2 ms·
For cargo I don't really see how it could have that much on an impact. Using aircraft we can already transport large volumes of items fairly quickly around the
by fy20 6y ago
For cargo I don't really see how it could have that much on an impact. Using aircraft we can already transport large volumes of items fairly quickly around the world, yet most freight is still transported by sea because it's cheaper.
A standard '96" pallet' on aircraft is 317cm x 244cm x 244cm (125" x 96" x 96") and can hold 6,804 kg (15,000lb). Specialised aircraft can carry even more - some aircraft can transport trains!
The only place where I could see needing to ship stuff quicker - that could actually afford it as I'm guessing it won't be cheap - would be the military. I'm not sure that's nessasarily a good thing though...
- cromwellian 6y agoStarship carries 100 metric tons, a C-17 only about 70, but can get there in 90 minutes, which could be critical for the military.
- sam_bristow 6y agoBut does that include the load-out time? I'd imaging the process for loading a C-17 and getting it in the air is much quicker than for this Starship.
- mattashii 6y agoI'd expect loading+unloading to be similar in duration once the program has developed far enough. The limiting factor that I think is prohibitively limiting starship from dropshipping cargo, is the need for a landing (and launch!) site, an optional SH booster for the return flight and 1200 tons of methalox fuel to get the ship back to base for reuse (4800 with SH booster). So it'd need the rocket equivalent of an airplane carrier, which has not been developed yet.