3 ms·

They also proposed super fast intercontinental travel via BFR. I think they claimed something like ~20m NYC to Shanghai travel time.

benj111 8y ago
Unfortunately it would have the Ryanair problem of 'Shanghai' spaceport being somewhere in the Gobi desert. And 'NYC' spaceport being somewhere in the Nevada desert, so the journey will still take 12 hours. Plus I can't see China accepting US owned ballistic trajectory rockets firing at their major cities.
- mulmen 8y ago
  Even taking conventional rail tens of miles outside a major city to ride a rocket will overall be faster than conventional air travel. I believe the SpaceX proposal for intercontinental travel involves a ferry boat to a floating launch pad and they don't need thousands of miles of safety buffer. I don't think the BFR will deliberately land at ballistic speeds because it would kill all the passengers. Local authorities would have plenty of chances to monitor the reentering vehicles. We fly airplanes the size of strategic bombers to China constantly and there don't seem to be any problems.
  - benj111 8y ago
    Yes I might have been exaggerating. I don't think 20 minutes is likely though. Flying is routine, and what proportion of the door to door journey is actually the flight? And can you imagine the nimbyism for any spaceport near a major city. I even predict that they'll be using images of Russian children, playing on a discarded rocket, with a farmhouse near by. Yes a large plane could be a bomber, I think rockets are different. We have had 50+ years of major powers staring at early warning systems waiting for an attack. It will be a hard habit to break.
    - mulmen 8y ago
      The “20 minute flight” is the same stage of travel as the “15 hour flight” of a conventional airplane. It’s apples to apples. While a spaceport will have to be farther away than an airport it will not have to be 8 hours away. Mostly because that’s an absurd distance that ends up crossing multiple other populated areas. How is a spaceport significantly different from an airport? Both are disruptive of their surrounding area. Spaceports will make a lot more noise so they will have to be farther out in unoccupied territory but it’s still completely manageable. Early earning systems intially looked for planes then rockets. The indicators changed with technology. SpaceX isn’t going to launch a rocket at Shanghai without calling local authorities and working to build local infrastructure. It will not come as a surprise to anyone. It’s really not complicated.
      - benj111 8y ago
        Well as I said, I was exaggerating, yes there probably will be time benefits, it wont be travelling the world I 20 minutes. I'm not sure where you're located but here in the UK, every time a Heathrow airport expansion is mooted, the amount of resistance it meets is massive. We are currently planning a spaceport, but its in Scotland. Although to be fair I don't think good transport links to major population centres was considered in planning. Then I think of Concorde and think even if you have a product that does what its supposed to do, sometimes that isn't enough. Maybe it will be released as a product, I just cant see it being successful. Maybe it ends up like Concorde finding a small niche. Maybe its used as a joy ride. Maybe the numbers just don't add up and it dies a death. I just don't see myself going on a summer holiday in one.
- max76 8y ago
  > Plus I can't see China accepting US owned ballistic trajectory rockets firing at their major cities. It wouldn't break mutually assured destruction.
- MR4D 8y ago
  But of course, the great thing about it is that the Chinese then get to send that same ballistic missle back to us. Kind of a nice way to start to create some trust - it’s not a one way affair.

benj111 8y ago

Unfortunately it would have the Ryanair problem of 'Shanghai' spaceport being somewhere in the Gobi desert. And 'NYC' spaceport being somewhere in the Nevada desert, so the journey will still take 12 hours. Plus I can't see China accepting US owned ballistic trajectory rockets firing at their major cities.

mulmen 8y ago
Even taking conventional rail tens of miles outside a major city to ride a rocket will overall be faster than conventional air travel. I believe the SpaceX proposal for intercontinental travel involves a ferry boat to a floating launch pad and they don't need thousands of miles of safety buffer. I don't think the BFR will deliberately land at ballistic speeds because it would kill all the passengers. Local authorities would have plenty of chances to monitor the reentering vehicles. We fly airplanes the size of strategic bombers to China constantly and there don't seem to be any problems.
- benj111 8y ago
  Yes I might have been exaggerating. I don't think 20 minutes is likely though. Flying is routine, and what proportion of the door to door journey is actually the flight? And can you imagine the nimbyism for any spaceport near a major city. I even predict that they'll be using images of Russian children, playing on a discarded rocket, with a farmhouse near by. Yes a large plane could be a bomber, I think rockets are different. We have had 50+ years of major powers staring at early warning systems waiting for an attack. It will be a hard habit to break.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    The “20 minute flight” is the same stage of travel as the “15 hour flight” of a conventional airplane. It’s apples to apples. While a spaceport will have to be farther away than an airport it will not have to be 8 hours away. Mostly because that’s an absurd distance that ends up crossing multiple other populated areas. How is a spaceport significantly different from an airport? Both are disruptive of their surrounding area. Spaceports will make a lot more noise so they will have to be farther out in unoccupied territory but it’s still completely manageable. Early earning systems intially looked for planes then rockets. The indicators changed with technology. SpaceX isn’t going to launch a rocket at Shanghai without calling local authorities and working to build local infrastructure. It will not come as a surprise to anyone. It’s really not complicated.
    - benj111 8y ago
      Well as I said, I was exaggerating, yes there probably will be time benefits, it wont be travelling the world I 20 minutes. I'm not sure where you're located but here in the UK, every time a Heathrow airport expansion is mooted, the amount of resistance it meets is massive. We are currently planning a spaceport, but its in Scotland. Although to be fair I don't think good transport links to major population centres was considered in planning. Then I think of Concorde and think even if you have a product that does what its supposed to do, sometimes that isn't enough. Maybe it will be released as a product, I just cant see it being successful. Maybe it ends up like Concorde finding a small niche. Maybe its used as a joy ride. Maybe the numbers just don't add up and it dies a death. I just don't see myself going on a summer holiday in one.
max76 8y ago
> Plus I can't see China accepting US owned ballistic trajectory rockets firing at their major cities. It wouldn't break mutually assured destruction.
MR4D 8y ago
But of course, the great thing about it is that the Chinese then get to send that same ballistic missle back to us. Kind of a nice way to start to create some trust - it’s not a one way affair.