[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 29 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: 4r71882.jpg (277 KB, 3000x1000)
277 KB
277 KB JPG
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/9/29/16383048/elon-musk-spacex-rocket-transport-earth-travel

And people thought the hyperloop was far fetched
>>
They hyperloop is far fetched. Rocket travel less so, though the market's very limited.
>>
I literally dont give a fuck about that guy
>>
>>1114148
ITS in the original 12m radius, has the interior volume of 20 737s. You could seat a 1000 people with out all that bullshit needed for mars travel. no galleys needed because lol 1 hour anywhere on earth travel.
>>
File: American Flagg 01 - 17.jpg (552 KB, 993x1536)
552 KB
552 KB JPG
So the 1% is moving to Mars?
>>
>>1114150
this, musk is full of shit
his business model is helping investment bankers put their customer's money into their own pockets
tesla is a money laundering operation that just happens to make cars on the side
>>
>>1114174
new things are always consumed by the rich first.
>>
>>1114176
>burns billions a year to build physical capital
>scam
>>
>>1114183
>investment money goes in from vc firms
>stock price goes up
>friends of vc managers with long positions in stock profit
>kickbacks ensue
>shit investment for vs firms, but that's not their money anyhow
musk just takes a bit off the top
the real magic is behind the scenes
somebody has friends at the SEC to get away with it
>>
>>1114144

International travel as a side operation is the usual point where a rocket design has jumped the shark.
>>
>>1114185
ok comrade...
>>
>>1114207
if you ever want to achieve economies of scale with mass production and bring rocketry prices down. you need to find more markets for rockets. so you have more rockets out doing work.

Yuropoor Space Agency is looking into solider fuel rockets made from carbon fiber. So they can just mass produce them and then stack them up in a warehouse. taking one out when someone needs a low orbit light weight launch for cheap.
>>
>>1114212

Except Ariane 6 is shaping up to still be more expensive than Falcon 9. Hell, dev is based on guaranteed 4-6 payloads from europe yearly, otherwise they couldn't even cover ops costs. They can't compete on the open market, so end up beholden to gov payloads, and the EU wants to retain spacelift capability so have no choice but to back Ariane 6.

same with the japanese, they have a new solid rocket for smallsats coming up, but the opening cost is higher than Rocketlabs. No sane sat provider would choose it.
>>
>>1114354
What does Ariane 6 has to do with it?
Epsilon is a different class and it is selling features other than cost.
>>
>>1114174
The 1% didn't instantly move to the west coast the moment the transcontinental railroad went up, they sent their lackeys there to build first.
>>
>>1114144
Hyperloop is more farfetched than this
>>
>>1114158
There aren't even enough demand for conventional aircraft company to build a dedicated new aircraft to transport full payload over 10000nmi+ distance. Why would a even more dedicated tool have enough demand from this sector?
>>
>>1114379

I wasn't talking about Epsilon (a poor excuse of a M-V replacement that was built solely to keep the industrial base for a domestic ICBM/IRBM alive, now internally at version 3 because they don't make certain parts anymore, which is why it's delayed again).

Europe has no choice but to back Vega and Ariane 6, with vague promises of staying near F9 cost using solids. At least they are trying to put up the fig leaf of being a market competitor, and currently Ariane 5 isn't doing badly in terms of their order book.
>>
>>1114144
Brave new world when?
>>
>>1114158
>>1114144
Good luck getting approval to launch and land big fucking rockets directly over major population centers. And approval to store rocket fuel in/near said cities.

If anything goes wrong, which it will, sooner or later, not only will you blow up 1000 people on the rocket, you're pretty much guaranteed to release a massive cloud of toxic gas right on top of a major city.

Also security is going to have to be a bitch
>>
>>1116326
the BFR would be methane rockets. So you could fuel it from local natural gas lines. Only the LOX would need to be stored on sight.
>>
>>1116326
Good luck getting approval to launch and land big fucking airplanes directly over major population centers. And approval to store jet fuel in/near said cities.

If anything goes wrong, which it will, sooner or later, not only will you kill 1000 people on the ground, you're pretty much guaranteed to release a massive cloud of toxic gas right on top of a major city.

Also security is going to have to be a bitch
>>
>>1114144
he really did read a lot of Heinlein
I wish him best of luck, really, no matter how much memeful /n/ finds him.
>>
Thunderbird 1 could become a reality?!!
>>
>>1116433
When is he going to release power armor?
>>
>>1116440
once he gets pentagon funding, of course. Not sure if he'd take it though, you never know with businessmen, but he does present himself as an idealist.
Not that I know what his ideal is anyway.
>>
>>1116432
Not an argument. Commercial aircraft are significantly safer and more reliable than a rocket. Plus if something on a plane brakes, it's typically not an immediate threat and the plane is capable of turning around. If something on the rocket breaks, it blows the fuck up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJP5ncnLwgE
>>
>>1117379
rockets are statistically safer than air travel and have a lot more safety and reliability work put into them. because when each launch costs hundreds of millions. You can't afford to fail.
>>
>>1117390
>rockets are statistically safer than air travel
nah man, they're really not
>>
>>1117390
And cars are hilariously unsafe compared to air travel.
>>
>>1116409
Anyone know of an estimate the energy consumption/distance of planes vs suborbital rockets?
>>
Didn't Concorde prove that nobody wants faster methods of transport?

Not even millionaires were willing to pay to get over the Atlantic quicker than a standard jet, so Concorde failed.
>>
>>1117419
Concorde failed mainly due to economy of scale and legal issues. It was profitable on a per trip basis; people were willing to pay a large premium for the service, and Concordes flew for almost 30 years. A huge issue was that the program ended up costing over a billion dollars to develop them, and only about a dozen were built. Since only a few were made, maintenance costs got out of hand. Air and noise pollution limited them to overseas routes, limiting the appeal of developing new supersonic airliners.

Basically, the issue wasn't that people were unwilling to pay, just that the market for it was too niche.

I suspect the hypothetical story of Musk's dildo transit would be the same. There'd be enough people willing to pay to cover operational costs, but all the issues of regularly launching/landing fucking rockets in/near population centers would make it unattractive from a business standpoint.
>>
>>1117419
>Didn't Concorde prove that nobody wants faster methods of transport?

This is why I stick to horse & carriage. And a lame horse at that. Don't nobody need anything faster.
>>
File: 1504348545906.jpg (106 KB, 400x341)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
>>1117390
>rockets are statistically safer than air travel and have a lot more safety and reliability work put into them.

Are you trolling? According to Wikipedia Falcon 9 family of launch vehicles has a success ratio of 42/44. I would never fly if the probability of a plane murdering me was 2,33%.
>>
>>1117429
concorde also failed due to private and charter jets
if you are that rich, you don't want to wait around for a plane to board and leave
the slower flight is made up for the fact that you can just drive right up to the plane, get on and go
>>
>>1117398
Well that's the famous claim, no one has died in "space". Just in entry and exit :D
>>
>>1117379
You realize that commercial passenger aviation was a lot more dangerous than it is now, with all of the various crashes and tragedies over the past century of being the reason it's as safe as it is today right?
>>
>>1117435
but do you drive cars?
>>
>>1117498
so what, we should just throw away the advances we've made into airline safety and try to replace it with rocket travel
and planes still have a much much better rate of successful flights than rockets have of successful launches
>>
>>1117499
no, no i do not
>>
>>1117504
>so what, we should just throw away the advances we've made into airline safety and try to replace it with rocket travel

Where did I say that? There are a lot of instances where rockets are impractical for travel within the atmosphere. Best use case other than spaceflight is flights that currently take 10-17 hours, and to connect major hubs that aircraft currently can't, once a viable rocket exists to do it. Just because it will cost a lot of money to get to that point does not mean we should abandon the effort altogether, especially when a private company is financing and building it.
>>
>>1117506
and do you use roads for cars at all?
>>
>>1117429
The very public airshow crash of the Russian version of Concord meant all other airlines cancelled their sales orders for Concord. If the Russian bird hadn't crashed, who knows what might have been. Also because 'sonic boom' Concord could really only travel supersonic over the ocean.
>>
>>1117768
>The very public airshow crash of the Russian version of Concord meant all other airlines cancelled their sales orders for Concord.

Utter rubbish. Where in the hell did you get this from?

>Also because 'sonic boom' Concord could really only travel supersonic over the ocean.

Only because Boeing whipped up a bunch of false hysteria and the US government gladly protected themselves instead of competing.
>>
>>1117797
>Only because Boeing whipped up a bunch of false hysteria and the US government gladly protected themselves instead of competing.

This, as American companies typically do when one-upped and they don't want to put in the effort to compete.
>>
>>1117442
Boarding a concorde plane doesn't really need to wait that long, there are special procedures
>>1117419
Concorde are full until 911s
>>1117768
Russian thing is pretty irrelevant
>>
>>1117410
No, but I can almost guarantee you the rocket uses more.
>>
>>1117419
>Not even millionaires were willing to pay to get over the Atlantic quicker than a standard jet
There's plenty of multimillionaires who would pay extra for fast travel. If you have more money than you'll ever be able to spend, there's only one thing you can't buy, and that is time. There would definitely be a market for intercontinental trips that take an hour. There are at least two companies trying to buy into that market right now, by developing a supersonic business jet.
>>
>>1117468
Soyuz 11
>>
>>1117468
sub-orbital travrl doesn't spend lots of time in space
>>
>>1117830
private jet travel as a time economizer is because your jet is ready to go almost when you are. plus you don't have the stupid early arrival time needed in american airports.

flying by BFR would require hours of pre flight ritual. check in, security, a quick health screening, getting your space suit, getting on the boat, loading the rocket. then unloading at destination, returning your flight suit, boat trip, baggage claim, customs.
>>
>>1117799
What's it like to be such a historically ignorant fucking cunt? You can't just make up a bunch if factually incorrect, mythologized bullshit and not expect to be called on it.
>>
>>1117972
Are you saying that the Concorde actually was loud enough when supersonic at 32k-55k ft to warrant limiting it only to trans-oceanic routes? Are you saying that the Concorde was louder on takeoff than the jets it served with in the '70s, '80s, and '90s? Because you'd be wrong on both points.
>>
>>1117797

>Utter rubbish. Where in the hell did you get this from?

Captain Joe on youtube said it!




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.