3 ms·
Well, for one, the "when it explodes, there are people in it" problem is likely arise much earlier in the process than with the SpaceX rockets
by RickS 11y ago
Well, for one, the "when it explodes, there are people in it" problem is likely arise much earlier in the process than with the SpaceX rockets
- twoodfin 11y agoMaybe this is a dumb question, but why? If you were building an aircraft like this from scratch, why design it to require a present human pilot? Satellite latency too long?
- Jtsummers 11y ago> Satellite latency too long? Yes. Also, regardless of the human pilot, this is intended as a passenger aircraft. That necessitates people on board for it to operate as intended.
- twoodfin 11y agoSure but "earlier in the process"? SpaceX is trying to become passenger-safe as well, they just have the luxury of being able to sell something human-less in the meantime.
- learc83 11y agoMeaning that they can then use the money they're making launching satellites and restocking the ISS to pay for the development of passenger rockets. Boom can't do this. Unlike SpaceX, they need enough investment money to take them all the way to passenger-safe. Also passenger safe for a few highly trained and risk aware astronauts is a lower bar than passenger safe for the general public.
- jonknee 11y agoIt would not be certified for passenger travel without a human pilot.
- maxxxxx 11y agoSure, take out the pilot. You still have passengers that need to survive.
- rdl 11y agoActually, supersonic unmanned cargo might be interesting, but probably isn't as interesting as manned passenger aircraft.
- maxxxxx 11y agoAs far as I know the cost for going supersonic is extremely high compared to subsonic. There probably isn't much cargo that really needs to be there a few hours earlier. Even the military doesn't have supersonic cargo planes. All (most?) bombers are subsonic too.
- rdl 11y agoAs a percentage of cargo, small. The military has used supersonic aircraft on cargo missions in exceptional cases, actually. Their supersonic aircraft tend to be vastly less efficient than even Concorde, though.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- learc83 11y agoAll (most?) bombers are subsonic too. To answer that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer The only long range strategic bomber developed after the 50s that wasn't supersonic was the B-2 stealth bomber (not that there have been very many strategic bombers developed after the 50s).