/sci/ - Science & Math

Including transfers thats like several hours long, so you end up paying hundreds of thousands to save a couple of hours and the ride is also uncomfortable and dangerous. Dont see a market for that.

I can recognize a stupid idea when I see it. And this is one hell of a stupid idea.

>>9199483
>you end up paying hundreds of thousands
They've said they think they can compete with airlines on ticket prices.

The increase in fuel consumption isn't as much as you might think. Maybe a factor of four, and it will use significantly cheaper fuel: natural gas, rather than kerosene.

They can fly at least ten times as many flights per day with the same number of vehicles, thanks to the short flight times, and don't have to worry about pilots.

>>9199586
>no pilots

lol what. what happens if there are logic errors?

>>9199594
How the fuck would you expect a pilot to vertically land a rocket? It's called redundancy.

Remember the Concorde? Remember how it went out of business?

>>9199595
redundancy isn't a solution let alone a contingency, and what do you mean how? how do you think VTOL works on aircraft? magic?

>>9199598
Feedback control. You're clearly retarded.

>>9199600
you're just parroting the systems im stating could fail you fucking idiot. im asking HOW DO YOU DEAL WITHOUT THEM. jesus christ have you ever made a proposition and defended it? i just want to imagine your incompetence happening in real time as you repeat buzzwords.

>>9199601
Don't become an engineer. You would end up killing people if you tried building something.

>>9199604
im not the one putting blind faith on "feedback systems" and "redundancy". you're the type of dumbshit who just thickens up an I beam without context and calls it a day because that's "redundancy". i hope your lineage ends with you.

>>9199457
What a massive waste of resources.

>>9199586
>They've said they think they can compete with airlines on ticket prices.
Is Elon lying or is he really that deluded?

>concorde 2.0

yeah it will work this time

>>9199617
>They've said they think they can compete with NASA on launch prices
Is Elon lying or is he really that deluded

>>9199609

>>9199630
Ah fuck, tilt your heads I guess.

>>9199620
>concorde 1.0 was too good for this gay earth

>>9199594
>what happens if there are logic errors?
What happens to an airliner if the wings fall off?

Flying an aircraft is complicated. There are problems that can happen at speeds a human can deal with, as well as ones that can happen at speeds a human can't deal with.

Flying a rocket is much simpler, and none of the problems happen at speeds a human can deal with. A skilled pilot is not needed and not useful. At most, you'll have someone picking a divert option off a menu.

>>9199596
I see a lot of ppl saying "bb-b-ut what about the Concorde?"

A) that was completely different tech
B) that was tech was developed almost 50 years ago

If we thought that new paradigms couldn't happen due to failures of old technology, we would be absolutely nowhere technologically speaking.

>>9199613
Tbf the Big Fucking Rocket (BFR) is going to have other uses outside of this, like mars shit.

>>9199639
>comparing the probability of a a wing falling off to a code-monkey making logic error

a rocket landing has many chances of achieving unstable equilibrium options due to logic errors, leading to a cascade in motion that will crash it due to the system trying to right itself into a newer reference frame. this can't be circumvented without some operator, remote or whatever, intervening. legit can't argue against this. it can and HAS happened.

>>9199596
>>9199620
>>9199637

I see a lot of ppl saying "bb-b-ut what about the Concorde?"

A) that was completely different tech
B) that was tech was developed almost 50 years ago

If we thought that new paradigms couldn't happen due to failures of old technology, we would be absolutely nowhere technologically speaking.

>>9199652
>you can't compare logic errors to mechanical failures
>legit can't argue against this
Don't be a chimp.

>>9199655
Just give up, this stuff is an overly ambitious pipe dream. The energy applied and therefore the costs would stand in no relations to the meager benefits. Musk's entire Mars colonization presentation yesterday was one big display of megalomania. This shit is several scales different from electric cars and even from reuseable LEO delivery systems.

>>9199720
>meager benefits
I once paid 5000USD for the privilege of 2 extra inches of shoulder space on a 12 hour flight. Regular tickets were 1/10th the price. If such a flight could be reduced to an hour or less, I would take such a flight frequently regardless of cost.

Why does /sci/ continue to worship this idiot who just comes out with unrealistic goals:

>muh Mars
>muh terraforming
>muh rockets

The guy literally sucks dollars from the US govt and people worship him. Pathetic.

>>9199737
I'm sure you would.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITS_launch_vehicle
>Cost per launch US$62 million (2016 estimate)

>>9199743
this

>>9199457

how the fuck would anyone not expect this to fail at some point?

9199753
>estimate of a rocket that hasn't even been built
considering that these exact same posts are spammed in absolutely every last thread related to Space or Musk, perhaps /pol/ is on to something when it comes to shilling

If it were regular unique criticism, it'd be fine, but no matter what is refuted or how, they keep saying the same bullshit about him every single day from dawn to dusk in every last thread they see

>>9199457
Imagine the possibilities for muslims

Godd job Elon you really thought this through I see

>>9199753
>ITS project cost: 10 billion
>cost per launch: 62 million
>Space shuttle program cost: 210 billion
>cost per launch: 450 million to 1.5 billion
no matter what musk does, he still blows everyone else out of the fucking water

bonus round
>150 Tons = 136,077.711 kilograms
>62,000,000 / 136,077 = 456 dollars per kilogram
Current lowest publicly announced cost to orbit is held by the Falcon Heavy, built by SpaceX, at 2,200 dollars per kilo
Second lowest is the Falcon 9, built by SpaceX, at 4,109 dollars per kilo
and in third place is the Ariane 5, built by the ESA, at 10,476 dollars per kilo

If they don't count their own fucking rockets, then they beat the next person up by a factor of 23
you can be asshurt about Musk all you want, but you deny math itself if you want to say he's a fraud

>>9199586
>They've said they think they can compete with airlines on ticket prices.


Even if this is true they're talking about Private jets and luxury suite tickets not your basic economy seat.

>>9199457
>Lets do hyperloop bois
>Now let me create an immediate competitor against my own company

Is Elon retarded?

>>9199655
The point of the Concorde comparison isn't the tech its the price. Elon thinks he can price it on the same level as a regular airline ticket. That's extremely ambitious and its far more likely that it will cost much more than a regular airline ticket. He'll be lucky if he can get it priced on par with First Class tickets. The reason that the Concorde is a good comparison for this is because the Concorde is proof that the majority of people would rather take longer to get to their destination than add a zero to the end of the price of their ticket.

>>9200177
He'll sell you both the rocket ticket to get to the spaceport, and the hyperloop ticket to get from the spaceport to the city center.

>>9200177
Nah, its just 4D Chess. These projects are just a front. Decoys. He set them up as a way to get potential competitors to try and compete with him knowing full well they will fail.

The real project he is working on is teleportation.

>>9200186
What spaceport? He's talking about Rockets to travel from city to city, which is the hyperloop's market.

>>9200187
>>>/r/eddit

I can't wait to see how assblasted /pol/ is when he actually makes these things and they work.

>inb4 Elon still hasn't delivered nuffin

>>9200205
Since when is Elon /pol/'s enemy?

>>9200207
One of their memes is that he's a fraud and hasn't done anything/ is a product of government corruption.

>>9200212
>Elon's white
>/pol/'s white

It is clear that /pol/ doesn't even care about government corruption as long as it is white people doing the corruption (see Trump) so I believe you are pulling this out of your ass.

>>9199816
>i have no comprehension of linear time

>>9200217
They perceive him as a leftist because he builds electric cars, solar panels, and other environmentally friendly products. I agree that it's retarded though.

>>9199816
>The Space Shuttle program was the United States government's manned launch vehicle program, administered by NASA from 1972 to 2011 and first flown in 1981.

>>9200191
The rockets aren't going to land right on top of your destination. At best, they'll get clearance to land these things in international airports. At worst, they'll have to build new sites even further from the cities.
Passengers will need a regional transport (rail, a long taxi ride or a ferry from the floating landing platform) to get from the landing site to the actual destination. If they build a new site, hyperloop could be part of the spaceport package to make up for the long travel time back to the city.

As for rocket rides competing with hyperloop for intercity routes, there are major differences in travel costs, capacity, relevant ranges and setup. Hyperloop is going to be much cheaper once it's te up and much higher in capacity, while the rocket will be able to go further and faster (good luck laying those tubes across the Pacific) and require less effort to extend (building a landing pad at a new destination is much easier than building a tube all the way there).

But Elon himself said that he has no qualms about cannibalizing his own products in the name of getting to Mars. If it came to having Hyperloop lose out on some

>>9200187
/sci/ imposter please leave

>>9199594
You are now aware that pilots have to jack shit except for landing and takeoff.
Pilots are only there in case of an emergancy, and when such an event happens they often no longer know what to do.

>>9200475
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kERSSRJant0

Sub orbital hops seem fine for moon and other bodies but is it actually practical here? Aside from green hysteria that will ensue once nuclear rockets fly around carrying death chemicals above their heads, the fuel and maintenance costs could very well be punishing.

Seems like concord on steroids to me. Maybe its just a strategy to hype the bfr to the normalfags?

>>9199594
Has there ever been a "pilot" that has LANDED A ROCKET, VERTICALLY in the history of ever?

I don't think a human would be good enough to handle the controls to land a rocket perfectly vertically.

The best thing is to just make the self-landing technology to be as battle-tested as possible, make it so it's basically flawless.

>>9199595
Correct answer

>>9199598
>>9199601
>>9199609
Not only are you pathetically butthurt, you're also completely fucking retarded

This is definitely an attempt to get SpaceX finally making money

>>9200491

And getting other countries to agree to it

From the video I don't really think China would be thrilled with us sending suborbital flights their way

>hey here's a flight with people its totally normal
>just kidding its a nuke

>>9199596
Air France and British Airways blamed low passenger numbers and rising maintenance costs for the fleet’s retirement. Not becoz of crashes

>>9199483
>Including transfers thats like several hours long,
as opposed to planes where you can just show up and get on board. oh wait!

>>9199457
WOWOWOW
HYPERLOOP
BTFO

>>9199586
>They've said they think they can compete with airlines on ticket prices.

They say a lot of things. But, I feel they neet to start deliver on many of their promises.

>>9199596
>Remember the Concorde
a plane that took several hours to cross the atlantic

>>9199457
Of course it's feasible. It has just never been done before. SpaceX is the one doing this because they're the only ones that have ever had the chance to do so. Being able to launch so much with cargo is going to allow them to find any possible errors in their designs without killing people. This will allow them to make sure the rockets are safe. It will happen, who knows when though.

This is easier than plane flights, believe it or not. We just need it to be reliable and economical. Lots of people will do it just to go into space for like 20 minutes, let alone get anywhere in under an hour. This is probably the future desu. I can't see any other design that would allow us to travel this fast in any economical way. Hyperloop is 100% bullshit though.

>Another use for a system that is already being developed
>Theoretically can make money for the company

why the fuck not

>>9199457
How many successful launches would you like to see before you actually trust the rockets won't go full Challenger?

Also, how many passengers could handle the g forces?

>>9199596
So according to you MP3 players should never have taken off because those Rio ones you used to get weren't very successful? Is that actually your logic?

>>9200567
>I don't understand what a statistical probability is.
Usually businesses that fail do so for good reason. The Concord was fast, but too expensive. A rocket would be fast, but also undoubtedly too expensive.

>>9200569
>they're only developing the rocket for this one single purpose, right guise? THAT'S WHY ID WILL FAIL OBIOOSLY

>>9200569
>implying the concord is even comparable to this
see >>9200558

>>9199609
You clearly havnt ever heard of automatic control systems. They are used on so many places you wouldnt even be able to realize where we would be without them. Every car manufactured has an ESC nowadays.

>>9200583
The main thing is that this rocket isn't being built for the sole purpose of intraplanetary travel. It's being built to go to Mars, and also to launch satellites. Point-to-point Earth travel is just a bonus.

>>9200550
yeah, you have like transfer time of 2-3 hours all in all. For a rocket launch you can make that 5-10 hours.

>>9200609
>For a rocket launch you can make that 5-10 hours.
>source my ass

>>9200583
It is, because it showed that there are not that many people that need to travel across the world in a record time. You could fly first class in a normal plane for the cost of a concorde flight, and most people preferred that. The concorde was never profitable and after its crash the very few people willing to fly with it turned to close to 0 people willing to fly with it.

Also, the time factor isnt that much in favor of SpaceX. You also have to calculate in transfer times, and then you dont even save that much time compared to taking a normal plane. So you have an extremely expensive, dangerous, and uncomfortable way of travel vs. cheap, safe, and comfy as fuck.

>>9200618
yeah, because a rocket can launch at any weather and doesnt regularly get delayed for hours.

>>9200618
>He doesnt know a rocket has to cool down for 2-4 hours before you can even depart it

Im not even getting into all these rocket launches getting canceled because a rocket can only launch and land in ideal weather circumstances.

>>9199457

You know what bothers me about this concept?

Earlier this year he was all about the underground hyperloop. Why switch to rockets for the same thing instead of bringing back the Concord?

This is stupid. The only real purpose space travel will serve for us in near future is research. Musk should try to build a huge telescope in outer space, so that we get a clear and good view of the universe for once. That would yield at least some utility for humans. Colonizing a planet that is 100% hostile to any form of life or this stupid shit idea are the wrong goals. Build a giant telescope, Elon.

Next step then should be a space-based particle accelerator.

Colonisation makes no sense until we are able to terraform planets, which will take quite a while.

>>9200624
>it showed that there are not that many people that need to travel across the world in a record time.
there weren't many people that needed a phone or access to the internet with them at all times and now virtually everybody does. you create new needs you create a new demand, that's how innovation works, if we were only catering to established needs we wouldn't have moved an inch past hunter-gathers society. there's not many people willing to travel across the world because it's such a hassle. a vacation to australia entails 2 days wasted on just getting to and coming back from there. the concorde could only shave a couple hours off a flight that only took 5 hours to begin with. not even remotely comparable to bringing a 9 hour flight down to 30 mins. even if transfer times were utterly impossible to bring down (big if) it would still beat 2 days worth of flying.

> So you have an extremely expensive
remains to be seen
>dangerous
implying technology will never improve
>and uncomfortable way of travel vs. cheap, safe, and comfy as fuck.
again flying is only cheap and comfy(implying hard) on relatively short routes. try flying across the world and let me know how comfy and cheap that day long flight was.

>>9200634
A hyperloop would be better for shorter travel distances while rockets would work better for long distances. Try imagine making a vacuum tube across an entire ocean to connect Europe and America for instance. That shit aint gonna work.

>>9200629
>>9200633
you think we have reached peak rocket technology? there no more improvements and advancements to be made?

>>9200647
People dont travel across the world because it costs around a thousand bugs to book an intercontinental flight. I dont think rockets are the kind of technology that brings down that price point.

If we assume transfer for rocket flight is the same as for airplanes (and that is very generous), then we are talking 4.5 hours vs. 13 hours (2 hours transfer for both boarding and departure). There are not that many people on this planet who are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more, pass on the luxurious 1st class flight, and the reliable safety of proven-to-work airplanes just to get somewhere 8 hours earlier.

>>9199630
Its not exactly rocket science though is it....

>>9199743
Well it could be going to worse places. At least he seems to be getting people excited about the future.

>>9200191
Some citys are too close to warrant a rocket but far enough away that a train would take a few hours. The hyperloop would be a good intermediate.

>>9200657
>People dont travel across the world because it costs
and because it's a pain in the ass
>I dont think rockets are the kind of technology that brings down that price point.
but they bring they the pain in the ass point

> hundreds of thousands of dollars
why do you assume it will always be ultra expensive? why do you assume it will be unreliable and dangerous forever? basically why do you assume no more technological advancements will be made?

>>9200671
I dont think you ever flew first class son, it's the best part of vacation. For no money in hell would I change that to cram myself into a rocket just to save a couple of hours.

>>9200648

>Try imagine making a vacuum tube across an entire ocean to connect Europe and America for instance. That shit aint gonna work.

While I respect your opinion anon, the idea of a tunnel underneath the English Channel, much less the idea of a car being feasible by all accounts 200 years ago was insanity. Besides, I thought the idea was for the BORE hyperloop from NYC to LA. Not exactly the pressure of an ocean on top of you some hundred feet below the ground but I get your point.

I just wish we'd use rockets to build moon and mars bases over Jetsons larping.

>>9200676
>I wouldn't
Oh well too bad. But not everyone is a fat American who doesn't value his time.

>>9200682
Channel tunnel took 6 years to construst a 30 mile road. If thats the speed we're going at it might well be better to see how this rocket idea pans out.

>>9200684
>Ad hominem when you are out of arguments

That has to be the great european culture people talk about.

Also, europeans didn't exactly go crazy after the Concorde, and one tiny accident was enough to send it to the shadow realm forever. And the time savings including transfers between Concorde and regular are not that much smaller, than regular and rocket. Concord NY-Paris took 7 hours including transfers vs. 12 hours, rocket would be 4.5 hours. And the trade-off was also the same, more money and less comfort for a shorter travel time. People simply dont care that much about the travel time.

>>9200695
I think people care a lot about travel times these days. A lot has changed since the 90's especially in terms of the sheer numbers of people flying and who are willing to fly.

>>9200703
Maybe on a day to day commute, but nobody gives a fuck if a journey he takes once a year or even less takes 12 or 5 hours.

>>9200624
>comfy as fuck
Is this a meme? There's nothing comfy about flying. Pre-flight, post-flight and everything in between just sucks.

>>9200695
>>Ad hominem when you are out of arguments
>implying there was an argument to begin with
your whole argument was "i wouldn't so no one else would." you're ascribing the way you personally feel to everyone else and calling it a day. and this all stems from the fact that you've never taken a long flight.

>>9200708
Speak for yourself man.

>>9200709
I've flown so much over the years that I don't mind the pre and post flight shit. Being on the plane is by far the most annoying part.

>>9200544
Nobody mentioned crashes. It's all about utterly unrealistic cost estimates versus utterly unviable real costs. HOW, just HOW is a space rocket supposed to fly fewer passengers at a far greater fuel expense for the same price as a plane? Even in the most elementary cost examinations Musk's plans simply do not add up. It's the same garbage as with the Hyperloop. He claimed he could do it for half the price of a high speed rail through California, now his cost estimates are eight times as much as a high speed rail. It's fucking laughable.

>>9200229
>ended in 2011

>>9200224
I spend most of my time on /pol/ and nearly all times Musk comes up he gets a positive reaction
he is rocket man that makes cars on the side

They all want him to succeed greater than ever before, so they can build their "white ethno state" in space

>>9200557
They promised reusable rockets
They succeeded with that
They promised cheap launch prices
They succeeded with that

how far are you going to move the goalposts until you accept that he is indeed upholding his end of the bargain

>>9200690

Perhaps. But alot of construction projects at least in the US aren't a matter of technological limitations, but unions and contractors trying to pump out every dime they can out of a project.

In my hometown, it took two years to paint a suspension bridge until everyone got wise about the money the contracting company was making to take that long to paint the bridge. Now it takes them a month.

>>9200741
This rocket uses Methane and Oxygen as fuel
those are both really fucking cheap to make

You spam this in every single fucking thread you see, every fucking day on repeat, ignoring absolutely everything said in return
you genuine paid shill

>>9200722
>>9200709
>>9200718
But it's not my opinion. The concorde was the same thing. Give up comfort while traveling, pay more than you would for a 1st class flight, and in return receive a few hours shorter journey time. Didn't work back then, isn't going to work today or in the future.

>>9199457

Very feasible, just whether it's worth the hassle of starting it all up in the first place that's the main issue.

I don't think plane travel is all that slow in the grand scheme of things today, and all the infrastructure and red tape is already there.

>flying sucks

fucking plebs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84WIaK3bl_s

>>9199586
Stole my comment.

>>9199586
Oh shit, you're retarded. THIS GUY: >>9199483 stole my comment. You're a fucking space jesus cultist.

>>9200806
the concorde made flights 2x as fast. the sacrifices were not worth it.

but when the flight is 20x as fast? you bet your arse people will be willing to fly in it.

>>9199625
>A jet plane coach ticket = the cost of a rocket launch by NASA
Kill every cultist. Kill them all.

>>9200821
no, because the time spent in the sky is only one part of the journey. everything considered you will probably still spend 5 hours or more traveling intercontinental,even on a rocket. and i cant believe nobody has mentioned yet that you would need to wear fucking pressure suits on a rocket, thats how uncomfortable traveling on one is. no way in hell people are going to do this. that a niche-niche-extra-niche-market at best.

>>9200187
Technozombies have become so utterly retarded, I'm not even sure if there are people who actually believe this or not. If I had to guess, I'd say there are at least thousands of morons who do.

>>9200806
>The concorde was the same thing
are you retarded son? how many times do you need to get told the difference? scroll up and read it again if you need time to process that, i don't have to repeat myself

>>9200822

>>9200816
WTF I love being confined in a cubicle now!

People telling meh they would prefer travelling like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsmW_y04z_Y

... over this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R2sOr6vZqo

>>9200831
Most people travel to get somewhere rather than for the sake of traveling

>>9199457
Well, they're gonna build the hardware, anyways.
Might as well put it to use between actual space launches.

>>9200834
I thought the rockets can be re-used safely like 3 times?

>>9200833
no, they dont. comfort while traveling is important. but i guess a basement-dwelling musk sucker cant know how the real world works.

>>9200823
>because the time spent in the sky is only one part of the journey
exactly, a concorde would still have to make a stop over in dubai to reach sidney

>>9200837
BFR is supposed to reflown hundreds of times.
Even falcon 9s block 5, from later this year are supposed to take much more beating than current ones.
They're gonna build a small fleet of them, then switch their facility to build nothing but BFR.

>>9200840
oh you're right people take flight just because they want to get on a plane not because they're going somewhere wooow. and flying sucks ass you're the first cocksucker i met who thinks it's comfy.

I like how the shills aren't even hiding themselves anymore
they're just openly attacking people for holding an even remotely positive opinion of Musk or his companies now
Don't give them a (You)

>>9200848
fuck off pleb who cant afford 1st class flying is awesome. also, just because the purpose of sex is making children doesnt mean that sex is not allowed to be fun.

>>9200853
Implying the rollercoster ride and 0g experience won't be fun as fuck.

>>9200849
It's the Musk-Internet-Taskforce that is surpressing every negative opinion about the most retarded musk-ideas, not the other way arond.

>>9200855
>He thinks you experience 0 g while launching

You are actually experiencing 3-5g, which feels extremely uncomfortable, and that for the whole duration of the flight. being in space might be fun, going there is not.

>>9200858
Wow, you're retarded.
are you 12?

>>9200853
>1st class flying is awesome
no

>>9200858
>reading comprehension
good job ignoring the "rollercoaster ride" part of the sentence

>>9200845

The BFR shuttle idea is pretty solid.

I just hope they make special flights for Flat Earthers, that goes the lengthy route and makes them fly over Antarctica, for 0 extra shekels.
Think of it as a service to Mankind.

>>9200874

>the view-screens are CGI

>all this reddit-tier hate on our disruptive innovationbro elon
You all have to go back.

>>9200879
Well, it's hard to deny it, when you find yourself on the other side of the Planet afterwards.

>>9200883
>you were drugged and moved with a plane

>>9200881
You mean all this leddit tier shilling for some stuttering Silicon Valley shmuck and his inane tomfoolery.

>>9200883

>the rocket traveled over the flat earth

>>9200892
Well, that's why I mentioned flying over Antarctica on purpose.
There would be very few ballistic flights that would go over it by default. Maybe India to south America, or something similar.

>>9200899
Flat-earthers wont believe that the earth is round until you strand them a good 500 000km from earth and even then they might doubt it as CGI.

Quited study got A math

>>9200784
thats bullshit. all the threads i visited told him to go die.

>>9200910

This

/pol/ is toxic and they stand against Science and Progress.

>>9200910
>go in 1 thread
>this is totally the hivemind of the board that gets 30% of all 4chan's traffic

>>9200910
Maybe not go die, but stop marketing his retarded rocket travel and hyperloop ideas to gullible idiots for billions.

Maybe in the sense of space tourism this is possible, but not as a travel alternative. Enduring >3Gs for several minutes is not something you can just do without prior training.

>>9200957
People do that all the time in cars. If you're literally remotely healthy this is doable.

I'm quite sure you get more time you'd otherwise spend on an airplane than the time you lose due to a few mid G burns,

>>9200964
They do it for a couple of seconds, not 30 minutes.

>>9200966
If you think the engines will be burning the whole fucking flight, at 3G acceleration, I wonder why you even bother coming here.

It only takes around 230 000$ to fill this rocket with prop and jet takes 100 000$ with current low prices.Natural gas is getting even cheaper in the coming years thanks to fracking and will drop to 100$/t or less and LOX is also cheap with cheaper energy

It BFR really is so reusable it might be feasible for very long flights 5000km+ and for shorter distances standard jet or hyperloop work better.

>>9201026
Well, you also have to consider, it wouldn't need to be filled up at all.
Humans aren't that heavy.
And that's suborbital flight, so less Delta-v required.

>>9200224
>solar panels
>environmentally friendly
lol

>>9201046
>endless free energy
>not environmentally friendly

>>9200957
As long as you are seated properly oriented, yea you can handle a 3g burn just fine
They might deliberately keep it lower at the cost of some fuel efficiency if its an issue.

>>9200823
When the international flight is 30 minutes rather than 15 hours then there will be a greater incentive to speed up boarding
It's all regulatory jewry by AA employees slowing shit down

I'm not sure, let's ask /g/.

>>>/g/62674866

>>9199737
$50,000 2 inches of shoulder space 1 flight. Most excellent sir, I have some precious artifacts that are extremely rare, that are only suitable for a fine intelligent man of your caliber. While some would say my price is high, you obviously know that money is not the issue in a well lived life. reply with your email and I can give more detail.

So the guy who backed out of Trumps committee thingy because of his stance on climate change now wants to replace airplanes with fucking rockets?

>>9200786
Reusable rockets that take 7 months to launch again and yes, their launch prices are cheaper, but their rockets are less reliable and they are horrendous at sticking to a schedule.

>>9201218
>take 7 months to launch again
source: your ass

lets go with your belief that technology will not ever improve in any way ever, no matter what
there is no reason why it would take that long to be sent up again, the delay for the first booster reuse was because it was literally the fucking first one ever reused in the entire history of rocketry
when hundreds are used and reused a day, it is very safe to assume they'll figure out what to look for during prefight and postflight inspections

>>9200823
>you would need to wear fucking pressure suits on a rocket, thats how uncomfortable traveling on one is
Jesus you people are fucking stupid.

What they wear on rockets are flightsuits to protect against loss of cabin pressure, and they're basically optional. They serve no function on a routine flight. There was one death because people weren't wearing them, so now everyone wears them, and they've never saved a life since.

You're thinking of what jet fighter pilots wear, because they deliberately push the limits of what the human body can endure, to outmaneuver other jet fighter pilots.

Elon Musk has stated that the acceleration won't exceed 3g, always in a comfortable direction, and will mostly be around 2g. Race car drivers commonly experience 5g while braking, in an uncomfortable eyes-out direction.

While some people with sufficiently serious health problems won't be able to use this option, for most people it will be a bit of light fun, like an amusement park ride. It's more likely they'll feel uncomfortable from the short zero-g coast than from the acceleration and re-entry.

>>9201238
>first booster reuse was because it was literally the fucking first one ever reused in the entire history of rocketry
Are you fucking retarded? What're the main shuttle boosters on the Space Shuttle? What about the DC-X? There's never been a question of if rockets can be reusable, it's been a question if it will be commercially viable. Musk has yet to prove it since his rockets are still more expensive that Soyuz while being much less reliable.

>hundreds are used and reused a day, it is very safe to assume they'll figure out what to look for during prefight and postflight inspections
Now I know you're a retard, but I expected nothing less from a Musk fan. The launch market will never grow that much, no matter how cheap Musk creates his magic rockets.

>>9199457
>on NPR it was 60mins
>on CNN it was 30mins
>on 4chan it is 29mins

The real question here is how long will it take to step on then step off? Because, with normal planes, even though they got a lot faster, you still take the same amount of time to travel and land. That's because there's so many planes and you have to wait your turn to land.

>>9199594
None of the rockets they use now have pilots and they take off & land using only a computer.

>>9200840
That's because it takes 16 hours to get where you want to go and you want to be comfortable.

Rockets take less than an hour. Comfort isn't much of a thing.

>>9201260
None of those rockets landed themselves then were reused. The rest of his post is retarded though.

>>9199630
>being THIS mad on 4chan

Elon Musk needs to stop telling people he is "reusing" rockets. He is replacing half the rocket every time it lands. He needs to be honest enough to call it "partially reusable". Then all these idiots who think you can go on a rocket ride for a thousand bugs will finally shut up.

>>9199655
the problems the concorde faced werent' purely technological. the same market forces that killed the concorde still exist

>>9201291
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/30/spacexs-reused-falcon-9-rocket-nails-the-landing-for-a-second-time/
yes it was

>>9200634
gotta fire in all directions to get those sweet investments

>>9201342
Welcome to business
this has been a thing for several centuries now

>>9199630
>completing an undergrad and passing a test makes my dumbfuck point any less dumbfuck

>Drive your car to wherever the boat facility is to take you to the launch pad, park your car, probably ~30min just to get to the boat and everything and then get on it
~5-10 minute boat ride to get to the launch pad ~15 minutes to disembark and get to the rocket and everything
>Rocket has pre flight checks that take a long ass time because it's a fucking rocket, and everything needs to be working 100% before the launch occurs
>Oh no, a rain storm moved in, can't launch anymore, delayed several hours
>Finally liftoff, flight time takes 30+minutes
>get to destination, land finally disembark and have to board another fucking boat to get to mainland and then get in another car to get to wherever you're going

I can't see this being any faster than air travel unless conditions are absolutely perfect. Maybe it saves a few hours, but is it really worth it? Even then, imagine the lawsuits when something goes wrong with a rocket.

>>9201358
oh, I know. The problem is just delusional people that believe in Elon's bullshit.

>>9201366
Don't forget that you're going to be fondled by security. Tack on another hour or two.

>>9201373
I enjoy giving things the benefit of the doubt
Especially if the person doing it has a proven track record of success
others might get their jollies by being luddites and screeching NEVER EVER about absolutely everything they do not like, but I fail to see the benefit in such backwards and ignorant thinking

Elon Musk is completely retarded if he thinks he will ever do more than be a slightly cheaper alternative for the american government to launch their stuff into space. The american government will never allow advanced rocket technologies to go mainstream. Just imagine global politics if every banana republic has its own intercontinental rockets.

>>9201379
>guy makes electric car company
>also makes a half-reusable rocket
>Can trust him to make intercontinental rocket travel for thousands of people for dirt cheap

you're stretching it, anon.

>>9201400
he didnt even make the electric car company, he just bought it.

>>9201400
>cars have become the most widely sold electric cars ever made
>hundreds of thousands of pre-orders
>has become the most popular car in some countries
looks like success to me
>deliberately fudge the numbers and make wild illogical assumptions against SpaceX to suit an argument
>still record breaking despite this
>is probably near fully reusable in reality
still successful

try as you might, but being disingenuous and asshurt will only get you so far

>>9201428
no, the nissan leaf is the most sold electric car, asshat.

>>9201428
>still equating "he made an electric car company" with "he can make intercontinental rocket travel cheap and affordable"

I'll have to take a hyperloop to your city and shout some very stern words at you.

>>9200166
they specified economy plane tickets. damn read an article jesus

>>9199743
Much better to just chase internet money pouring cash into advertising or joining the pharmaceuticals in buying and killing useful drugs for profits!

>>9201308
The Concorde could only cut flight times roughly in half. This is an order-of-magnitude improvement.

The big market problem for the Concorde was that it had to compete with overnight flights, with comfortable business-class sleeper seats. So you could fly conventional business class, go to sleep for a full night's rest in a spacious semi-private bed-like seat, and wake up at your destination, or you could sit in a cramped Concorde seat like you're flying economy for four tedious hours: too long to easily tolerate, too short to get a night's sleep.

Half an hour is practically zero flight time. You can easily spend it just admiring the scenery.

>>9199816
>150 Tons = 136,077.711 kilograms

>>9199753
>Cost per launch US$62 million (2016 estimate)
>unsourced figure on wikipedia
Great argument there.

I'm not sure why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITS_launch_vehicle exists. There's a more detailed and generally better page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_System
>Calculated result: total average cost (based on the life cycle of the system, included costs of the initial fabrication, propellant, maintenance and company's amortization) of one Interplanetary Spaceship transported to Mars: US$62 million; or less than US$140,000 cost per tonne of mass transported to Mars.

So the estimate is not $62 million per launch to Earth orbit, it's $62 million per transport of 100 people to the Mars surface.

>>9201654
ITS = launch vehicle + spacecraft

>>9201277
NPR probably stated how long from takeoff til landing and CNN probably listed “in-flight” time

>>9201666
No, the spacecraft is part of the launch vehicle. This isn't like Falcon/Dragon, where the launch vehicle and spacecraft are entirely distinct things. There's just the booster and the spaceship. The booster isn't a launch vehicle by itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITS_launch_vehicle
...isn't an article on the booster.

>>9201277
>with normal planes, even though they got a lot faster, you still take the same amount of time to travel and land
Planes haven't gotten faster, they've gotten slower, and they're planned to get slower yet, to reduce fuel consumption.

>>9201702
This. Resources and energy invested grow exponentially with increasing speed of life, and at the current level of technology we've reached the threshold where a) the return isn't worth the investment anymore and b) it poses a threat to our environment and well being.

>>9201736
Well, the thing about airliners is that small speed differences only make small trip-length differences, especially when you factor in the time spent not in flight, and the customers are more sensitive to small differences of ticket price than small differences of flight duration.

Point-to-point BFR would be a large difference of flight duration, an all-day flight made into a half-hour flight. We don't know how the market would respond to that.

>>9201808
Even if, who's going to be willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for it? It's absolutely delusional to believe it's going to be competitive with airplanes in price.

>rocket from London to NY

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just an ICBM? And he wants to strap people inside of one?

>>9201836
>who's going to be willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for it?
Fuel cost should only be about double that of a conventional airliner. They use 4 or 5 times as much fuel, but it's cheap natural gas, not costly kerosene. They can also fly each vehicle about ten times more frequently than an airliner, because it travels so quickly, so their fleet can be far smaller to provide the same schedule.

They've claimed they can do it for about the same cost as today's full-price economy seats. I think that's possible.

I wouldn't mind if he was proposing super high speed rail under the ocean or some crazy shit but there's no way I'm going to fly on a rocket, that's like fear of flying x1000

plus you know for the first few years like a good quarter of those rockets are just going to blow up

>>9201890
They've also claimed that a Hyperloop in California would cost half as much as a high speed rail, and look what came of that.

>sensitive to weather, scrubbed launches are already common, now you need the weather to accommodate you in two spots across the globe
>launchpads need to be built away from cities
>BFR will need to be subsonic a significant distance away from city, this will consume a significant amount of fuel
>piles of safety issues
>co-ordinations with air traffic and many other legal issues
>g-forces from launch and reentry
>Designed for 40 cells x 5 passengers per cell if packed (as per Musk's comments) = 200 passengers max which means cost/200. Even at 2 million dollars (massive underestimate) it would be 10,000 USD a ticket.

Pie in the sky shit for travel, though I hope he builds it for launching satellites into space.

>>9199457
Important question, is this going to shit up the atmosphere worse than passenger flights? If it does, then why not use something more environmentally friendly with less start-up cost like the hyperloop?

>>9201902
Uh... no attempt we can make the comparison with? A decision to work on digging tunnels instead of suspended tubes?

He said from the beginning that he wasn't going to build the proposed Hyperloop himself. There's no experience to draw lessons from in Hyperloop. It's still a new idea being played around with.

By the way, the California high speed rail project is a disaster.

>>9200643
How about you make that telescope yourself, faggot. Fuck off.

>>9201924
>>sensitive to weather, scrubbed launches are already common
Different system. Falcon 9 is a low-flight-rate, fast-changing system for high-value payloads. It makes more sense to wait for good weather than to try it out under a variety of conditions. Soyuz, for instance, launches in practically any weather.

>>BFR will need to be subsonic a significant distance away from city, this will consume a significant amount of fuel
No it won't. It will just dictate where they can land. They can't spend extra fuel changing that.

>>co-ordinations with air traffic
Not much of an issue when you have to take off and land away out to sea.

>>g-forces from launch and reentry
Nothing extreme. Only a consideration for people with serious health problems.

>>Designed for 40 cells x 5 passengers per cell
No it isn't. That's long-term accommodations for going to Mars. They can easily seat a thousand people when they're just taking a half-hour ride.

Note that all the same spaceports (and probably the same vehicles) can be used for travel to orbit, which will have a similar cost to the point-to-point travel once destinations in orbit are established.

>>9200643
>terraforming
>ever
Humanity is currently arriving at a point where we understand all necessary natural and technical processes involved in such monumental tasks, but will never have even remotely enough manpower, resources and energy to expend on them. Terraforming, Bishop rings, generation ships, these are all pipe dreams.

Saturn V launch was like 220 dB? So how far in the sea are they planning to launch this from?

>>9199457
This is a money laundering scheme right?

>>9202010
>220dB

>>9201978
Even if it is much better than the Falcon 9, it will still be far more sensitive to weather than any airplane. If you have to wait for good weather then you just destroyed your competitive advantage.

The Falcon 9 makes a significant sonic boom 10km away from its landing pad, no major city is going to allow that. I am not sure how it would be regulated, but I would think that they would require at least 25km buffer zone or require the rocket to be subsonic if they want to be closer to the city like in the animation.

Dealing with air traffic and the various governing bodies is not trivial.

A comfort problem, if it happens there will be quite a few pukers. People will be weaseling for refunds if they get puked on or have to sit next to a puker for their flight.

Maybe I missed heard the part about the passengers, a couple of thousand would be reasonable for cost by would introduce all sorts of complications with boarding. Though having a couple of thousand per flight sounds like an insurance nightmare.

>>9201846
It only counts as one if it explodes
that's the missile part

>>9202010
depends how far away it needs to be so people inhabited areas only hear 90-100 decibels.

>>9202076
>Even if it is much better than the Falcon 9, it will still be far more sensitive to weather than any airplane.
Why do you think that? The SpaceX people have said they expect to eventually fly in anything better than hurricane conditions.

Rockets are designed to interact with the atmosphere as little as possible. They fly purely by thrust, not lift.

>I would think that they would require at least 25km buffer zone
Sounds reasonable, and I don't think that would be a problem. They can do all the luggage check-in, customs, and security stuff on the half-hour boat ride to and from the launch site.

>Dealing with air traffic and the various governing bodies is not trivial.
Air traffic is a non-issue, since they won't be landing at an airport. As for governing bodies, that's completely true, but once a couple of routes are established, other countries will be embarassed to not be in the network.

>>9202113
yeah, but instead of worrying about terrorists hijacking airplanes, we'd have to worry about them hijacking ICBMs. Can we really handle that?

>>9201998
>expand into space
>have access to fucktons of resources
>can build habitats for more population and manpower
>can build more effective robots and automation systems
just because you're daft doesn't mean humans are

nobody wants to tell him his ideas are silly out of a combination of money worship/billionaire worship and because everyone close to him or even feasibly distantly involved in it will be happy to try to get a slice of the multi million dollar boondoggle pie no matter the wastefulness

i wish everyone the best of luck in fleecing all they can out of this fellow and out of any billionaires they can get their hooks into

>>9199457
>>9199586
Hail the market! This is why the government was the wrong tool to approach space with. Down with the cult of greyface and their endless bureaucratic planning!

>>9202224
>muh asteroid mining
Call me back on how that went.

>>9202205
No pilots in them how are they gonna hijack it? They would need to hack the system for it which should be possible to make really hard to pull off.

>>9202248
It's going pretty well actually
lots of investment, Prospecting mission is scheduled for 2020, lunar mining company is currently in the google moon contest
very good tidings for the industry as of late

>>9202245
a government could be an adequate tool for approaching space with, if it could be convinced to provide funds for its space program. however, they typically have much more interest in handing out fat military contracts to friends in the market for shinier weapons to keep the peasants of the world under control with, so they don't rise up to disrupt the market by demanding things like rights and living wages

>>9202311
So you've noticed: government is just a tool of control, founded on the fear of those who seek to better their conditions. Stop fearing those who seek better lives. Humans are almost all peaceful almost all the time. Stop telling people to demand living wages, and start telling people to create them. Peaceful people can seek better lives through savings and long-term planning.

Governments aren't going to put money into the space program until you tell them they can launch their political opponents off to a penal colony. If that's not the basis on which man is to expand to the stars, let us not rely on fat, fearful governments. Better to expand in ambition.

>>9201702
>Planes haven't gotten faster

Yes, they have. They just don't go faster because it costs too much in fuel due to extra drag. You can go Mach 2 now easily when we could only go several hundred mph max before. Jetliners only go average Mach 0.71 or so because that's the optimal fuel speed. They can go a good bit faster than that though (Mach 0.85 for the DC-8 and 707). Now we have the fastest non-jetliner plane going Mach 6.70 while the Concord clocked in at Mach 2.2 max back in the 1970s. There are a lot of jetliners that can go near Mach 1 now.

The point is that they are already at peak fuel performance.

>>9202010
>220 dB

>>9202350
>Humans are almost all peaceful almost all the time.
I see someone has not opened a history book in the entirety of their fucking lives
just one glance at anywhere in the continent of Africa shatters that delusion to pieces

>>9202409
>No mention of distance measured at

>>9200181
Thank you

Thoughts


>>9202515
>>9202515
>>9202515

>>9201400
Except that's what they also said about the things that he's successfully delivered on so far.

>>9202409

>250 db: my Schnauzer-Poodle barking in my ear

>>9200663
this

>>9199586
> they can compete with airlines on ticket prices
He said that the hyperloop could beat Airlines in both price and speed, but both seem unlikely once you take a look at the details. And that's assuming you can get them to work as describ.ed, Maglev trains have been an proven tech for decades, but they struggle to remain financially viable, which is why there are only like half a dozen of them in the world

>>9202412
They recently got bit by the Marxism meme.

I really gotta believe in the good in people, just a few bad people with power, and bad ideas with no contest.

At least we're making a gradual shift toward total peace...
Sure it's taken 100s of generations but people are learning how to live and let live.

>>9202350
> are almost all peaceful almost all the time
hobbes pls go, in hunter gather societies anywhere from 20% to 60% of the adult male population has/will die in combat
you only think that humans are peaceful most of the time because you're sheltered and live in era of material abundance

>>9202518
Distance is 0.

>>9202761
>people are learning how to live and let live.

That's an extremely bad thing. We need violence, death, and destruction of humanity every day. If we don't get that, we will turn into slugs attached to entertainment machines that keep us alive. Like a self-imposed Matrix world.

>>9202761
>At least we're making a gradual shift toward total peace
nigger where do you live where this is the case?

>>9202798
Don't worry, the entertainment machines will keep you dosed with images of violence, death, and destruction if that's what you demand instead.

>>9202798
I believe that as machine and man move closer to a merge we should set aside >some< convenience for freedom.
The machine I use is merely an extension of myself and that extension continues to push back inward as technology moves.

Only liberation of our mediums of communication, expression, and creation will allow us to avoid a self imposed matrix.

>>9202412
Try looking at the example that makes looking at Africa relevant! Protect the societies that develop the libertarian delusion.

>>9202804
Large wars have stopped.
Everything is smallfry now.

No world war, no thermonuclear annihilation, just proxies and tiptoeing.

The threat of nuclear war has people acting a bit more civil now, as long as we can prevent our shitty security from falling into the wrong hands, and the only reason it hasn't gone bust so yet is because no one cares enough to coordinate this level of damage.

>>9202833
>Everything is smallfry now
there's no reason to assume that this will always the case
all of the wars in Europe after Napoleon were "small"
but even during the Cold War there were plans by both superpowers to fight out a conventional war, even though the possibility of a nuclear was present

>there are people on /sci/ RIGHT NOW that fell for the hypermeme
Brainlets all of you

>>9199457
thread theme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcjpags7JT8

>>9199586
fake fucking news

>>9202798
more like a space fairing civilization that spends its time and ressources on conquering the stars instead of smashing each others heads in.

>>9200526
How about Neil Armstrong landing the Eagle on the surface of the moon.

>>9206462
The moon has a gravity that is ~17% of what earth has its gonna be incredibly much easier to pull off on the moon. It should also be said that they had automatic control systems that aided him in the landing.

>>9199655
Main reason why concord failed was
>Safety
a big issue. They already crashed their VTOL rocket
>Price
Obviously
>Noise
Have you been near to a starting rocket?
This absolutely cannot be in a city, which makes it completely poitless if you had to sail 2hours to the platform. And concord could fly near population centers slowly and less noisy. Rocket can't

>>9206462
No atmosphere to knock you off and throttle low enough for hover makes it more akin to helicopter than a Falcon9 that has to hoverslam because it does not throttle low enough also for more energetic missions they do 1-3-1 engine landing with going from supersonic to 0 in 6 seconds

>>9206380
that rock you found is my rock
gib me your rock

>>9206590
>Thing cannot be inside a city
>so it has to be two hours away
I too can dramatically exaggerate things to suit my argument

>>9202833
>t.will die in a trench from dysentery in few months

>>9206590
you forgot fuel, not exactly efficient.
also payload, did not carry many paying passengers for fuel and maintenance required.

>>9206590
>This absolutely cannot be in a city
Depends how far outside it needs to be sited, 15 kilometers might be ample
A 60 kmph ferry gets there in 15 minutes.

I'd say price is less of an issue than you would imagine, these rockets are multi-use, its not like the Concorde which has ONLY one use, and the market needs to support the cost of operations + overhead + pay off development/loans/whatever

This is just an extra use for the BFR, meaning if it only supports 10 flights daily from New York, they can manage that just fine.

>>9199457
>get there
>still have to wait for a slow ass ferry to bring you to shore so you can catch a lyft/uber
yeah, no

>>9201702
Implying the plane will consume more from point A to B because it is going faster. It will consume the same amount of fuel you fucking retard.

>>9200695
Wouldn't say tiny accident. The tires would blow off and hit the fuel tank causing it to blow. It was a design flaw

>>9199457
Every time Elon Musk farts Thunderf00t will show up within seconds to criticize the musk of Musk's lunch. He is fucking obsessed, his complaints aren't even bad but I swear he makes a video about every single thing Musk ever says.

>>9199457
Right now, SpaceX is at about 4.000 US-$ to transport 1kg of mass into LEO.

Including luggage, the seat you are sitting on, etc. you have to calculate 150-200kg per passenger. But let's be generous and say 150kg.

So right now a one-way earth-to-earth travel would cost you at least 600.000 US-$.

SpaceX has said in numerous interviews that they believe they can cut the prices up to 99%.

Let's assume they actually manage that. Then you would end up with a 6.000 US-$ ticket price for a one-way ticket. That's about 10 times the price of an economy class ticket, and about 3 times the price of a business class ticket, and about twice the price of a 1st class ticket.

So even if SpaceX fullfills their most optimistic scenario, they are never going to be able to compete with airplanes.

Thunderf00t has done it again!!!

Elon "Snake Oil" Musk has been BLOWN THE FUCK OUT yet again!

Thunderf00t explains how Musk operates:

1) Take an old idea that was shelved for being impractical
2) Take it as his (he's a thief)
3) Make the bullshit idea even bigger
4) Make a bunch of bullshit videos
5) Raise money from stupid investors
6) Collect $$$$$$
7) GOTO 1

Totally fucking BTFO!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4KR4-TN-Yo


Musk cocksuckers on a suicide watch!

>>9210361
>>9210460
LMAO @ thundercuck

>>9210460
Dude's a brainlet.

The only constraint are the heating shields, except that it is totally possible to build a 100% reusable rocket that will bring the price down to basically only the fuel.

Heating shields though are pretty expensive, so commercial rocket earth-to-earth transportation will never be a thing.

>>9210474
>Dude's a brainlet.
>>9210471
>LMAO @ thundercuck
Have you low IQ retards published in Nature? Didn't think so. Stay butthurt, Musk nuthuggers. I'm sure magic will be real one day and Musk's delusions will become real.

>>9210493
Yes I did, it's not very hard. All you have to do is being okay of wasting your life away in academia instead of making $$$ in the real world. And boom, you can have a useless paper published that nobody ever is going to read.

>>9210474
> baiting this hard

>Yes I did, it's not very hard. All you have to do is being okay of wasting your life away in academia instead of making $$$ in the real world. And boom, you can have a useless paper published that nobody ever is going to read.

Can confirm, nature will take paper from any idiot. Mostly useless, not high impact like clever 4chan post. Published my toiletpaper in Nature last week. Thanks for smartly pointing /sci/ to the truth anno, very effective excellent work. Smart like that it's no wonder they publish you in nature.Good thinking. Upvote.

>>9210460
thunderf00t may be a faggot, but he's a faggot that's often right

>>9210641
This.

Tho, you don't need to be a genius to see how dumb musk and his ideas are.

>>9210493
Thundercuck is just mad that at the age of 50 he still has to panhandle and beg his viewers for donation to make ends meet while Elon is on his way to become the richest man on the planet. Poor cuck he and all of his fans are, i really pity you poor hopeless cucks.

>>9210901
Hmm, yes, indeed, yes, I see now, hmmm, yes

>>9210460
You have bad taste.

>>9210641
>>9210893
>responding to yourself

>>9210641
>often right
the amount of times he's been right is in the single digits, and that was on the lowest hanging fruit imaginable, stating the obvious for the whole video

The zip2 dotcom bubble, payscam, the Tesla Model S (S for spontaneous combustion), the SolarCity "pennystock", the hyperloop pipe dream and now rocket travel.

How do we stop him?

Eventually it will all come crashing down (quite literally unless we do something) and give us legit scientists a bad name.

>>9199457
>It'll cost as much as an economy class plan ticket

Musk confirmed as the greatest hack in history?

>>9210965
When was he "wrong"?

>>9211021
The Hyperloop episode, for example
The entirety of his video revolves around the idea that the hyperloop would be completely above ground and not bother with any form of security whatsoever, despite the fact that a tunnel drilling company was also created alongside the hyperloop, as well as Musk explicitly stating that the loop would run underground

If information hasn't been posted yet, he goes out of his way to fabricate bullshit that suits his argument, if it doesn't explicitly say how things will be done, he'll fabricate more bullshit and assume that it will do things in the most retarded and expensive ways possible so he can make a video declaring the thing a fraud and/or scheme, despite half the shit said about the thing not being true
He's the very fucking definition of Disingenuous Troglodyte

>>9211067
>The entirety of his video revolves around the idea that the hyperloop would be completely above ground

Maybe because, that WAS the original concept of it? (see the concept videos)
The tunneling part came later, and oh boy, digging it under the ground is not going to fix a lot of problems.
Tho, I do feel f00t has talked about how doing it underground, is also full of barriers.

>he goes out of his way to fabricate bullshit that suits his argument
This needs examples.
Also, one problem is that Musk really doesn't explain his ideas in any depth.
Therefor, one must assume some what solutions they might take.

Idk, where you are going with this. This is not being "wrong". You just disagree with his approach. And this one "example" does not prove that he has "been right a single digit of times".

It also seems that you think the hyperloop is a good idea. Which makes me wonder, why you're even on this board.

(I've got problems with the f00t also, but that doesn't involve him being wrong)

>>9211148
>It also seems that you think the hyperloop is a good idea. Which makes me wonder, why you're even on this board.
why would it not be a good idea once you polish it and work out the kinks, it's no different from a regular subway at a core, it just has a lot more bells and whistles on it
Underground, you don't have the extreme rapid temperature changes that the surface does, you also have free security, in the form of dozens of meters of earth to protect it
There's a lot more to it, no shit, but the idea is Possible, and CAN be an excellent addition to the world if done correctly and competently
it's a shame that Thunderf00t would sooner have an aneurysm from his asspain than give any faith or encouragement to anything he doesn't like

>>9211234
>work out the kinks
>regular subway at a core
>just a lot more bells and whistles on it

Hahahaha, sheeeit boy. There are more than some kinks to work out.

Anyway... I'm glad you have good faith in science and the future, and sure, underground will protect it against certain things, but what about earthquakes? The tube IS in a vacuum, and if an earthquake bends the pipe in the wrong way, you're fucked.

Maintenance is also a huge problem, and more difficult, if the tube is underground.
What if something needs to get fixed, that's INSIDE the tube? Then you need to pump air into the tube, and shut down the entire system...
There's still the problem about how to get people in and out of the vehicles... Doing all this in a vacuum, just introduces a lot of problems, and you gotta ask, is it worth it?

Will doing this vacuum tube system, underground (Digging tunnels is an expensive task), with problems no one knows the answers for, really beat a high speed train system? (Or flying)

Very few ideas, ends up being good ideas.
We all want cool future shit, but no need to be hyped for hyperloop t.b.h.

>>9211419
>There's a lot more to it, no shit, but the idea is Possible, and CAN be an excellent addition to the world if done correctly and competently
Read the whole post

>>9211021
>>9211148
>>9211419
thundercuck literally getting schooled by a lolbertarian and an actual physicist (thundercuck is a chemist btw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx52A-v65Q8&list=PLSPi1JFx4_-Gz0Fm0qq2KUz4c22UbZCco

>>9211419
The idea behind the hyperloop was that it would be ultra high speed, and travel between places where high speed train lines could not go, and planes would be pointless for

The big ass tunnel bore was designed to make drilling the tunnels needed very cheap, and seems to be working decently well on that front
for internal repair, They could have gates that sealed off sections between stations, and shut down that part of the line to do the repair, like normal subways do
to get people out, you'd shift off the main track and go into a station area, which would dock with a port like it were outer space
Maintenence can be done the same way the LHC does maintenance, by having extra space around the tunnels to move around it for non-robotic inspections and repair
Earthquakes can we worked around by the same springboard looking systems many buildings have, they're extremely effective at negating the effects of earthquakes, and would keep the loop nice and safe

Will it be worth it? I'd say yes, Time is money for people that have big money, and the opportunity to get city to city for business deals in very short time is something they'd gladly put their support and funding behind
Same with the city to city rockets, they need to get somewhere ASAP, so cutting their commute down a dozen hours would get them grinning ear to ear

>>9199652
>try to land rocket
>it crashes
>R&D until it doesnt crash anymore
??? where's the problem with this, when airplanes were being developed there was certainly a solid chance the wings on your prototype might just fall off because you fucked up, but that's why you only deploy the technology when it works.
Pilots couldnt steer the rocket better than a computer anyways

>>9210380
>two times first class price
oh come on, I'm not saying they'll manage to get that low but if they do you can definetly call that competing with airline prices.
2x for a ticket isnt that much considering your travel time is really significantly reduced.
A good portion of the people that buy first class would also buy this

>>9200816
fucking jews

>>9211449
>The idea behind the hyperloop was that it would be ultra high speed, and travel between places where high speed train lines could not go, and planes would be pointless for
Plane and train are still the alternatives tho...? It's still the competition.

>The big ass tunnel bore was designed to make drilling the tunnels needed very cheap, and seems to be working decently well on that front
You need more than a bore to make tunnels... And even with a good bore... it's still more expensive than doing it above ground.

>They could have gates that sealed off sections between stations, and shut down that part of the line to do the repair
Say they made airlocks, that works, and are really really safe. The downtime will still be long.
And that's also a problem with trains, maintenance on the tracks causing downtime. But it's not something the hyperloop will remove.

>like normal subways do to get people out, you'd shift off the main track and go into a station area, which would dock with a port like it were outer space

That's really not the same. Here you have a lock system that needs to work, fast, several times a day and be 100% safe. (People don't risk their life, entering a train)
Also, if you look at the airlock on the ISS, it's small and round. Probably reasons behind that.

>Maintenence can be done the same way the LHC does maintenance, by having extra space around the tunnels to move around it for non-robotic inspections and repair
Of course. What else? But hey, that's a bigger tunnel... more cost.

>Earthquakes can we worked around by the same springboard looking systems many buildings have, they're extremely effective at negating the effects of earthquakes, and would keep the loop nice and safe

Nice and safe....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30rcg3buuw

Yeah, this is also not a house, but a miles long tube. With a lot of potential energy trapped inside it... hmm... safe...

>Will it be worth it? I'd say yes, (...)

Bait? hmm

>>9211535
You didn't post any reasons why it was bad
you just whined that it would be expensive and refused to talk about the engineering behind anything, instead being vague as shit and avoiding any definite answer
You don't actually know a single thing about what you're talking about, I'd bet good money on it

The question was on if it was possible, and if there was a reason to make it, It most definitely is possible, and for people who aren't NEETs, the ability to save time is a godsend, so they'd say that's a damn good reason for it

>>9210380
1 kg to LEO and 1 kg to sub orbital trajectory are two very different energy requirements. LEO is around 8 km/s delta-v, suborbital can be as small as 1.4 km/s delta -v

>>9211535
> it's still more expensive than doing it above ground.

Unless its already got houses and buildings... in which case tunneling is far cheaper