5 ms·
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.
by api 8y ago
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.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- trevyn 8y ago>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 8y ago20-30 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 8y agoPutting 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 8y agoFlying 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.
- ben_w 8y agoAs I recall, that was the justification for Concorde. The market said otherwise, and that was before video conferencing had become too cheap to meter.
- Retric 8y agoConcorde was run at a significant profit for years. R&D costs where not recuperated, but that that's just a question of scale.
- adventured 8y agoIt 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.
- icc97 8y agoConcorde 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 8y agoThat 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.
- cletus 8y agoWhile 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 8y agoI don't understand your point about dead stop approach. What would be the alternative?
- cletus 8y agoIt'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 8y ago
- gldalmaso 8y agoI 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 8y ago> 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.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y agoRocket launches take a certain amount of planning and favorable weather. Plus, they are impossible to hide. All in all, not desirable.
- mieseratte 8y agoAh, 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.
- regularfry 8y agoSome of the things Burt Rutan has said over the years imply that this niche is already filled.
- computerex 8y agoForget 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 8y ago
- Shivetya 8y agoI 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.