1950S ROCKET TRAVEL FUTURISM SHIT

[Anonymous No.9198909]

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/9/29/16383048/elon-musk-spacex-rocket-transport-earth-travel

HE KEEPS FUCKING WINNING

BEST INVENTOR SINCE TIM BERNS LEE CONFIRMED

[Anonymous No.9198919]

Yes everyone will want to spend in excess of a million to save a few hours.

[Anonymous No.9198922]

>Elon Musk proposes broken windows and shattered ear drums because we didn't have pollution of all sorts out the ass already

[Anonymous No.9198923]

>>9198919
>Cost per seat should be about the same as full fare economy in an aircraft.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/

[Anonymous No.9198926]

>>9198923
>here let me pluck some numbers out of the collective asshole that predicts humans in andromeda by 2020

[Anonymous No.9198935]

>>9198909
I wish Musk would stop reading Heinlein.

[Anonymous No.9198937]

Musk proposes a lot of things. His actual achievements to date are far less impressive.

[Anonymous No.9198941]

>>9198937
It isn't even his proposal, it's something straight out of a 1940s Heinlein novella.

[Anonymous No.9198942]

>>9198935
>Heinlein
>in reality hes just a rich autist who wants to make a story he read when he was 8 reality

[Anonymous No.9198945]

>>9198937
B-BUT MUH REUSABLE ROCKETS

[Anonymous No.9198960]

>this is posted in /pol/ as well

[Anonymous No.9198971]

That is utterly preposterous because it is well known and widely accepted scientific fact that objects heavier than air cannot fly. This madman belongs in the asylum.

[Anonymous No.9199017]

>all these ass blasted shitters
the envy
the jealousy
how does it feel to know that this one man has done more in 5 years then you will in a lifetime

[Anonymous No.9199058]

>>9198926
>>9198971
It uses a suborbital ballistic trajectory outside of the atmosphere. Since it's out of reach of atmospheric drag for 90% of the journey, it can just "coast" to its destination, making it more efficient than flying and also making the fuel consumption low enough to be affordable.

[Anonymous No.9199074]

This solves the problems Concorde had exactly how...?

[Anonymous No.9199077]

>>9199074
Shut up faggot are you elon musk?

[Anonymous No.9199084]

>>9199074
No atmosphere = no drag = no sonic booms = no fuel consumption for most of the journey

[Anonymous No.9199104]

>>9199084
>no fuel consumption
except for the shitload of fuel to get out of the atmosphere and to slow down the craft

[Anonymous No.9199108]

>>9198923
but it wouldn't

[Anonymous No.9199128]

>>9199074
In my opinion it doesn't, at least the ones which matter most which is price. I can see him getting the price low enough for it to be an option for wealthy people who want to be somewhere fast but I can't see him getting it low enough to compete with a regular intercontinental airline ticket and still break even.

[Anonymous No.9199136]

Fuck me, Elon Musk is the rick and morty of science, stop listening to that hack. He's a glorified welfare queen with an computer science degree.

[Anonymous No.9199140]

>he's still trying

[Anonymous No.9199144]

>>9199136
As opposed to the rick and morty of what?

[Anonymous No.9199146]

So any bets as to how long until we get an ITS version of this image? My bet is 8 years.

[Anonymous No.9199154]

>>9199144

Reddit is the Rick and Morty of social media, Harry Potter is the Rick and Morty of literature, Nietzsche is the Rick and Morty of Philosophy and so on. The Rick and Morty of something that people who camp on the top of Mount Dunning-Kruger like. This doesn't imply they're stupid of the Rick and Morty of "x" is necessarily bad, its just where smart people who are retarded normies who bandwagon or don't research into something hang out.

Elon Musk is a patent troll and exemplifies the worst of corporate welfare. He proposes madcap ideas and acts like Jesus for "nerds" so he can suck hype money up and then sell the patents for ideas that will never work. Why not just give the money to NASA?

[Anonymous No.9199169]

>>9199154
>SpaceX hasn't gotten a dime of government subsidy dollars
>has done lots of rockets
>ULA has gotten fucktons of govbux
>hasn't even launched a single rocket
methinks you're just asshurt he's doing things while you're still a NEET
I bet you fell for the pure math 300k starting meme

[Anonymous No.9199177]

>>9199169

Well that's bullshit for a start, and second, he hasn't done anything. The re-usable concept was already known how to do, NASA just had its funding cut and so couldn't perform those experiments. What has he actually done? Made a meme car no-one drives, promoted early 20th century pseudo-science with the hyperloop and now is promoting this pseudo-science. There is no way launching rockets for intra-planetary travel is commercially viable.

[Anonymous No.9199183]

>>9199104
remedied by the fact that launches can happen more frequently than a regular 12 hour flight

[Anonymous No.9199187]

>>9198937
>Musk proposes a lot of things. His actual achievements to date are far less impressive.

Everybody recite this until you understand it. He's great at putting out ideas that maybe some government will throw money at without caring to much what he accomplishes.

>Muh vertical landing

Nice trick, call me when he puts men in orbit or does anything useful with it.

[Anonymous No.9199194]

>>9199177
Now you're just being dumb.
Rich people will throw money at everything they can just so they can say they have "experienced" it and post photos about it on Instagram.
That alone would make things quite affordable.

[Anonymous No.9199199]

>>9199183
>remedied by the fact that launches can happen more frequently than a regular 12 hour flight

Not sure how launching more rockets is going to do much for you, given the extremely limited number of people who will be able to afford a ticket. Launching more empty rockets does not make it more economical.

But IF he built it as a status ride for rich people. he might make a few bucks off it if subsidies help defray costs. Sorta like the Tesla.

[Anonymous No.9199200]

>>9199177
>this is what /pol/ actually believes
Musk will have a colony on mars and you'll still be calling him a scammer.

[Anonymous No.9199204]

>>9199200
>colony on Mars

Fuck that, call me when he puts a man in orbit.

[Anonymous No.9199208]

>>9199194

Let me ask you something. Do you seriously think a few rich people wanting to take selfies will carry this industry that requires billions upon billions of dollars?

[Anonymous No.9199211]

>>9199204
If Musk is a scammer, what does that make Jeff Bezos/ Blue Origin/ Boeing/ Lockheed? He is literally further along than any of them.

[Anonymous No.9199214]

>>9199200

Yeah but he won't. What's the point in building a colony on Mars? What is he getting back out of it? Fuck all, its impossible for him to fund. You're essentially taking out a mortgage that will run into the trillions over however many years until you they can fend for themselves which could be hundreds of years. That is if you don't mind defaulting when it becomes too expensive and leaving them to die on Mars. Its just retarded. If you're serious about space colonization, you NEED the Moon first.

[Anonymous No.9199219]

>>9199199
I'd pay a premium for the shorter trip on an East Coast USA to Hawaii route. Anything that's 11+ hours by plane is ripe for competition from this sort of thing. The way planes are now, I'll never take that trip again on one. But it would be nice to see family again someday.

[Anonymous No.9199228]

>>9199208
yes, as it carried the early commercial plane industry a century ago
there's a lot more people rich enough to afford this today, as well as a lot more interest in the idea

plus you have business executives and other high status people that need to get place to place really fucking quickly
Their private jets only go so fast, so being able to get there in an hour or less would get lots of interest from those people

[Anonymous No.9199231]

>>9199183
And NASA's Space Shuttle will be able to fly every two weeks!

[Anonymous No.9199234]

>>9199228
Assuming I'm incredibly wealthy, how much for a private rocket?

[Anonymous No.9199235]

>>9199228

>as it carried the early commercial plane industry a century ago

It didn't though, war and agriculture carried it first.

>there's a lot more people rich enough to afford this today

What, 4 million quid just to knock 11 hours off a flight? How often will they be doing this? How much cargo are they carrying?

I mean, you're right, I could be completely wrong but I'd say there's a 90% chance I'm right. Its just economically nonviable.

[Anonymous No.9199237]

>>9199235
maybe amazon and ups would buy a couple of these to transfer warehouse size loads between distribution centers.

[Anonymous No.9199244]

>>9199237

Nah, shipping or train is much more cost effective. Rockets are certainly not something you want to use to carry large loads. Maybe on the Moon you could, highly doubt on Earth.

[Anonymous No.9199249]

>all these faggots ignoring the fact that it's thermodynamically more efficient to travel outside of the atmosphere where there is no drag

[Anonymous No.9199255]

>>9199234
currently with only single digit amounts of rockets ready to do anything at a given time, millions
When there's hundreds, if not thousands of rockets operational and flying on an hourly basis, same as a plane ticket
>>9199235
Convenient that these rockets were originally meant for space travel, so they can get money buy sending shit to space
if you want to shit on an idea because you hate ideas, remember to shit on the whole idea all at once, don't just pointedly ignore the supermajority of the concept to suit your argument

[Anonymous No.9199371]

>>9199249
factor in the acceleration needed and see how dumb you are

[Anonymous No.9199713]

>>9198909
There's a simple solution to this class of transportation problem: privatize the roads.
Under a regime of public roads, the government subsidizes numerous factors.
>populations become less concentrated because real estate can externalize transportation costs onto society: urban sprawl
>mass transit can't service less concentrated areas as efficiently, so personal transport is emphasized
>having free access to a decent public roads makes private mass transit less profitable and less common
>the auto and petroleum industries are basically subsidized due to these reasons (which means we're subsidizing "global warming")
>certain modes of shipping take far more resources than they should

If we could privatize the roads, there would be dozens of Elon Musks building bullet trains everywhere because they'd be way more profitable. It's not going to happen while the highways and interstates are free.
I'm not even a lolbertarian, I just want a more logical allocation of certain resources.

[Anonymous No.9199717]

Elon is a fucking idiot even if this was a good idea technically it would be a disaster in terms of security, he basically wants to seed the world with multiple cites with civilian owned rockets that have are capable of being used as vectors for trans continental nuclear bomb deliveries.

[Anonymous No.9199724]

>>9199371
this is now an optimization problem.

[Anonymous No.9199738]

>>9198909
> passenger rockets
> thinking this is a good idea in a world where muslims exist

[Anonymous No.9199744]

>>9199738
>lets not have nice things because bad people exist
Nah

[Anonymous No.9199821]

>>9198909
Finally a public transport where 400 people vomit their guts out the entire time.

[Anonymous No.9199828]

>>9199744
>Bad people are the reason we can't have nice things

Sounds about right

[Anonymous No.9199849]

How is he going to deal with reentry?

[Anonymous No.9199853]

>>9198909
YFW Musk makes infrastructure on Mars then in secret developes nukes on some asteroid and comes with SpaceX fleet in orbit and says that either people of Earth comply or he nukes the living shit out of Earth

[Anonymous No.9199887]

>>9199177
Musk is a meme and 90% of what he spews is bullshit, but stop acting like's accomplished nothing. SpaceX is a successful company doing good work. Tesla is hugely popular.

[Anonymous No.9199904]

>>9199713
I'm hoping with electric vehicles gaining steam, ending the gas tax and restructuring how we pay for roads. The problem with the gas tax is that even though it's an extremely simple system to implement that does a decent job of adjusting for pollution and vehicle weight, it's a political nightmare to change it, and accordingly has caused a gap between funds for road maintenance and the cost of it. Obviously electric cars don't need tax, and trying to tax electricity for automotive use would be asinine, so a new system would be needed. So far any conversation about it has been about leaving the gas tax for ICE vehicles and using a different system for EVs, but I think it'd be a good time to overhaul our entire road funding system.

What I think would be best would be to have periodic registration that applies a carbon tax according to how many miles the vehicle has gone and what it's emissions are. Then have tolls collected on every freeway and interstate, adjusted by the weight of your vehicle and axles. The tolls would be set to cover the maintenance, and possibly, to recover the costs of construction. This would implement an equal and fair system that would be capable of maintaining our roads and encouraging green choices. It's also relatively easily implemented with our current technology. The gap would be covering local roads, where tolling every road would be asinine. The best solution would probably be to set a budget for each locality, and pull the money from surcharges on registration and/or tolls.

[Anonymous No.9199927]

>>9198922
methane rocket would pollute less than fuel oil burning airliners.

[Anonymous No.9199952]

Electric rocket or bust, musk.

[Anonymous No.9199962]

>>9199058
methane is also a fraction of the price of jet fuel
and shorter trips means more flights over the vehicles lifetime

[Anonymous No.9200278]

>>9199904
The problem with gas taxes is that it doesn't solve the game of economic whack-a-mole you get by subsidizing stuff. Sure it reigns in overuse of roads, but not overproduction of roads (or production of the wrong roads.) I think you could improve things by making all roads publicly owned toll roads, leased out to road management companies under strict regulations. Even though it would fix a lot of problems, automotive lobbyists would never allow it because if you solve these inefficiencies they lose profits. It's not in their interest for cheap mass transit to exist.
The more extreme solution would be to turn every local road or road system into its own private company, giving free shares to every citizen. That way, the economy could figure out how valuable each road is, and only the profitable roads would be maintained. You could sell your shares or keep them and collect dividends.

[Anonymous No.9200370]

>>9198909
So are his rocket emissions chlorine free? If not , I'm going to ride a banana boat to the moon.

[Anonymous No.9200371]

Wasn't this literally what Virgin Galactic was going to do? Richard Branson is getting cucked as fuck.

[Anonymous No.9200385]

>>9198909
I was going to do that in 15-20 years myself if he hadn't. I probably still will but damn

[Anonymous No.9200426]

>>9199074
Concorde was very small and used LOTS of expensive jet fuel.

It just wasn't reasonable when it came to seat prices.

>>9199104
Methane and LOX is considerably cheaper by quantity than jet fuel and has no bad emissions. It'll also get cheaper while jet fuel will only get more expensive.

The thing is that it definitely won't be as cheap as a regular economy flight to begin with. For starters you need to build the infrastructure to support them, this means landing/launching pads and the Methane/LOX fueling facilities and storage facilities in every location.

[Anonymous No.9200431]

>>9199853
If only supervillains were real.

[Anonymous No.9200521]

>>9199154
>Why not just give the money to NASA?

Socialism and world policing has killed NASA.

US doesn't have the money when the other 2 are being funded.

[Anonymous No.9200543]

>>9198909
>BEST INVENTOR SINCE TIM BERNS LEE CONFIRMED
Who knew Elon Musk invented the rocket? I learn something new every fucking day.

[Anonymous No.9200564]

>>9199887
SpaceX is 70% government money, Tesla never had a year with profits.

[Anonymous No.9200568]

>>9200426
>Concorde was very small and used LOTS of expensive jet fuel.
>It just wasn't reasonable when it came to seat prices.
You do realize that rockets have a far higher fuel fraction than airliners, yes?

[Anonymous No.9200574]

>>9198923
>He believes the propaganda made by a company desperate for investors

Hmm.
Can't someone else do the MATH!?

[Anonymous No.9200607]

>>9200574
>Can't someone else do the MATH!?

It actually works out. Marginal cost for a launch in fuel is under a million dollars, and can launch 1,000+ people at a time in an economy class configuration in a passenger volume that exceeds the size of an A380.

A jet airliner can make a long haul trip exactly once, and most of the airline's cost is in the crew. The rocket can make the same trip ten times a day. If the route can be filled, they're making revenue to the same destination ten times as fast as they would with a long haul jetliner, even if they spend ten times as much on fuel than they do with the jet (actual estimated cost is 2x as much).

[Anonymous No.9200610]

>>9199187
>deliveries to ISS
>not useful

And thats when most of /sci/ discarded all of your opinions. Where is Penn Gillette when you need him?

[Anonymous No.9200619]

>>9199214
While i agree with you that we should go to the moon first, mars is still a good idea for Musk. He will have a monopoly on an entire fucking planet worth of resources. Mars is going to make Musk the worlds first trillionaire.

[Anonymous No.9200630]

>>9198909
A Brave New World!

[Anonymous No.9200658]

>>9200607
>Fuel is the main cost of this operation (Kek)
>What about reassembling the rocket?
>Transporting fuel / refiling the rocket
>Repairs, safety checks before launch
>How many people are needed on the ground to monitor such a launch?
>How many times can the rocket be "re-used"(They have still to re-use a rocket)(They have still to prove that this is viable)
also...
>1000+ people (More than the A380)(Forgetting that the A380 is actually doing bad BECAUSE it has too many seats)
>AKA more seats does not equal a good thing

Let's also think about the safety issues with sending 1000+ people into a rocket like this.
And, how many of those will get window seats? Oh wait, I don't even see any windows, so going to "space" will be pretty unsatisfying (AKA less people will be interested (It lacks the "space tourism" sale point))
And oh, why is the launch on water? A fucking 30 minute boat ride to get to the rocket?
Seriously, do you think these idiots who came up with this shit, can be trusted to do something like this?
(And, we are also trying to get GREEN alternatives. Especially in transport. I don't see how green this thing is)

You Muskboys are delusional. You all leave logic behind because of your spacefetish.

[Anonymous No.9200666]

>>9200658
Honestly I think some people just post the Musk stuff just to watch people whip out their hate-boners.

[Anonymous No.9200679]

>>9200658
Musk is at least getting people interested and excited about space, unlike NASA cuckboys who have only been good at convincing people to slash their budget

[Anonymous No.9200830]

>>9200666
They gotta get those nickels and dimes somehow
why else would they be here in every thread from dawn to dusk

[Anonymous No.9201004]

>>9200568
I addressed that in my post as well.
LOX and liquid methane are considerably cheaper by quantity and the prices are likely going to go down.

>>9200658
The space tourism aspect of it would start to wear off if they were actually doing as many launches as he talks about.

Most likely there would still be a class setup with the first class getting viewports, as there are some at the front.
If you want to actually see space pay for the first class seats, if you just want to get to the other side of the planet in half an hour then go economy.

[Anonymous No.9201014]

>>9198909
Yeah, and all you have to do prior to boarding is two weeks of astronaut training. Awesome right? So quick and efficient.

[Anonymous No.9201018]

9201014

[Anonymous No.9201040]

>>9198937
He said this project would be taking funding from a lot of other ones. So he seems to be serious about trying this.

[Anonymous No.9201054]

>>9201040
stop giving shitposters (You)s

[Anonymous No.9201059]

>>9200666
>>9200679
>>9201004
Lets do some math:
assuming such a rocket costs 20 M per launch (Less than half of FALCON 9) and can transport about 30 people. One ticket would need to cost about 50.000$. What a bargain. And yes i know these are loose calculations and maybe Elon has a rocket costs less than that, but you people need to realize that sending an object into space is somewhat expensive.

[Anonymous No.9201085]

>>9199177
Haha retard

Every day on my walk to work I see at least 10 Tesla vehicles. Try to get out of HickTown USA and interact with actually successful people and you'll see that tons of people have Teslas

[Anonymous No.9201088]

>>9199713
You're a fucking retard

Private individuals ALREADY CAN DO THIS but they don't because it's never profitable

You want the road system to only prioritize population centers? There's no money serving rural towns. Way to cut off all of your retard "let's privatize it" Republican voters, KEK

[Anonymous No.9201117]

>>9201004
>LOX and liquid methane are considerably cheaper by quantity
Not really

[Anonymous No.9201142]

>>9201059
>lowering the amount of passengers to 30
>when the FIRST MODEL is designed to hold at least 100
>passenger specific models expect several hundred
at least fucking try to be honest

[Anonymous No.9201159]

>>9200610
Considering a 60 year old Soyuz rocket launching out of Kazakstan can do the same thing while costing a fraction as much, it's not really impressive.

[Anonymous No.9201163]

>>9199214
>What's the point in building a colony on Mars? What is he getting back out of it?

Immortality mah nigga. His name will be remembered for all of humanity's future as one of the fathers of interplanetary humanity.

[Anonymous No.9201167]

>>9201163
Interplanetary is a meme though. There will literally never be large cities on mars. It just doesnt make sense. Its like settling in Antartica.

[Anonymous No.9201187]

>>9201167
Except settling on Antarctica is much easier. Space colonization is a meme.

[Anonymous No.9201190]

>>9201167
>I'm too much of a retard to figure out something
>so nobody else in the whole wide world can either

[Anonymous No.9201201]

>>9201142
My apologies, i did not know that. Still, a single launch would need to cost less than 2 M (With 100 passengers and 14,000$ per ticket). Even with several 100 passengers it dosent seem feasable.

[Anonymous No.9201213]

>>9201201
and what causes it to cost all these millions, when the only cost is fuel
this is the exact same thing with aircraft, They don't cost millions per flight, why do you think that is

[Anonymous No.9201215]

>>9198909
WE BRAVE NEW WORLD NOW

[Anonymous No.9201219]

>>9201190
go ahead then, tell us how we can colonize mars in a way that dosent cost trillions and slowly kills off the inhabitants.

[Anonymous No.9201220]

>>9201190
Settling on Mars is not hard, it's just useless.

It also doesnt increase the chance of human survival. No matter how bad climate change is going to be, earth will always be more friendly to human life, because it will always have the perfect gravity for humans and keep its magnetosphere. So there is literally 0 reason to settle on Mars.

[Anonymous No.9201227]

>>9201213
"rockets will be as reuseable as a car" is a meme that i hope you dont sincerely believe.

its like saying "yeah, so these are our plans for intergalactic travel, now we first have to figure our how to construct a worm hole, and then we are good to go."

[Anonymous No.9201229]

>>9201227
>cars work by just refueling the thing instead of abandoning it once you run out of gas
>whole point of SpaceX rockets is that you refuel it instead of abandoning it once you run out of gas
It takes a special kind of retarded to ignore the most blatant of things

[Anonymous No.9201259]

>>9201229
so do you have to re-firbush the engines of your car everytime you ignite it? "reused" doesnt mean what you think it does. They are actually "repairing" (read: replacing) large parts of the rocket each time. Making a Falcon 9 ready for its next flight costs around 50% of building a new one at the moment. Sure this price tag might go down, but obviously it will never be "reusable" like a car or an airplane is.

[Anonymous No.9201268]

>>9201229
>A car is equivalent to something that literally leaves the atmosphere.
Holy fuck, I knew SpaceX drones were stupid, but I didn't know they were this retarded.

[Anonymous No.9201273]

>>9201201
>a single launch would need to cost less than 2 M (With 100 passengers and 14,000$ per ticket). Even with several 100 passengers it dosent seem feasable.
100 passengers is for long-term accommodations. They can easily seat 1000 for a half-hour ride.

At $3,000/ticket there would be a large market, since people already pay those prices for intercontinental flights. I see no reason they can't make a profit at $3M revenue per flight.

You have to remember that this is not comparable to F9 at all, even with the flyback boosters. They're expending *nothing*. They're using the cheapest consumables they could: natural gas and oxygen.

[Anonymous No.9201274]

>>9201259
please provide proofs for your claims
if they are actually true, you will be able to do such a simple task
>>9201268
what's the difference fuccboi, Refueling is Refueling, where it goes does not affect the fact that they refuel the things

[Anonymous No.9201281]

>>9201274
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/05/spacex-spent-less-than-half-the-cost-of-a-new-first-stage-on-falcon-9-relaunch/

>But SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told the Space Symposium conference that the cost of refurbishing the Falcon 9 rocket that originally flew the CRS-8 Space Station resupply mission last year for SES-10 was “substantially less than half” what it would have cost to build a brand new one.

Since all of Elon Musk's companys are loudmouths we can assume that "substantially less than half" means 49,9% at best.

[Anonymous No.9201285]

>>9201274
Because a rocket goes under incredible stress during its launch you utter troglodyte. Are you new to rocketry? Did Musk just introduce you to the magics of space? This is literally one of the most basic aspects of rocketry.

[Anonymous No.9201287]

>>9201213
Fuel isnt the only cost. Reusable rockets still needs maintance, repair and new parts after every flight.

[Anonymous No.9201290]

>>9201274
>what's the difference fuccboi, Refueling is Refueling, where it goes does not affect the fact that they refuel the things

are you really this retarded? do you really believe there are materials that can endure the extreme conditions of a rocket launch unharmed?

[Anonymous No.9201295]

>>9201259
>They are actually "repairing" (read: replacing) large parts of the rocket each time.
No they aren't, you fucking chimp.

>Making a Falcon 9 ready for its next flight costs around 50% of building a new one at the moment.
Falcon 9 is a development platform for reusability. On reflights so far, the upper stage, fairing, fins, and legs have been completely non-reusable, because the focus was on development and demonstration.

Furthermore, these are the first tests of reuse. They've been extensively *studying* the stage, examining and testing it, not refurbishing it, before reuse.

[Anonymous No.9201300]

>>9201273
There is a reason a F9 cost 60 M though, and fuel is only a fraction of the total cost.

[Anonymous No.9201309]

>>9201295
see>>9201281

[Anonymous No.9201312]

>>9201290
>do you really believe there are materials that can endure the extreme conditions of a rocket launch unharmed?
The conditions are simply not that extreme.

Do you understand that the engines are fired multiple times before being used? They're designed to not significantly deteriorate in normal use. Nothing else in the system in put under stress comparable to what happens inside the engine when it fires.

>>9201300
>>You have to remember that this is not comparable to F9 at all, even with the flyback boosters. They're expending *nothing*.
>There is a reason a F9 cost 60 M though, and fuel is only a fraction of the total cost.
Are you an actual monkey?

[Anonymous No.9201317]

>>9201309
>please refer to my previous completely idiotic ass-pull
Why?

[Anonymous No.9201320]

>>9201312
>firing one engine at a time is the same stress like firing all of them at the same time

OW LAWD

[Anonymous No.9201327]

>>9201312
The second stage of the Falcon 9 is lost
only the first stage is recovered

[Anonymous No.9201330]

>>9201320
They also fire them all together. What do you think a hold-down test fire is?

You people are so fucking stupid, making these mindless contrarian arguments without basic awareness of the relevant facts.

[Anonymous No.9201332]

>>9200521
>that picture
>her arms
>our defense budget
>this meme of a company

O i am kekkin

[Anonymous No.9201333]

>>9201327
Do you just like to randomly state things for no reason, or are you functionally illiterate?

[Anonymous No.9201340]

ITT: one butt-mad Musk-licker trying to defend his master's stupid PR-bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9201341]

>>9201330
>He thinks that static firing engines is equivalent to the stress engines undergo during launch.
Man you're stupid.

[Anonymous No.9201345]

>>9201341
So now you're just going to go completely overboard and pretend you were trolling all along?

[Anonymous No.9201351]

>>9201341
>engines can withstand test firing
>but they magically disintegrate past that
>no possible way for it to be resistant to stress
Jet engines totally don't get inspected and receive maintenance, they have the whole thing torn off and replaced, reusing would be completely unique in the transport industry

[Anonymous No.9201371]

>>9201345
I'm not trolling. You think that static testing rockets is equivalent to actual take offs. You're retarded.

>>9201351
Why do you retards always say "BUT MUH JET ENGINES!!!!!!!!?!??!" Jet engines are much, much different than rocket engines. For one thing, they don't have chemicals as hot as the sun burning within them. This "you don't tear off Jet engines after use xD" argument is the best indicator that you know nothing of rocketry other than pop science.

[Anonymous No.9201390]

>>9201220
there are no niggers, muzzies or kikes o mars. much better for human survival

[Anonymous No.9201404]

>>9201390
musk is a huge sjw,he will probably personally oversee the fulfillment of diversity quotas on his shit little mars colonies.

[Anonymous No.9201405]

>>9201371
how about I do a horrifying thing and ask you to give a way where this could become possible
I know, it's terrible, you'd actually have to think instead of screeching NEVER EVER for hours on end, but I feel it could be a fun thought experiment for your esteemed self

I doubt you'll try however, and instead elect to declare it impossible and go back to masturbating to hentai, as all NEETs do

[Anonymous No.9201415]

>>9201405
What are you even talking about? Did I break you by accident? I'm sorry Anon...

[Anonymous No.9201434]

>>9201371
Okay, so you acknowledge that they static test these things for the length of many launches without having to refurbish them in between.

But when you try to justify why they can't be reused, you can only reference details that apply to the static testing.

You don't know shit about this stuff. You just decided to take a position and are trying to bullshit your way through it.

>they don't have chemicals as hot as the sun burning within them
What you'd have learned if you actually studied this stuff is that they don't let the peak temperatures contact the inner surface of the combustion chamber and throat. They use curtain cooling: they keep a layer of relatively cool unburnt fuel flowing between the hottest gas and the inner surface, preventing erosion regardless of the peak temperature. The injector is protected by a similar mechanism: since the fuel and oxidizer mix at some distance from the nozzle, the injector is never directly exposed to combustion.

In principle, it allows rocket engines to run indefinitely without deterioration. Achieving this is just a matter of optimization.

The Merlin engines are limited more by the lifespans of the turbopump ball bearings than by anything relating to the combustion chamber, throat, and nozzle. The Raptor engine turbopumps will have no-contact fluid bearings, with practically unlimited life.

[Anonymous No.9201440]

>>9201415
no
I'm just waiting for you to bring numbers to the table instead of shouting buzzwords and other meaningless nonsense
I'm just accepting the fact that you will not do this, and instead act smug and pretentious with Bad Dragon's finest lodged up your ass

[Anonymous No.9201479]

>>9201404
musk secretely hates niggers for kicking his head in and turning him into a stuttering dork

[Anonymous No.9201482]

>>9201434
Holy shit, way to completely ignore everything I've said. The engine is not the only failure point on a rocket num-nuts. If you think that the only thing stopping magically infinite reusability then you have another thing coming senpai.

>>9201440
Oh, I did break you. Oh no.

[Anonymous No.9201566]

>>9201482
You were arguing that the problem was with the engines, because you're too ignorant to know that it isn't, and too stupid to avoid arguing about subjects you don't understand.

And no, there's nothing else that's under exceptional stresses in the launch, beyond what aircraft or other established, highly-reusable technology is put through.

Re-entry is a different matter, but the only special thing is the heating. So the heat shielding has to be right. If it is, then there's no problem.

[Anonymous No.9201622]

>it's a /sci/ defends wingless airplanes thread

[Anonymous No.9201664]

Elon Musk isn't a "genius", he just takes all the credit from the scientists and engineers who work for him. The media needs to stop riding his dick

[Anonymous No.9201705]

>>9199738
>terrorist pulls out a gun and takes over control of the rocket
>auto pilot doesn't give a fuck and continues on to destination

How is this a problem?

[Anonymous No.9201721]

>>9201664
>person running the company deserves no credit

[Anonymous No.9202048]

>>9201664
how do you think companies are run
that shit isn't automated

[Anonymous No.9202058]

>>9201404
>A south african
>diversity quotas
if he could do what ever he wanted, he would see them all flown into the sun

[Anonymous No.9202089]

>>9199228
>s it carried the early commercial plane industry a century ago
bullshit, commercial planes are a byproduct of the military industrial complex, boeing would not have made it without gibmedats from uncle sam, same with tesla, and intel...

[Anonymous No.9202196]

>>9201566
I never argued that it was only engines. And really? Nothing else other than the engines under go stress in a rocket launch? That's bullshit and you know it.

[Anonymous No.9202223]

>>9202196
>I never argued that it was only engines.
You argued that the engines were sufficiently impossible to make reusable to make your case.

>>And no, there's nothing else that's under exceptional stresses in the launch, beyond what aircraft or other established, highly-reusable technology is put through.
>And really? Nothing else other than the engines under go stress in a rocket launch? That's bullshit and you know it.
That's a strawman and you know it.

[Anonymous No.9202694]

>>9199084
Shuttles and Falcon stages have sonic booms when they land. Why would BFR be different?

[Anonymous No.9202702]

he may or may not be a funloving dumy with a hot woman and cheezy videos, but hes definately gonna lose money, everytime like a low budget kubrick space porn

[Anonymous No.9202830]

>>9199228
> commercial plane industry
the main difference between a plane and a reusable rocket its that commercial planes aren't 90% fuel and any repairs don't take several weeks
rockets are, and since they essentially a controlled explosion refitting them is very expensive and time consuming.

even when Space X had trouble refitting their recovered first stages, and only recently got the falcon 9 able of getting a kilogram of mass into orbit for 5700 dollars
compared to about 4500 for a Soyuz or a Proton - M

[Anonymous No.9202918]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU7FuAswPW0
Fuck Elon Musk, he needs executed. Insider traders get decades in jail for tens of millions, he has swindled billions so he should get executed.

[Anonymous No.9202960]

>>9202918
Elon Musk doesn't need to be executed on rumors of being a swindler, but on the fact that he's the tech equivalent of Todd Howard

[Anonymous No.9202970]

>>9202960
BUY MY ROCKET TICKETS

[Anonymous No.9202974]

>>9202960
>rumors
>has literally taken billions in government money

[Anonymous No.9203131]

>>9202960
>See that mountain? You can climb it!

[Anonymous No.9203136]

>>9203131
Dropped my image

[Anonymous No.9203157]

>>9203131
>>9203136

[Anonymous No.9204566]

>>9201004
>LOX and liquid methane are considerably cheaper by quantity
Even if that was true that's not the problem, fuel in general isn't expensive, its the rest of the rocket that has to contain the controlled explosion that is

[Anonymous No.9204583]

>>9204566
but that rocket is being designed to be resistant to those explosions, and be as reusable as it can possibly be
The whole fucking point of SpaceX rockets is that you aren't blowing the rocket up every launch
No fucking shit you replace some parts, but the GOAL is to minimize the amount of parts you have to replace every round, gradually working towards an ideal model where you do not have to replace any at all

[Anonymous No.9204607]

>>9204583
> reusable as it can possibly be
> you aren't blowing the rocket up every launch
easier said than done, remember that was the goal of the space shuttle too
Running a rocker engine would be like taking all the oil out of your cars engine, putting the car in neutral and slamming on the accelerator for a few minutes
the result is that it would fuck up your engine even if it is completely intact. The irony is that the decrease in the cost of the Falcon 9 series comes from the fact that the rocket has been made cheaper in other areas that resuiblity, and yet in terms of Dollars/kg to LEO its still loses out to a Soyuz or a Proton -M

[Anonymous No.9204617]

>>9198909
What's the success rate of these rockets? I'd rather have a long flight than a 10% chance that the rocket explodes on launch.

[Anonymous No.9204628]

>>9204607
read the whole thing you wanker
no fucking shit it's easier said than done, it is still their goal and wish to have it done, and they are dumping money into it to see if it could indeed be done with more R&D, superior materials and whatever else they can think of

[Anonymous No.9204635]

>>9204617
Currently for 2017, 100% success rate
For all of the Falcon 9 rockets, 94% success rate
The BFR has yet to be built, so the rate cannot be determined for it

[Anonymous No.9204641]

>>9201705
> control centre for rocket flight paths
> diversity hires of 30% muslims
> good idea

[Anonymous No.9204655]

>>9204641
unlikely he would let that happen
there's like a 90% chance that he used to browse /pol/
even more likely that he goes on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9204665]

>>9201117
>>9201004
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html
http://aviationweek.com/bca/jet-and-avgas-fuel-prices-august-2015

[Anonymous No.9204678]

>>9200658
You know the answer to all of your criticism already. Not a single one is a problem.
>>9199017
Feels awful

[Anonymous No.9204719]

ok if we put a reversing camera on the rocket with like artificial landing tracks telling you when your not perpendicular with the ground could it be landed by a pilot?

[Anonymous No.9204744]

>>9204719
It would have to be radically redesigned to be landed by a pilot. A human pilot isn't capable of nearly the same speed and precision as a computer.

[Anonymous No.9204763]

>>9204744
A human brain is literally a faster and more capable computer with inbuilt ergonomic peripherals.

[Anonymous No.9204772]

>People in this thread wank Musk and gloat over words

Jesus christ guys. Its talk for free advertisement. Sure, he might succeed but is there any proof for that?

[Anonymous No.9204788]

>>9204665
Yup, not considerably cheaper. Especially if you factor in that an A380 with 4 engines, a MTOW of 575 tons and a fuel fraction of 44% can move 853 people, while Musk's contraption with 37 engines, a loaded weight of 5.735 tons and a fuel fraction of 90+% moves what? 120 people?

[Anonymous No.9204802]

>>9204772
Like he's landing rockets and making reusable rockets he's achieved some shit but people are clapping him on the back like he's some sort of god for doing it when like a few years ago i saw amateurs making rockets and landing them on their flight pad again. This isn't something he developed himself people have been doing it before.

Has one of his rockets taken a man into space yet? Like he has bright ideas and re-usable rockets are smart but i'm more interested in the lunar base and mars colony ideas. I seriously think their will be strong opposition for this due to national security issues.

If say we get a lunar base it will just be a facade and not be doing anything useful basically think the international space station but just on the moon, NASA paying lip service too us once more.

I think all SpaceX will be is a transport company.

[Anonymous No.9204803]

>>9204763
>a human
>faster than a computer

[Anonymous No.9204804]

9204802
>model rockets going a few meters into the air and back down again
>anywhere near the same as a full sized rocket going to fucking orbit and landing
You don't get a (You)

[Anonymous No.9204811]

>>9204607
>remember that was the goal of the space shuttle too
The space shuttle was:
1) 1970s technology,
2) the first try at reusability,
3) a big-government pork project.

It was obvious years before its launch that it wasn't going to save money. The drop tank alone both weighed (empty) and cost as much as a complete expendable vehicle with the same cargo payload.

The propulsive-landing Falcon 9 was SpaceX's third try at reusability, and they're just finishing up their fourth major revision of it (and they've had at least half a dozen minor revisions). Rather than being primarily concerned with avoiding embarassment, they insisted on keeping things economical and tolerated many more vehicle losses than NASA ever built shuttles.

>Running a rocker engine would be like taking all the oil out of your cars engine, putting the car in neutral and slamming on the accelerator for a few minutes
The Raptor engine uses no-contact fluid bearings in its turbopumps, and should suffer essentially no wear during use (unlike Merlin, which uses ball bearings which have to be replaced after a certain number of firings). There are no other rapidly-moving parts during steady-state operation. The combustion chamber, throat, and nozzle are protected by curtain cooling, as in Merlin, preventing significant surface erosion.

There's no reason a rocket engine can't have a long service life and low maintenance requirements.

[Anonymous No.9204817]

@9204804
This is how this shit works brah you build a model and test it then you scale it up gradually. I was just referring to that particular feat that everyone loves elon for.
Once you've gotten through re-entry whats the difference between the model rocket landing on its pad compared to the big boy rocket doing it?

[Anonymous No.9204822]

>>9204817
Also it wasn't a few metres it was like a few thousand feet

[Anonymous No.9204836]

>>9204811
What about leaving the earths atmosphere and also re-entry and also passing through the sound barrier?

[Anonymous No.9204844]

>>9204836
would be done far away from cities, so the sounds would be quiet to the city

[Anonymous No.9204848]

>>9204844
No i'm talking about the forces put on the rocket going though those processes wouldn't they inflict wear and tear on the rocket over time.

[Anonymous No.9204850]

>>9199146
Reality is significantly cooler.

[Anonymous No.9204854]

>>9204848
it would of course inflict damage, but that damage would be patched up in the routine post flight maintenance checks

[Anonymous No.9204864]

>>9204854
So how does this work. Your rockets is working but you'd have to have a post flight check. Lets say something comes up in the check and you have to fix part of the heat shield mid way up the rocket. Where does the check occur the rocket is on some barge in the ocean how do you transport the rocket to your maintenance facility to get a crane tall enough to get up to wear the heat shield needs fixing?

[Anonymous No.9204867]

>>9204848
All that wear & tear is known, accounted for, minimized, and part of the routine replacement of "ablative" components

Like wheels or windshield wipers on a car

>>9204864
The check occurs after a set number of flights, obviously there are constant electronic diagnostics, and likely they will pioneer some sort of automatic robot inspection

[Anonymous No.9204871]

>>9204867
>All that wear & tear is known, accounted for, minimized, and part of the routine replacement of "ablative" components

Yeah but like i said this isn't like replacing your wipers if you have to reinstall heat shield on the top extremities of the rocket thats going to be a bitch to do.

How are you going to accomplish this without of already having a fleet of rockets up in the sky doing flights to compensate for your downed rocket?

What if this is discovered in singapore? Do you have a facility to repair the rocket in all these random locations you want to fly too?

[Anonymous No.9204874]

>>9204867
It would take how long to cart a rocket in need of repair from its barge to your repair facility?

[Anonymous No.9204879]

>>9204871
for minor repairs, you could use the onsite crane, like airports have
if shit is fucked, you ferry the rocket to a proper repair facility and use another rocket, there are other rockets in existence, so the entirety of the network will not get shut down if one rocket is in the shop

[Anonymous No.9204893]

>>9204879
Also you've got a massive crane on a barge used to get people in and out of the rocket? How safe is that?

[Anonymous No.9204898]

>>9204871
You would have facilities suited for repairing/replacing these things
Generally problems don't come out of nowhere, you know when the rocket requires maintenance or to replace the heatshield or engine nozzles, etc

[Anonymous No.9204905]

>>9204893
very safe, you just follow the exact same safety procedures that all cranes follow

[Anonymous No.9204915]

>>9204898
Like where? How do you cycle the rocket so it ends up at your repair facility?

>>9204905
BFR's payload is 8 stories tall fuck knows how tall the actual rocket is thats a tall as fuck crane on a barge in pretty much open water

Also how do you ensure the barges are safe and cant continuously take rocket launches off them when do you start replace barges?

[Anonymous No.9204964]

>>9204836
>What about leaving the earths atmosphere and also re-entry and also passing through the sound barrier?
Leaving the Earth's atmosphere is non-stressful as long as your materials are properly vacuum-compatible.

In the case of orbital re-entry, they use a self-healing heat shield, that will need occasional replacing, like a brakepad. Other than that, the stresses are unremarkable. In the case of suborbital re-entry, they fire an engine during the period of peak heating. Aside from the sides of the rocket (which are similarly protected with heat shielding, which doesn't have to be nearly as high-performing as that on the upper stage), this is no worse than ascending with the engines firing, because the rocket exhaust blows in the direction of travel, creating a relatively calm bubble of gas.

As for "passing through the sound barrier", that's simply something that has to be taken into account in the design, like tolerating the vibration from the engines. You don't choose materials that will suffer severe metal fatigue or other deterioration. However, just like aircraft, the vehicle will have a limited service life, and will simply need to be replaced after a certain number of launches (previously, the ITS booster was estimated to survive 1000 launches, with upper stages lasting 100 launches, and Mars transports lasting a dozen return journeys).

[Anonymous No.9204972]

>>9204915
furthermore the largest floating crane is like 200m tall and they are all sitting in harbours and are massive monstrosities and theirs very few of them

so how does elon propose to make 106m+ crane (BFR is 106m tall) that sits on the barge in open water that has a rocket launch next to it constantly in major centres in the world?

Like the infrastructure for this shit is going to be a feat in itself. You literally need the crane to get people into the fucking rocket and out of it anywhere you go lol. Theirs no other way and any small maintenace you still need the fucking 106m crane.

I can't imagine how much this is going to cost just to build the barges and cranes knowing your going to have to replace them eventually due to wear and tear from literal rockets launching on/next to them.

Then you have to pay for all ferry boats to ferry everyone out their all equipped with TSA level shit to save time so you can do customs and security on the boat.

[Anonymous No.9204977]

>>9204964
>that will need occasional replacing, like a brakepad.

So how does that work. When do you replace the breakpads? see>>9204915
>How do you cycle the rocket so it ends up at your repair facility?

What is this material they are using as a heat shield?

[Anonymous No.9204984]

Ok lets say i'm flying from london to new york and theirs poor weather in new york near arrival time happens then?

[Anonymous No.9205029]

>>9204964
Elon intends to use his rocket fleet for both quick travel on the planet and interplanetary travel so how does that effect the heat shields?

[Anonymous No.9205046]

>>9204977
>When do you replace the breakpads?
Just like with actual brakepads, you don't wait for it to fail, you replace it during routine maintenance after a certain amount of use.

>What is this material they are using as a heat shield?
PICA-X, I think version 3. They started from a purely ablative heat shield, PICA (phenolic-impregnated carbon-fiber ablator), and then they worked to reduce the ablation rate until it reached the point of being essentially a self-healing heat shield.

If you look at the space shuttle, for instance, the highest-heated parts used carbon-carbon heat shielding. They make carbon-carbon by weaving carbon fiber, then despositing more carbon on it by heating it with a carbon-depositing gas, such as acetylene. With PICA-X, the process happens during re-entry. The phenolic resin is heated, causing it to evaporate and then decompose, releasing hydrogen as a coolant and depositing more carbon on the carbon fiber reinforcement, creating a high-temperature-resistant insulating barrier, stopping the further consumption of phenolic resin. If anything happens to this carbon crust, like it cracks or flakes, the heat gets through to the resin at that spot, causing more carbon deposition until it's a good barrier again.

Thus, it's much cheaper, tougher, and more reliable than carbon-carbon.

[Anonymous No.9205061]

>>9205046
cool good to know what about the cranes brah

[Anonymous No.9205132]

>>9205061
they're cranes brah
they're well known and how they work is documented to hell and back
The cranes of shipyards would be very similar to this, as they're designed for the super heavy loads that this crane would be seeing, so what procedures and safety mechanisms that have been designed for those can be mirrored and adjusted for specifics

[Anonymous No.9205159]

>>9205132
Yeah i agree the cranes in shipyards and airports are well known and well documented.

Cranes getting into 106m rockets on a barge floating in open water being subjected to rockets taking off next to them are a little bit different and probably a little less well known.

[Anonymous No.9205183]

>>9205159
that's what research and development is for
shit is new and heavy duty, so people are paid very handsomely to figure out how to make the new shit work and not explode

[Anonymous No.9205191]

>>9205183
fair enough lad at least your answering my questions.

[Anonymous No.9205377]

>>9205159
>Cranes getting into 106m rockets
Here's a mobile crane that can lift 1200 tons to 188m:
https://www.liebherr.com/en/deu/products/mobile-and-crawler-cranes/mobile-cranes/ltm-mobile-cranes/details/ltm1120091.html

The height and mass are no big deal.

>on a barge floating in open water
One can only assume it'll be stable like a oil drilling rig. The current drone ship has to be mobile because it's for downrange landings, for launches that go off in different directions from the pad.

>being subjected to rockets taking off next to them are a little bit different
Also not likely to be significantly affected. It'll be at a sufficient distance.

[Anonymous No.9205396]

>>9204641
The world of diversity hires, rockets, and control centres already exists, and you haven't seen any terror organizations take over a rocket yet, so why do you think passenger rockets would change that?

It would be easier to just steal/black market buy/make their own rocket anyway

[Anonymous No.9205398]

>>9205377
>Here's a mobile crane that can lift 1200 tons to 188m:

Yeah thats not the same thing though. Its a completely different design its got to act like an elevator and lift enough people in enough time to get into the pay load while at the same time being able to at least do safety inspections of the rocket.

>It'll be at a sufficient distance.

Like what? How big is this barge?

[Anonymous No.9205482]

>>9205398
The barge will be however large it needs to be
The barge has not yet been built, afterall

[Anonymous No.9205493]

>>9205398
>being able to at least do safety inspections of the rocket.
Why do you think a crane is going to do safety inspections?

>its got to act like an elevator and lift enough people in enough time to get into the pay load
For a thousand people, I'd guess they'd use escalators, with an elevator or two for special cases. Escalators that lift people at 0.75 m/s are common, and spiral escalators exist. That would make it about a 3-minute ride to the top.

>>It'll be at a sufficient distance.
>Like what?
Looks like about 30-50m in the graphic. Tower will likely be all steel. Shouldn't be damaged unless there's a serious mishap. Launchpads only suffer damage because they're immediately next to the rockets.

>How big is this barge?
From the graphic, about twice as big as a football field in each dimension.

[Anonymous No.9205499]

>>9205482
>The barge will be how ever big it needs to be
>the crane will be heavy duty it needs to be
>the rocket will be whatever it needs to be

yeah ok brah your not answering questions and you've got no idea what your talking about

[Anonymous No.9205502]

>>9205499
the questions aren't being answered because there aren't any answers for them
You're asking for technical information about shit that has not been fully designed nor constructed
How can someone give you information that does not exist

[Anonymous No.9205507]

>>9205493
>Why do you think a crane is going to do safety inspections?

Have you been reading the thread.

How are you going to do post and pre-flight safety inspections?
>oh we'll just use the crane

Oh ok...

[Anonymous No.9205516]

>>9198909
>elon musk: hey uhh guys we gonna make rocket n' sheet to fast travel between cities cuz trains ain't doing the job and we need to throw money like we are at a strip club.

>he doesn't do jack shit
ahh yes the eternal musk, he did the same shit with that putting computer ships on human brain project.

[Anonymous No.9205520]

>>9205507
That's not in the chain of replies. Don't act like you can hold me accountable for every clown from the peanut gallery.

[Anonymous No.9205537]

>>9205502
>Hi everyone I'm Ulon Mesk I have a company that makes high speed trains and railways.
>We will make a rail system that goes through centre of the earth to save on transport times.
>Here is a short video presentation of what we are going to do

Your a mongolian using a mongolian knitting forum interested in the subject and someone on the science board of the forum has made a thread about the subject. In the thread people are trying to explain how it will all work and answering everyone's questions.

For example:
What sort of train will be used anon? Well a high speed magnet train anon.

You decide to start posting. What metal will be used for the drill bit being used to drill through the earths core anon? Errr why are asking such technical questions about something we don't know.

[Anonymous No.9205557]

>>9205520
So how are they going to do minor repairs on the rocket?

[Anonymous No.9205579]

>>9205557
They shouldn't need repairs between most flights, just scheduled maintenance (for which it would likely be transported by boat to a coastal maintenance facility, though they may use short rocket hops).

Will they have spaceports without maintenance facilities in the region? Maybe, maybe not. If not, they'll have to use long-range sea shipping to supply them with boosters anyway, and that same transportation can be used to remove unspaceworthy spaceships.

Unscheduled repair is a special situation. It would probably go on the boat.

[Anonymous No.9205644]

>coastal maintenance facility

Yeah this is where the logistics come in. How many of these and where are you going to have them. How do you cycle the rockets. How many rockets do you need to have to make it viable. How many routes. Whats the turn around time for a rocket to its next flight.

To me it sounds like elon expects everyone to build a new airport equivalent for his rockets i don't see tickets alone paying for all this extra infrastructure so the taxpayer will have to pay for this new infrastructure.

So you gotta have the barge, the ferry, the passenger crane, the maintenance facility, the tug boats to take the barge with the rocket to the facility or some big assed boat to transport the rocket, we haven't covered how they will be refueled and fueling stations, you may need some big ass place like an airport possibly on the coast where everyone sits in and waits for the ferry. Maybe the customs/security gets done in the new airport or on the ferry i dunno. If you wanna have a nice elon musk rocket transportation system and want to make it viable you gotta find a place close to your major centre that has little to no density so you can have a rocket blasting into the sky without pissing off everyone within 10 minutes of the thing.

wew

[Anonymous No.9205652]

>>9205579
see >>9205644

[Anonymous No.9205693]

>>9205579
>Your oil rich muslim country and you opt to get a nice spaceport
>You decide you want to lease one of the BFR's for your own space mission

How is countries like the U.S. going to react to this.

[Anonymous No.9205862]

>>9205644
You know, to have passenger air travel, you need a lot more than just the planes. It's the same kind of deal.

[Anonymous No.9206081]

>>9198909

Because he's a stupid cunt of a meme.

>muh hyper toob
unpractical. A literal pipe dream. Jetson tier cringe.

>muh meme car
series of lithium batteries. Homemade electric cars can beat the longest range of his mememobiles--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tweyTsIOpY8 [Embed]

>muh (((reusable))) rocket
what are parachutes?

>muh terraform mars.
he wants to nuke the entire planet with a finite supply of uranium in the earth's crust. Not to mention contamination of mars as the fallout won't be transported anywhere because it has to be oxidized.

The guy is really a moron who only has a BS in monkey coding.

He lives on hype. That's it.
He's literally the embodiment of the liberal appeasement and self gratification.

Now git the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.9206159]

>>9200658
>And, how many of those will get window seats? Oh wait, I don't even see any windows, so going to "space" will be pretty unsatisfying (AKA less people will be interested (It lacks the "space tourism" sale point))
Bro if I'm taking this thing it's so I can get to where I need to go in an hour instead of spening 16 hours on a cramped hunk of steel, not because I want to see space.

[Anonymous No.9206292]

>>9199927
And the gas can be collected by the general public. Funnels with "FART IN HERE" written on it that collect methane from the public

[Anonymous No.9208051]

>>9199211
all of those are scams checkmate

[Anonymous No.9208129]

>>9199084
I think by "problems wit the concorde" he was referring to the fact that for most trips it would be a cramped, uncomfortable and expensive flight and that most people would prefer a comfortable long cheap flight than an expensive short uncomfortable one.

[Anonymous No.9208131]

>>9199183
>remedied by the fact that launches can happen more frequently than a regular 12 hour flight
They will call a launch off for months if it rains a little.

[Anonymous No.9208137]

>>9200371
I thought he just wanted to do suborbital tourism?

[Anonymous No.9208151]

Landing a rocket does not mean you can reuse it again. You have to refurbish it, which is expensive as hell. It's also what killed the Space shuttle. The space shuttle landed, but refurbishing it was almost as expensive as building a brand new one. Even if SpaceX figures out to make all the essential parts of the rocket reusable, they always have to replace the heat shield, and that will always cost in the millions. So even if we are very generous and estimate that SpaceX can bring down refurbishing cost to 1 milliion dollars, that is still too expensive to ever make it economical. Its great for space travel, since it brings down the cost of flying to space to 10.000-50.000 dollars per person, but earth to earth that is not something that many people are willing to pay just to cut some hours off their travel.

[Anonymous No.9208852]

>>9206081
>literal barebones cars that are mostly batteries

are you fucking retarded?