are not leaders in this market segment. That's all fine. I have no issues with Musk or SpaceX. I like seeing American companies succeeding. But perhaps Musk should dial down the hyperbole.

>It my have a kernel of truth but if the 'truth' is something totally banal like 'Reusability is not a panacea.' then that doesn't actually make their arguments valid

But reusability isn't a panacea for cost savings. There are real challenges with reusable rockets. This is where Thunderf00t does a real good job explaining the issues because they aren't space-specific, but rather the problem derives from first principles of Newtonian mechanics (https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU?t=891) namely, you have to carry the fuel for return, which severely cuts into the amount of payload you can take up. Also, maintenance is expensive. But the issues are there. Tory Bruno, the CEO of ULA lays out the challenges of reusable rockets: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ftstmv/tony_o... . Yes, he's a competitor, but his argument strikes me as honest and credible.

So SpaceX hasn't proven the concept yet. They haven't made enough flights (and only the first stage boosters are actually reusable). The Space Shuttle is a good guide of how subtle the issues may be and it may take years to fully realize the flaws in the design or economics. Believe me, I wish them well.

>If you are gone talk about the 'Cult of Musk', Thunderf00t is the opposite basically the pope of the 'Cult of Anti-Musk', he made a career of making videos about how every Musk is wrong about everything.

To be fair to Thunderf00t, Musk says a lot of objectively idiotic things. So the low hanging fruit of, say, hyperloop, that Thunderf00t took much glee in trashing was kind of warranted. It's a stupid concept. SpaceX, specifically Musk and SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell, also made some outrageously silly arguments around city-to-city rocket-powered transport [2] - a concept that is so idiotic I'm flabbergasted Shotwell (and Musk) would actually try to advance it seriously and also claim it would be available within 10 years. Come on man. And that's the problem with SpaceX and Musk in a nutshell, there make a lot of unfeasible aspirational claims that are taken at face-value by their devotees.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA (skip to 15m to see the claim about city-to-city rocket transport)

⬐ nickik

> I like seeing American companies succeeding. But perhaps Musk should dial down the hyperbole.

We need to make difference between hyperbole about SpaceX and its mission and much more specific claims by SpaceX leadership about Falcon 9 and its re-usability.

> But reusability isn't a panacea for cost savings.

Yes, it isn't, literally nobody ever said it was a panacea, it requires carful engineering in terms of the system you use and do a lot of careful operational engineering. And iterate on both of those things.

> This is where Thunderf00t does a real good job explaining the issues because they aren't space-specific

I refuse to watch any more Thunderf00t videos, all that I have watch have been full of such gross characterizations and misinformation that I believe he is neither credible nor acting in good faith.

I rather react to what Tory is saying, I will not give him clicks.

> you have to carry the fuel for return, which severely cuts into the amount of payload you can take up. Also, maintenance is expensive. But the issues are there. Tory Bruno, the CEO of ULA lays out the challenges of reusable rockets: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ftstmv/tony_o... . Yes, he's a competitor, but his argument strikes me as honest and credible.

I addressed all of these things and I have addressed most of them in my first post.

I like Tory and he is a good guy, but as you said he is competitor and he sees it as he sees it. Lets also remember that his predecessor was fired partly because he publicly said they couldn't compete with SpaceX, so we know what happens if Tory said something different.

But let me offer a couple of points. He literally only list the negatives as he sees it. He ignores all potential positives as well.

The ability to improve the design over time from inspection, reduce over-engineering, lower tolerances, replace high risk parts and so on. These things have allow SpaceX to increase the performance by a quite a lot. A reusable Falcon 9 now, launches way more then a Falcon 9 in 12 did without re-usability. And at least part of that is because SpaceX learned so much about the design of their engines.

He mentions some parts that might be replaced, but he doesn't mention that some of those parts could very likely also fly 100 or more times. So you need to consider the upside as well. If do pass that threshold he mentions, the downside he mentions, must equally be applied to the upside as well (and he clearly isn't doing that).

The potential of having a large set of ready rockets. ULA was literally paid a billion $ in subsidies (but Tory would not call them that) so they were launch ready for the military. SpaceX now offers that same service for literally no extra cost.

Tory argues this was perfectly fair money that ULA received (but it didn't help them compete in the private market apparently) but then he assigns no value to the large availability of launch ready rockets.

His assumptions are also based on what he things cost are, and it has been demonstrated many times now, that just because industry insiders believe cost are a certain way, turns out SpaceX can do them for much less. So why would I know believe him on how high these costs are.

He also ignores that re-usability can increase your launch rate and thus divide your fix cost over a much larger amount of flights. ULA right now is spending many 100s of millions on pad upgrades. These upgrades are virtually the same even if you launch 2x as much.

He also makes no point about margin. If you have a 5% margin, and it cost you 5% to achieve re-usability then its not worth it. But if you have a 50-100% margin, then a 5% extra cost means incredibly high winnings.

He also doesn't account for shared infrastructure and development. Landing software and technology required for landing on earth will partly apply to landing for all other NASA missions. ULA might see maintain a team of landing engineers as a cost, rather then an opportunity. SpaceX will use this development forward for many projects and its not a cost, rather then a strategic capability for the spaceflight company, not just a thin launch provider.

He also ignores the increase efficiency of your launch team, if you can launch once a week, you are simply forced to have processes that enable that. Having an efficient team, with efficient processes that can quickly educate new people is a huge benefit.

Consider ULA still launching the Delta 4 Heavy in comparison, the knowledge can be used very few times. It will be better with Vulcan but not comparable to Falcon 9. Again, this is less team utilization, less efficient processes and less knowledge sharing and development.

Also, it is short sighted. He sights many technological problems that simply need to be overcome, as re-usability is clearly right in the long run. Saying we only invest in something once its 100% proven and there is basically 0 risk will simply lead you to being a government only specialty contract that for a time can depend on the government funding because you have no competition. They would not even have done a new rocket if not for SpaceX.

SpaceX is proven the case right now with what they are doing, even if you believe Tory very high estimate of 10 flights, SpaceX has basically shown that this is possible with the current design. Sure their avg is not 10 yet, and of course you could then say 'see its not 100% proven' but simply closing your eyes and waiting until it is literally undeniable is not required for most of the world (basically non SpaceX competitors).

Basically all credible future SpaceX competitors (that don't have fancy government monopolies) have announced working on a re-usable vehicles because they knew there is simply no other economical way to compete and they don't feel the need to deny that SpaceX has cracked it and its either respond or die. The RocketLab CEO literally at his hat.

Consider also this ULA literally had a launch monopoly, in addition to getting absurdly high launch prices for a decade plus, and in addition getting an absurd amount of subsidies (sorry I mean launch readiness guarantees for 900M a year). Despite that, they also got another almost billion to develop their new launch vehicle. Despite that they have not even attempted to implement any even remotely innovative ideas in the last 2 decades. Taking a company like that seriously in terms of their analysis in future technology and how profitable it could be is not credible.

Now, if you actually listen to SpaceX team, and admittedly they are bias in the other direction. They claim operationally even only flying it once would still be worth doing. This is not just Elon Musk but other of the leadership as well. I think that excludes the development cost however. They are closing in on proving that 10 is viable with pretty fast turn around already, and the turn-around avg has been decreasing constantly.

The have also said there is no indication that 10 is end of life and very likely more is very achievable.

At the end of the day, re-usability simply allows you to do things that would otherwise be possible and that alone has a gigantic worth, potentially more then anything. And of course Tory as CEO of ULA only looks at launch because they are a government created (literally) and government funded launch provide, they have no power to invest any of their profits in themselves. Tory is the CEO, but don't think just because he is the CEO, he has anywhere close to the freedom Musk has.

There is simply no way SpaceX could launch every 2 weeks if they had to build all those rockets and rocket engine from scratch and there is no way you could go beyond that.

tl:dr; Even using the most conservative approach advocated by a competitor, SpaceX is close to even jumping that threshold. By any realistic approaches from independent annalists, they have jumped it already.

Except totally unreasonable :)

Rockets that size cannot be launched anywhere near populated areas, so they'd have to launch from off-shore platforms; outside of Australia, USA and Russia there are no worthwhile destinations that can safely host on-shore rocket launch complexes for that class of rocket.

This poses quite complex logistical challenges that enthusiasts just love to handwave away. But there's even more to it: airspace needs to be closed on both launch and target sites.

Weather will lead to scrubbed flights as rockets have much tighter weather parameters than aeroplanes and are incapable of changing routes mid flight or divert to alternate airfields.

The most ridiculous part, however, is passenger logistics: every astronaut/cosmonaut/taikonaut wears pressure suits during ascend, since otherwise there's no way to breathe in case of a loss of cabin pressure once you're above 20km. Oxygen masks just won't do anymore at such heights. This means passengers would need to wear and familiarise themselves with pressure suits, unless SpaceX can convince the FAA somehow that even fewer failure modes can be mitigated while still being safe for passengers...

Getting onto the rocket is another point that's far from trivial - one doesn't simply walk into Starship and pick a seat. The seats wouldn't be upright, so passengers would need to climb into them and be secured by personell. Not to mention the elevator ride and the long wait during fuelling (remember: SpaceX are the only ones who do "dry-loading", that is they only start fuelling once the passengers are on board).

So your 30 minute short trip from LA to Paris would in reality consist of a 1 hour drive to the port, followed by 1 hour check-in and a 1 hour boat ride to the off-shore launch facilities. Next you'd have at least 1 hour of boarding procedures (limited elevator space, pressure suit fitting, seating) followed by fuelling (maybe another hour?). So after about 5 hours or so you are finally clear for launch and arrive somewhere off the coast of France 30 minutes later. From there it's another hour for unloading, an hour to get to the coast and another two hours from the coast to Paris.

In total, best-case scenario travel time would be about 9½h - better than the 16h via plane (12h flight + 4h getting to-/from airport plus boarding time), but a far cry from Shotwell's "business meeting in Abu Dhabi in the morning and back in Vancouver for dinner".

The off-shore launch platform idea isn't mine, by the way - the concept was brought forward by SpaceX themselves and presented by Glenn Shotwell who said "the longest part of the ride is be the boat out and back" [1].

I'm highly sceptical of the idea - not because I think it's impossible, which it isn't - but because the logistics, regulatory conditions, and economics behind it just don't make sense. I could be wrong, of course, and stranger things happened, but realistically, the odds are very much against this ever going to happen[+].

[+] using Starship/Super Heavy as envisioned and developed today

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA&feature=youtu.be...

⬐ njarboe

Commercial aircraft were also totally unreasonable for quite a time after Wright's first flight in 1903.

Musk has explicitly stated that a "safety first" attitude does not get people to Mars. His hierarchy of action is "don't panic", not yet specified, "safety third, maybe". This philosophy is hard to implement in modern day America, but the attitude is part of what allows Elon Musk and the people that work with him to do what they do.

⬐ qayxc

> Commercial aircraft were also totally unreasonable for quite a time after Wright's first flight in 1903.

That's comparing apples and orangutans.

This isn't a 1903 situation at all - we've launched rockets on a weekly basis for 60 years and operated crewed reusable spacecraft for more than 30 years.

This is well known territory. All limitations, possibilities and risks are well known and documented.

If you have to make a comparison, choose the Concorde versus Ju-52 or something. But even that's flawed because it doesn't fit at all.

The concerns I mentioned aren't going to magically disappear - even a "perfectly safe" (by whatever definition) rocket still has to deal with these. A 30-engine, 122m, 65MN rocket will generate a literally deafening blast and for that reason alone cannot be launched near cities. This is a fact of nature, not just a simple engineering problem or overly cautious safety concern.

Same goes for airspace closure, weather on both ends, and simple things like customs and security checks.

Starship won't have any cross-range capabilities, full stop. That's how rockets work and one consequence of this is that bad weather means a scrubbed launch, simple as that. Nothing to do with attitude or "modern America".

That's just physics and natural phenomena that exist and cannot be wished away.

Again, none of this prevents point-to-point travel from being possible, it just demonstrates that it's likely not going to be an everyday occurrence like long-haul flights. A novelty, maybe. Another option for the rich and important, sure.

A viable alternative to regular jets, I think not. Time might prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain the odds are stacked against regular point-to-point passenger flight service using huge rockets.

⬐ fooker

>Weather will lead to scrubbed flights as rockets have much tighter weather parameters than aeroplanes and are incapable of changing routes mid flight or divert to alternate airfields.

This part is not true. Weather plays a significant role for thin rockets. This one is thick enough to be launched during usual weather fluctuations. Of course, a tornado or cyclone might be disruptive, but that's also true for normal airplanes.

⬐ qayxc

> This part is not true.

Yes it is. A wider rocket has more generous margins when it comes to wind, sure, but thunderstorms, heavy rain, storm with strong gusts (doesn't have to be extreme either), sudden ice, heavy snow, etc. etc. will still prevent launches and especially landings.

> Of course, a tornado or cyclone might be disruptive, but that's also true for normal airplanes.

Normal aeroplanes fly around unfavourable regularly and flying holding patterns is normal procedure anyway. None of that is possible with rockets, no matter how wide.

The situation is worsened by the fact that pilots have the luxury of time when planning their route, e.g. bad weather at the destination during launch isn't a big deal for long-haul flights, since there's often 10 hours or more until it even becomes relevant.

With a rocket, weather at the launch and target site have to be favourable at pretty much the same time, since you'd get there in well under an hour.

We'll see later today how well the aerodynamics might work and how the rocket behaves. I remain very sceptical about the point-to-point idea.

⬐ the8472

> would in reality consist of a 1 hour drive to the port, followed by 1 hour check-in and a 1 hour boat ride to the off-shore launch facilities. Next you'd have at least 1 hour of boarding procedures (limited elevator space, pressure suit fitting, seating) followed by fuelling (maybe another hour?). So after about 5 hours or so you are finally clear for launch

I see that the TSA mindflayers have not been kind to you. Many of those steps do not have to be performed sequentially. For example check-in and suit-up could be performed on the ferry. And if you're already throwing stupendous amounts of money at travel then you also don't have to pick a slow ferry, consider jet hydrofoils. And you don't even have to start at some port far from a city. If the city has a major river it could take up passengers in the middle of the city, travel down the river and on towards the launch platform. And if we're talking about strapping hundreds of people onto rockets then the safety margins on everything would have to be improved far enough that the dry-loading probably is not needed anymore either.

As far as logistics go it seems hard but possible. But you may be right that regulatory conditions could prove prohibitive since not everyone will just go along with musk's plans.

⬐ qayxc

We're still talking about international flights here - 90 min pre-flight arrival on international flights is standard. There won't be any less rigorous security checks because you're flying a rocket.

Parallel procedures might sound fine in theory, but it's way simpler to just have people onboard the ferry who are good to go and don't need to be kept there, make a scene, etc. Security personell and access to information systems is much simpler to come by in the port, which incidentally already has customs facilities anyway.

> And you don't even have to start at some port far from a city.

Yes you do, that's the whole idea of safe distances with rocket launches. We're talking about a vehicle that basically can be as devastating as a small tactical nuke in terms of destructive potential. Especially during launch, you'd want that thing as far away from densely populated areas as possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklVhRzkVqA&feature=youtu.be... that's what happened last time a 30-engine rocket failed...

> consider jet hydrofoils

That might be an option, but then again even Shotwell explicitly mentioned the boat ride to be longer than the 30 min rocket ride even at just 10 miles out, so I don't think fast ferries are the most realistic option (mostly for safety reasons).

⬐ the8472

> > And you don't even have to start at some port far from a city.

> Yes you do, that's the whole idea of safe distances with rocket launches.

I meant the old-fashioned, boaty port, not space port.

⬐ qayxc

Ah, I see, sorry - misunderstanding on my part :)

⬐ ncmncm

The ferry doesn't deliver individuals. It carries a passenger seating/baggage module. People get themselves strapped in on the way out. At the launch site the module is hoisted and locked into the vehicle. On arrival, the module is extracted and lowered to the boat deck. People come down to the deck during the boat ride.

Probably their "pressure suits" are the same as the seats, just clamshells with room to scratch, and (often enough) barf.

But scheduled passenger service is 15-20 years off, if ever. They only talk about it now to make the whole enterprise seem inclusive, and not just billionaire playtime. It's even money that civilization will collapse, first.

SpaceX's goal[1] is to be able to ship people for around the cost of a business-class ticket[2] to the same destination.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA

Another interesting watch is the TED talk by SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell earlier this year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA

Say what you will about Musk, but the guy is truly ambitious and willing to shoot for the stars ( or mars at the moment ).

If you think Elon Musk is crazy, you have to listen to Gwynne Shotwell [1]

She wants to meet other people in other solar systems, I presume while she's still alive.

https://youtu.be/Dar8P3r7GYA?t=1257

⬐ nojvek

That’s not crazy. That assumes SpaceX will be successful enough to be an interplanetary railway beteeen planets and there will be multiple civilizations.

Absolutely nothing wrong in dreaming big. We need more women like her.

⬐ api

There is definitely a market for this. When you hit really high levels of the corporate or governmental world, time becomes enormously more valuable than money. The market might bear a cost many times that of a private jet flight if the time were this short.

This is an incredible idea for subsidizing the Mars rocket program via rapid transit for executives, heads of state, etc.

Of course it would also have to be demonstrated to be at least as safe as air travel first before it would hit the mainstream in that market.

⬐ gldalmaso

I have yet to see any mention of how the passenger experience is going to be. I assume it is much worse than some ear pain on take off and landing. Can the average person handle this trip comfortably? Or do they have to pass some astronaut-like conditioning test?

⬐ mieseratte

> Or do they have to pass some astronaut-like conditioning test?

I wonder about military applications. One would imagine that special forces groups would meet requirements. Being able to move SEALs around the world in a matter of minutes would be a boon for force projection.

⬐ regularfry

Some of the things Burt Rutan has said over the years imply that this niche is already filled.

⬐ DmenshunlAnlsis

Rocket launches take a certain amount of planning and favorable weather. Plus, they are impossible to hide. All in all, not desirable.

⬐ mieseratte

Ah, I forget that rockets are no where close to planes...

At best one could maybe speed up pre-planned movements, as opposed to allowing a QRF to more rapidly react.

⬐ pilom

Assuming 1) a trip is about 10,000 miles in distance, 2) acceleration is constant and speeding up for 15 minutes and slowing down for 15 minutes, they are looking at (very roughly) 0.4g of additional acceleration i.e. you would feel 1.4 times as heavy as you do standing still on takeoff and landing. As you angled horizontally, the effect of earth's gravity would be counteracted by your centripetal acceleration so that you would feel approximately 0.4g at the midpoint of the flight. So 1.4g at takeoff and landing, 0.4g at the midpoint (again assuming constant acceleration due to thrust)

That sounds not too bad. Two 15 minute burns sounds in the realm of possibility.

Edit: changed some numbers and my conclusion.

⬐ computerex

Forget about comfort. Rocket engines are dangerous and unreliable compared to planes and any other mode of transportation. People aren't going to tolerate the risk.

⬐ Klathmon

>Rocket engines are dangerous and unreliable compared to planes

To be fair, that's the problem they are trying to fix. This is like telling Microsoft that personal-computers will never work because they are big, expensive, difficult to use, and crash all the time.

⬐ MPSimmons

To be fair, only half of those statements have changed. Computers still crash all the time, just less frequently than they used to.

⬐ Klathmon

But there's a magnitude difference there from "the early days".

Plane crashes still happen too, but with significantly less frequency.

⬐ voidlogic

>Computers still crash all the time

My personal XP is 20 years my computer crashed 1-5 times a day, now days my computer crashes maybe once every 4-6 months. That is considerable.

⬐ NegativeLatency

In general if your PC crashes you don’t explode though.

⬐ Klathmon

But now we have computers running our planes, running our cars, running our pacemakers.

Your PC might not kill you, but the software running the drive-by-wire system in your car will.

Still, my point wasn't to get into a discussion about the differences between software and rockets, but more to point out that their goal is to change those things about rockets. To make them reliable, safe and cheap.

You can think they won't be able to pull it off, but saying that it will never work because it doesn't currently work that way seems a bit silly.

⬐ computerex

> This is like telling Microsoft that personal-computers will never work because they are big, expensive, difficult to use, and crash all the time.

That's not a fair comparison. The energy difference between a rocket engine and an airplane combustion engine is huge. Rockets are all about raw energy output and are essentially a bomb. The fuel is volatile, and rockets use a lot more fuel than planes. If a failure happens with rockets, the whole thing usually ends up blowing up catastrophically.

Rockets are inherently more dangerous. But hey, more power to them. I would love it if we can make rocket flight safe enough for everyday use by everyone.

⬐ Symmetry

There was some analysis on the SpaceX subreddit saying the G loads would peak out at 4 Gs. So a bit worse than those carnival rides where you stick to the pads on the periphery of a spinning room, which IIRC are only 3 Gs. With a well padded reclining seat it should only be mildly unpleasant for healthy adults but I worry that there are potential customers who won't be able to deal with it.

⬐ cletus

While I agree with you that there's a desire for this I'm not yet convinced there's a market for it.

As you say, this needs to be proven to be at least as safe as air travel.

Beyond that, for certain wealthy individuals, government dignitaries and the like commercial flight represents an unacceptable risk and cost in time eg Apple's board requires Tim Cook to fly private now.

Next, if the launch and landing pads are indeed offshore and otherwise remotely, this adds travel time at either end.

Also, rockets are subject to weather much more than planes are. If your landing pad is offshore then those weather effects are more pronounced as you have to deal with sea conditions too.

Lastly, current SpaceX landing is a "dead stop" approach (vertical velocity is designed to hit 0 when altitude is 0), which seems like it may not have the safety margins for mass transit. Future designs may of course improve on this.

So much as we'd like this, I'm not yet sure how we get there. Planes have to log many thousands of hours to be certified for passenger flight. Will we have enough launches to certify rockets this way? Even reusable rockets are, in comparison to planes, expendable because they're combusting huge amounts of fuel. Like I don't see you reusing the same rocket every day for 30 years like you can with a plane.

⬐ mongol

I don't understand your point about dead stop approach. What would be the alternative?

⬐ cletus

It's an issue of safety margins. Just consider the airplane.

- A two-engine plane can operate on just one engine

- In the event of losing power or losing both engines, a plane has a certain glide capability

- Runways are built allowing a certain amount of overshooting

- A bad approach allows you to circle back around and try again

- Planes can land and takeoff with significant winds and precipitation (including cross winds)

- A plane can actually land in a body of water (as happened on the Hudson).

Now compare the safety margins for a dead stop rocket reentering from space at Mach 30.

⬐ skykooler

To address your first point - the rocket has 3 sea-level engines on the spaceship stage, each of which has enough thrust to land the ship on its own if the other two fail. (This is partly a byproduct of it being much lighter during landing than takeoff as most fuel has already been burned.)

⬐ alonmower

I think the issue with the current hoverslam solution is that the timing of the rocket relight is critical to the rocket hoverslamming (and not just regular slamming). I don't have the answer to this but imagine that if an engine fails to relight at the correct time there's a much smaller (or maybe non-existent?) margin of error.

A plane on the other hand has two engines and can also generally just glide to the ground in the event that neither of them are working.

⬐ trevyn

>time becomes enormously more valuable than money

In some sense this is true, but keep in mind you're not actually creating more time -- time spent on business jets can be quite productive, in-person encounters are not always necessary, and it is often possible to use scheduling to get two powerful people in a room together when they happen to be near each other anyway.

Also not sure if the video goes into this, but rocket launches are LOUD, and so tend to be away from densely populated areas -- plan on another 20-30 minutes on each side to get to/from the pad.

(Maybe tunnels will help with this? Load yourself into a tunnel pod, which then gets robotically loaded on the rocket, so door-to-door transport? Man, the future's gonna be sweet!)

⬐ grendelt

20-30 minutes for checked luggage. 20-30 minutes for security groping. 20-30 minutes waiting for that idiot to find his seat. 20-30 minutes waiting for luggage or the carousel.

⬐ selectodude

Putting on a pressure suit, guaranteeing your body can handle 5-6 Gs sustained for a few minutes, having a death rate of 1.5 percent.

⬐ programbreeding

Flying a VIP (semi-private) airline avoids all of this, and surely anyone that would take a rocket is already flying a fully private airline.

Using this as an example because I make this trip often: I can fly Cincinnati, OH to Charlotte, NC on a VIP airline for $500 round trip. I drive my car right up to the plane, and there is a rental car waiting for me at the plane exit on the other side. The entire plane is first class only. There is no baggage check, no TSA, no nothing. I can walk on to the plane 5 minutes before takeoff.

⬐ None

None

⬐ Shivetya

I am still awaiting a day when you can be projected anywhere and acceptance of it as a means of face to face. The old hologram style of science fiction interaction.

⬐ greedo

You're thinking like a technical person. The management caste needs face to face time, in person, where you can get social cues. Drinks, meals, walks together, golf games. Not Facetime or Skype.

⬐ pentae

Don't forget the girly bars. Never forget the girly bars.

⬐ ben_w

As I recall, that was the justification for Concorde. The market said otherwise, and that was before video conferencing had become too cheap to meter.

⬐ icc97

Concorde is about 4x faster than an airliner with a fairly limited range. BFR is 10x faster with global range. The point being that you can do 10x the trips and make 10x the money compared to airlines. Plus there's no taxiing around an airport. It's purely refuel and go.

Even if my numbers are out Concorde was borderline viable and BFR should be more capable of bringing in money.

Plus you go into frigging space. Branson wants to sell just that, this gets you into space and down to China.

Another advantage I can think of over Concorde is that there should be more space and the trip is only ever 30-40 mins, so no cramping up in the seat.

Finally a Concorde ticket was about $12,000, BFR was mentioned to be $1-2k at the end of the video.

⬐ ben_w

That ticket price is definitely relevant. For some reason I thought Concorde was “only” $2500.

However, your point about cramped space made me realise that although the BFR isn’t going to be volume limited, that’s because it’s mass limited. Every 10kg of luggage will add about $250 to the price.

⬐ adventured

It was in fact the justification for the first commercial airplane travel in general. Initially only well off people traveled by commercial passenger plane. It was extremely dangerous and very uncomfortable.

Fortunately we didn't stop our pursuit of progress due to such challenges. Now 3.5 billion or so passengers take extraordinarily safe, comfortable flights every year.

⬐ Retric

Concorde was run at a significant profit for years. R&D costs where not recuperated, but that that's just a question of scale.

⬐ ben_w

This, combined with all the tech needed for a Mars colony, would make it trivial to build a permanent settlement in Antarctica.

A domed, self-sufficient, city in Antarctica would also be a cheap way to test most (not all) of the tech needed for Martian self-sufficiency, along with the psychological impact of living in a desolate wasteland where rockets are the only way in or out, and it would be a good insurance policy against many possible global catastrophes.

⬐ dogma1138

We already are doing that there is no need to do it in Antarctica since there is an atmosphere there and the soil isn't toxic.

Deserts, volcanic landscape like those of Hawaii and even a large enough basement would be just as good of a simulation without needing to worry about the environmental impact in Antarctica.

And plus we already have a "city" there.

⬐ jonathankoren

I often think about this Bruce Sterling quote on The WELL from 2004:

``I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the same time I see people settling the Gobi Desert. The Gobi Desert is about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper and easier to reach. Nobody ever writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well, it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's no good reason to go there and live. It's ugly, it's inhospitable and there's no way to make it pay. Mars is just the same, really. We just romanticize it because it's so hard to reach.``

⬐ dogma1138

Yep and while Mars can provide a possible plan b any disaster other than the planet disintegrating would likely leave a more hospitable environment than mars, and if we have the geo engineering needed to terraform Mars we can terraform the earth just as easily.

That said however settling the Gobi isn’t cool and as such it won’t drive innovation that could and would improve life on earth.

⬐ ben_w

What is missing from life on Earth that is more improved by turning Mars green than by turning Earth’s deserts green?

Sure, Mars is cool and I intend to by a ticket, but making Earth deserts productive sounds like a great improvement down here.

⬐ dogma1138

Well turning the desert green may have an impact on the global ecosystem of the planet at least as far as local species go.

If that isn’t a problem for you then sure go a head.

Mars would require us to solves many more problems which can be then used to solve problems here on earth sometimes a bigger challenge is required to push for a breakthrough.

But if we go about geoegineering then I rather terraform mars which by all accounts is a dead planet than terraform the less livable places on earth as they are a host to their unique life forms.

⬐ zeusk

Landing on ice, with a rocket firing down.

You sure?

⬐ iqihs

They don't land on ground, it's a landing pad .

⬐ zeusk

How big of a pad will you have to build in Antarctica to deflect heat from any ice that might be structurally supporting the base?

⬐ ben_w

Would that matter? When it melts, it turns to water. There are already landing pads that float on water.

This doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, but my engineering skills are purely software — I really am asking if it would matter because I don’t know.

⬐ ben_w

Question (I don’t know if the answer is known to anyone, nor where to look online): does Mars have significant CO2 permafrost that can be disturbed by landing a rocket on it?

⬐ zeusk

> This, combined with all the tech needed for a Mars colony, would make it trivial to build a permanent settlement in Antarctica.

> A domed, self-sufficient, city in Antarctica would also be a cheap way to test most (not all) of the tech needed for Martian self-sufficiency

GP is talking about testing the rockets in Antarctica.

⬐ ben_w

I am GP. I’m talking about testing colony tech somewhere where failure isn’t fatal. Rockets are only part of that, but it’s not really testing by the time you have the rocket capacity to make a colony in Antarctica.

⬐ pilom

We already have domed cities in Antarctica that test the psychological impact of living in desolate wastelands. It is in fact so desolate there that we can't physically access those places for months at a time and rockets wont change that one bit. You literally can not move a person to or from the South Pole research station for months of the year. Rockets aren't the tech needed.

⬐ ben_w

We have domed villages, not cities. Musk is aiming for a million, dynamics might be different. Or not, I’m not a psychologist.

⬐ godelski

> and the longest part of the trip is the boat trip

In other words, how to make human pancakes in 30 minutes.

But really, these are ballistic trajectories. Are we going to put everyone in G suits? And you're going to really restrict who can/will go on. They will likely go slower, so everyone doesn't have to go through endurance training.

Plus, being 5k-10k out from land, the total trip is definitely going to take much longer than 30 mins (yeah shorter than the airline flight), to get people on to the boat, onto the rocket, baggage loading, etc. It takes about 30 minutes between when they start loading people onto a plane and when they take off (and baggage is already on!).

Let's be real, if they get it working, it will be 2-3hrs trip. Which is still great, but not 30 minutes.

⬐ schiffern

>But really, these are ballistic trajectories. Are we going to put everyone in G suits?

I assume you mean because minimum-energy ballistic trajectories[1] come into the atmosphere very steeply, so the G-forces are much higher.

But by using flatter trajectories (closer to an orbit than a parabolic "hop"), you reduce the angle of entry considerably, at the expense of using more fuel.

The result is that for Earth-to-Earth rockets, essentially all trip distances require the same amount of fuel.

>It takes about 30 minutes between when they start loading people onto a plane and when they take off (and baggage is already on!).

I wonder if they can pack baggage into a lightweight "carriage" during the boat ride, the simply load that single carriage onto the rocket. Or even a few carriages.

It will incur a mass penalty ("box within a box"), which means fewer passengers. But if it speeds up total trip time it could improve competitiveness with long-distance plane trips.

Either that, or just force everyone to buy SpaceX-brand standardized luggage that's ultra mass-efficient and supports automated handling/loading. :)

[1] http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2014/06/travel-on-airless-w...

⬐ greglindahl

You mean pack baggage in containers like the ones already used for cargo on large passenger aircraft?

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

⬐ schiffern

Yes, that's exactly why I thought of it! Thanks for the link.

If it makes sense for airlines, it stands to reason that it probably makes sense for rocket-based passenger travel too. Though I expect the containers will be even more heavily mass-optimized than those used on airplanes.

⬐ stuaxo

Ah, the HOTOL from the 80s.

⬐ gnode

Except this isn't HOrizontal TakeOff and Landing, as I understand it?

⬐ JulianMorrison

Completely dissimilar except for being a cylinder with stubby wings. It's not single stage to orbit, it's vertical launch, it only has rockets not an air breathing engine, It's not a space-place, and it's interplanetary. Much simpler and builds on established technologies.

⬐ akavel

Can somebody tl;dr what is new in there? I tried jumping through the video, but there seems to be a lot of fluff and background exposition for the assumed "not in the loop audience" of TED. So I'm not sure where some new stuff starts, if at all, for someone moderately aware that Falcon Heavy did succeed, and BFR is planned?

⬐ icc97

Nothing new, all from old footage.

⬐ newlaptopnewacc

"SpaceX's plan to fly richer people than me across the globe in 30 minutes"

⬐ computerex

This has been addressed and debunked by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Mason

My apologies for not including the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4KR4-TN-Yo

He raises excellent points imo.

⬐ Tade0

For a guy working as a "scientist" he's pretty ignorant when it comes to basic chemistry.

His "debunking" of Goodenough's battery shows that he doesn't understand the difference in the way energy is stored in carbohydrates vs batteries.

⬐ computerex

He has a PhD in chemistry. I don't know about the Goodenough's battery debunking, but imo his analysis on BFR Earth-Earth flights is spot on.

⬐ Tade0

> He has a PhD in chemistry.

If that's so then I find his videos intentionally misleading and remain skeptical.

Edit: added newline.

⬐ constantlm

What? Where?

⬐ agildehaus

His comparison of the Shuttle to SpaceX reusability is pretty bad considering how non-reusable the Shuttle actually was and how almost none of the reasons behind the Shuttle's problems apply to Falcon 9 or BFR.

I think noise/safety are the real show stoppers. You can get the noise down by moving it further away from civilization, but I think the distance required would simply be too far. I also don't think a rocket will ever approximate the safety of a plane with current tech. If it was 10x more dangerous than a heavy aircraft (which is highly optimistic) would anyone go?

I think SpaceX can make it work, can make it affordable to some degree, but making it a practical form of travel is ... yeah, no.

I have no problem with them trying though. Their money.

⬐ arijun

I'm surprised they're talking bout having the landing pad 10km off shore--it seems like that wouldn't be far enough for noise reduction, both outgoing (rocket engines) and incoming (sonic booms).

⬐ taf2

I was thinking this was the use case for Hyperloop and the boring company... take an underground shuttle to the launch pad in 30 minutes or less...

⬐ Retric

Doubling the distance only gives you a 6db drop. So, the best approach is probably to have structures in the way to redirect sounds. Which should make a dramatic difference.

⬐ greedo

Unless the structure was miles high, wouldn't the sound just bypass it as it climbed above?

⬐ nwah1

Guess we have to build a dome around the city.

⬐ Retric

This mostly deals with ignition and static firing where the rocket is not moving. Rockets have ridiculous acceleration, but create a lot of noise on the ground. I assume being kind of noisy for 5-10 seconds a few times a day is not that big a deal.

Assuming ~20 stories aka 200 feet is reasonable at 100 feet per second acceleration aka just over 3 g's in 2 seconds the base of your rocket is just over the 20 story building and your doing 130 MPH. Even still that building is still going to be blocking a lot of sound as the fire is below that level.

7 seconds after launch your (5 after clearing the building) your doing 477 mph and have traveled 1/2 a mile. At 12 seconds your doing 820 mph and have traveled 2 kilometers up.

PS: Falcon Heavy is apparently ~160db vs 120db for thunder, which you can barely hear at 10km. So, it's going to be noticeable at 10km, but not that noticeable.