6 ms·
Is this something SpaceX eventually plan to commercialise, like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are doing? Seems to me that orbital spaceflight as a propositio
by fumblebee 5y ago
Is this something SpaceX eventually plan to commercialise, like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are doing?
Seems to me that orbital spaceflight as a proposition is an order of magnitude more enticing than scratching the Kármán line. And for the people who could afford it, they'd surely pay an order of magnitude more.
- qayxc 5y agoI don't know whether it's truly that appealing to the "masses". Keep in mind that unlike with quick suborbital hops, orbital flights are preceded by week-long training, medical exams and preparations. You can't just show up in the morning an hour before launch, get some final instructions, strap in and be back home in time for lunch. It's much more of an investment in terms of time and effort, too besides just the money. The stress on both body and mind is also significantly higher - if you do panic, you can just close your eyes for a hot minute and be safely back on the ground (in the case of Blue Origin), whereas with an orbital flight you're stuck in space for at least an hour no matter what with the worst (e.g. re-entry) yet to come. Going to orbit on a rocket isn't the quite the carnival ride that suborbital hops are.
- jpgvm 5y agoI don't think they intend to commercialize it from a tourism perspective, they very much intend to do point-to-point terrestrial transportation via rockets though and that will be a commercial endeavor that carries people and cargo. I don't know if it will happen in practice, or if it will be successful when they try it but it would be damn cool.
- ashtonkem 5y agoVery cool, but a pretty worrying acceleration of fuel consumption for transit by the world’s rich. A Falcon 9 uses ~75,000 (depending on payload) gallons of RP-1, which is a type of kerosine. Meanwhile a LA to NYC flight takes roughly 5,000 gallons of kerosene (depending on direction). There’s obviously a sizable difference between the number of people in a typical cross country flight and in a Dragon crewed vehicle. Our usage of fuel for regular jet travel is already becoming A Problem. Making it easier to burn more fuel for fewer people to travel faster is emphatically not what we need right now.
- sneak 5y agoYeah, someone over there at SpaceX should really address the issue of transportation fossil fuel use on a large scale. To only build orbital rockets while ignoring the climate crisis here on Earth would be irresponsible.
- inawarminister 5y agoI've heard that the methane/oxygen (methalox?) used in Starship engines can be made carbon-neutral by concentrating the fuel from the atmosphere... And that the same process can be done on Mars too to refuel the rockets. Hopefully that's workable.
- immmmmm 5y agoyou need energy for this to happen
- inglor_cz 5y agoYes, but it may be "superfluous" energy provided by wind turbines or solar at a moment of very high production when no one is ready to consume it. Turning this energy into something useful is actually a bonus.
- immmmmm 5y agois space tourism useful?
- overboard2 5y agoIt helps fund the space industry
- immmmmm 5y agoappart from meteorological satellites and the like, for what space industry is useful?
- postingawayonhn 5y agoThey have commercialised it. Axiom has bought a couple of flights on Dragon V2 and they've sold a Starship flight around the moon. The biggest difference is the price and that they only sell full flights rather than individual seats.
- mlindner 5y ago> Is this something SpaceX eventually plan to commercialise, like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are doing? This IS commercialized. Jared Isaacman contacted SpaceX and expressed interest in buying a flight. SpaceX put him in touch with people and then he bought the flight. Other missions have already been bought as well and likely several more that haven't been mentioned.