How much will an average seat cost on Elon Musks new rocket flight service? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 11:51:28 am
content: See here:My guess, Too expensive, Never going to happen!Also, even more scary, no human can land one of these things, it's 100% computer positioned & corrected landing.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 12:04:22 pm
content: A lof of Musk's ideas I can get behind, but this is just silly in so many ways. Fuel, turn around, cost, safety, environmental, noise, convenience... nothing adds up for this use case.

author: dave_k
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 12:18:54 pm
content: same quote, but from 110 years ago...Quote from: sleemanj on September 30, 2017, 12:04:22 pm

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 12:59:39 pm
content: I don’t care if it’s a silly idea. I’d ride itIncidentally it might actually be cheaper. Long haul flights use a quite frankly ridiculous amount of kerosene.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 03:20:56 pm
content: This idea is pretty musky.

author: polli
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 03:24:40 pm
content: I'd say, more or less, 0/0.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 03:27:43 pm
content: All your choices are at least an order of magnitude too low.

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 04:14:54 pm
content: Hmmm, multiple launches for both booster and ship with 100 on board. Musk said fuel for orbital = $200k makes that $2 000.00 per person plus say another $50k for the ship fuel, and this was for Falcon 9, BFR rocket per/Kg cost should be 50% less maybe. So based on Falcon 9, $2 500.00 on fuel per person, no? Rocket booster and ship reuse means very low cost per flight, say a few times more than Jetliner cost. That leaves flight only cost of lets say $ 5 000.00? Now all the rest like port operating cost plus crew cost plus profit, ± $10K....

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 04:18:34 pm
content: I suppose it depends how many fat people are riding it

author: polli
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 04:21:56 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on September 30, 2017, 04:18:34 pmThis is discrimination! One person's worth of fuel should cost the same, regardless of how much the fuel actually weighs.It's ok, I can make the joke. I'm fat, so I get a free pass.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 04:32:47 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on September 30, 2017, 12:59:39 pmNot really. 747 already has a way better mileage compared to a car with a 1.6l petrol engine carrying a single person.

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 04:37:59 pm
content: Airbus A380 with ±500 Passengers on board gets about 50mpg. Or with 850 Passengers about 95mpg.https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2007/03/19/airbus-a380-more-fuel-efficient-than-a-toyota-prius/

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 04:50:12 pm
content: An A380 costs $436m up front and a hell of a lot of cash over the operational life. Most of the cost of a Falcon launch is in the first stage and they’re reducing the cost of that rapidly by making it reusable. I’d expect it to burn more fuel but perhaps be cheaper.Also they can reuse the boosters for commercial satellite launches etc. This is about more than just a rocket, it’s about a system.The only thing I can see that would be really difficult is making sure your boosters are available in the right places and on schedule.

author: jpc
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 05:16:45 pm
content: Well when you think that wealthy people are already wiling to pay in excess of £10,000 for a subsonic transatlantic flight and how much Branson is charging for his short trip to low earth orbit, I don't think he would have too many problems filling it at a 6 figure sum. Some of the wealthy will do it because they can and want to, like the space tourists we have already had, e.g. those who paid the Russians $20 million for a stay at the ISS, and some will be able to justify it to themselves as a business expense, as they did with Concorde.After all, the only argument for Concorde at the time considering the cost of the ticket, was the time it saved the passenger. These flights in comparison would save possibly an order of magnitude if flying sub orbital from one end of the earth to the other. E.G. a quoted 90 minutes from Sydney to London and 45 minutes for the shorter London to NY journey. If Concorde were still around there are plenty who would pay its fare price today. The only real question is whether those paying the ticket price for the suborbital flights are convinced it would be safe enough yet and Branson has already shown that that is not an insurmountable obstacle at this moment.@BrianHG, as to it being computer controlled. Yes please as most accidents are caused by the people in control and true whether in the air or on the road. Modern aeroplanes, all things being equal, can already fly planes safer and smoother than the average pilot can. The only reason we don't yet have fully automated planes is human fear but effectively, the pilot is already effectively redundant on many modern airliners.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 05:20:34 pm
content: Agree with computer controlled. I know a commercial pilot. He calls himself the “plane supervisor” and has suggested that it is a damn good idea not letting half of the humans he knows near a plane.

author: jpc
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 05:31:26 pm
content: Hell, if I had my way I wouldn't let at least half the people I know drive a car let alone fly an aircraft.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 05:38:49 pm
content: In a, Musk claims it will cost "about the same as full fare economy in an aircraft. " I'm not sure what "full fare" means in terms of the pricing on the internet, but just looking at fares on Google Flights, NYC to Shanghai is between about $500 and $5000 one way. Of course those trips take 15-25 hours, so you could justify a substantial price premium by eliminating 14+ hours of transit time.Given Musk's record, I'm inclined to be skeptical but optimistic that they'll get somewhere in that range eventually, though probably not nearly as soon as he says.

author: jpc
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2017, 06:00:06 pm
content: I think Musk means first class or the equivalent. That was the £10,000 plus I quoted in my post that first class passengers can pay for transatlantic flights. This is if taken at short order and if ordered in advance they can be as much as half as much.When you consider the premium people were willing to pay for a journey to NY that was only half the time then it is not hard to see the type of premium the wealthy would be prepared to pay for a journey time that might only be an order of magnitude less compared to previous normal aircraft journey times.

author: jpc
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 05:13:24 am
content: And yet Branson already has some 600-700 people who have already put down a deposit and who willbe paying the type of figure you mention to share a seat for just a few minutes of weightlessness with half a dozen or so other people just for the fun of it. Something far less relevant than being able to fly to almost any part of the world in less time than it took Concorde to cross the atlantic. Even the relatively recent fatality of a copilot during testing apparently hasn't put any of Branson's possible future passengers off.As for matching rich people's schedules, that is more a question of how regular such flights would be. Flights that were spaced out, I might agree with you and perhaps only those looking for a new experience might be interested. But if they are at any sort of regular schedule between destinations I don't see a problem.

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 06:17:24 am
content: That thing (called BFR by Elon) can take 100 people with areas for other purposes like kitchens, storage rec room etc. So for 1 hour trips, maybe at least twice that number, could be 4 times for cattle class. Remember 100 people for 6 months to Mars was the design envelope, so lots of space and cabins etc.You thinking old school expendable, so no. The costs will be Fuel plus Crew & Maintenance really. Think Aircraft, you don't pay for a 747 when you fly, only operating costs, port costs and crew + maintenance and profit (3-7% for Airlines).BFR is like a fast intercontinental Craft. Apart from fuel costs, Jetliner costs $400 Million, BFR is likely to cost less or maybe the same. It will be re-used many times. Jetliner long haul takes 18hours. BFR will take 1hour.Quote from: blueskull on October 01, 2017, 12:39:55 am

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 06:56:16 am
content: BFR both First and Second Stage IS reusable, go watch his presentation at the 2017 International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide, Australia. Its a platform, 100% reusable.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 08:04:59 am
content: The first stage of Falcon 9 is reusable, it's the thing landing spectacularly on the drone ships and other landing sites. They even managed to recover the cargo fairings, as they're also quite expensive and difficult to manufacture. The only thing not recovered is the second stage that boosts the payload into a transfer orbit, it would need to carry more than double the fuel to be able to safely reenter. But since the passengers are located on the second stage of BFR, they'd be glad if it came back to earth.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 08:33:48 am
content: Quote from: sarel.wagner on October 01, 2017, 06:17:24 amAn A380 can be turned around, that is, current passengers off, supplies and fuel in, return passengers on, in 90 minutes (using 2 gates).Airlines make money by having aircraft virtually always in the air, aircraft on the ground are expense not income.There is a vast difference between the realities of a fixed wing aircraft, and reusable rocket.You don't just land the rocket on the pad, load up some fuel, and away you go with a 30 minute preflight check.

author: lukier
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 09:41:16 am
content: Aren't the astronauts supposed to be in good health and be able to cope with high accelerations? I thought even the space tourists have to take a ride in the centrifuge at the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center.What would be the acceleration at take off? I guess this could limit the customer base

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 10:10:31 am
content: @sleemanj: no idea about turnaround time, good q?With so many less moving parts and qualified for manned flight, who knows, maybe a few hours. We have 17hours more since the flight only lasted 1, but then again profit margins may be more so turnaround may matter less. Elon will find a way....@lukier: Since the rocket motors can be throttled from 20-100% I guess they can manage the G forces on both takeoff and landings....

author: sibeen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 11:19:00 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on October 01, 2017, 08:33:48 amsighYou obviously have not been properlyindoctrinatedinducted in the religion of musk. I doubt you are worthy.

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 12:07:30 pm
content: Lets see about Elon.... 9 years ago he launched Falcon 1 (500Kg payload, single engine) Nobody even considered re-use (no not Space Shuttle). Now we have reused Dragons, reused boosters and 16 landings of the boosters. All this in 9 years for a new Space company. Blue Origins and Orbital Sciences are nowhere in comparison (apart from a few landings) No Government agency is even close from a landing or cost perspective, let alone other private companies.Then Musk also done Tesla and Solar City as well as Boring company.... I will not be one to bet against Musk and the very clever employees

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 01:04:05 pm
content: If it does go ahead (and it probably needs to as it is part of his funding solution for BFR) - and I hope it does - I can't see the craft being more complex than an A380, in fact probably substantially less complex. Apart from routine maintenance the main 'wearing' component is the ablative heat shield. Which will need to be replaced every X flights.As the overall flight time is under an hour to any destination, they probably won't need toilets/sinks, galleys, kitchens, , stewardesses. Most flight control surfaces have been removed. Andy the pilot needs just a radio and a big red button to press - the last thing you want is a human jockeying this bird.The exciting thing is that this could make it trivial to build a space hotel and I personally have little desire to goto Mars until it's been terra-formed, but do look forward to spending a weekend orbiting earth in a space-hotel and perhaps a week or two on the moon.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 01:48:31 pm
content: I very much doubt a reusable rocket is a good idea. It might work for the first stage on an unmanned mission, were reliability is no an issue. Series production can cut costs more effective than direct reusing the junk you might recover at high costs. At some point remelting and build from scratch is cheaper than testing and repair - much of the currently high costs are due to testing and development but not from expensive machining. Even when you reuse the rocket 100 times it is still expensive compared to 1000s of flights an Airplane can do.For a rocket there is also no real advantage in making it bigger. If you don't need a pilot (and you can definitely save that), the concept should also work for a small rocket as well - maybe down to 5 seats. It is only the aerodynamics that gets slightly better if larger. The only downside would be more reports on catastrophic failures.There is not much room for reducing the specific fuel consumption on a rocket. For every kg moved to orbit (or equivalent speed) needs a certain amount of fuel not matter what. It is different from something like a conventional car engine where the mileage increased quite a bit over the years - it is already close the physical limits. There might be a slight improvement starting with even higher acceleration - but for a passenger rocket one would need to move towards a lower G force start, thus an increase in fuel consumption. A reusable rocket also tends to be considerably heavier - so no savings there.Beyond a certain point there is just to few people to pay the price and an even higher price with less customers. So it's only a small step from maybe $50000 to $ 100,0000,000 per trip.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 02:22:58 pm
content: Quote from: sarel.wagner on October 01, 2017, 06:17:24 amWhat do you mean "you don't pay for a 747 when you fly", where do you think the money to buy the plane comes from? It is amortised over the lifetime of the aircraft into the cost of every ticket.That said the world absolutely, 100%, needs the Elon Musk's to fund blue sky research like this, even if some of the ideas are not feasible.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 02:49:25 pm
content: Quote from: sleemanj on October 01, 2017, 08:33:48 amIt's more akin to how many people can an airplane move how many KM per year. So, yes, a sitting airplane is loosing money.Say Elon's rocket moves 100 people per flight instead of 400, but moves them over 12 times faster. With 1/4 the people per flight, and lowering the flights per day by a factor of 3, ie refueling and checking a rocket at the gate, you could almost think this may be still viable with each seat having a price of 4x-8x a conventional business class flight.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 02:50:41 pm
content: I'm wondering how all the cities near the launch and land sites will deal with the rocket rumble and sonic booms...

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 03:38:47 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on October 01, 2017, 02:22:58 pmYou do not buy the plane for $480 Million, as it is reused.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 04:01:28 pm
content: It will cost nothing, because it will never happen.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 04:02:43 pm
content: Quote from: sarel.wagner on October 01, 2017, 03:38:47 pmNo but you pay $480,000,000/No of passenger journeys in the plane's lifetime. Probably not that much on an individual ticket but there nevertheless.How many flights are expected from the first stage? probably not as many as from a 747 so the cost is going to be amortised over far fewer passenger journeys, especially as the capacity per flight is much less.Anyway a bit part of the cost of a 747 goes in safety and redundant systems as the standards are a bit higher when you want to fly people around - I suspect that will wind up applying to Space-X vehicles if Musk wants to put passengers in them.

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 04:29:56 pm
content: And that is the point. ^ At this time nobody really knows how many times or at what cost (refurbs & safety) will be. Musk's thinking is applying jetliner practises to rockets. Build, fuel, fly, land, rinse and repeat. Charge a few $$$ per passenger, they save all the flying time. Nobody enjoys longhaul, not even regional.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 04:42:56 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 01, 2017, 01:48:31 pmIt's funny how so many people are so quick to second guess the basic economic calculations that SpaceX has made. Given how much effort they've put into developing reusable rockets, and how they are STILL banking on that as a core business strategy after landing (and presumably carefully examining) sixteen first stages, either they're complete morons or there's real potential value in refurbishing and reflying rockets. I mean, if you actually do think they're complete morons, okay, just be honest about it.Anyway, even considering refurbishment costs, this is still not so different from aircraft. Airliner systems, especially engines, have inspection and service intervals, and components are subject to strict lifespan limits based on running hours or flight cycles (startup/shutdown thermal cycles and takeoff thrust are significant sources of wear and tear on gas turbine engines, so cycles matter as much as hours). A modern airliner turbofan engine is at least as complicated to inspect and overhaul as a rocket engine, possibly more so due to the greater number of moving parts.

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 05:09:00 pm
content: Would not be surprising if Spacex would have a bunch of Airline experts working for hm already, and legal people looking into rockets landing everywhere

author: jpc
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 06:53:16 pm
content: @sleemanj: You mean as yet we don't and of course nothing ever changes, does it.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 07:05:41 pm
content: Quote from: sleemanj on October 01, 2017, 08:33:48 amA few years ago you didn't just land the first stage of a 550 tonne rocket within five metres of your mark.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2017, 11:13:05 pm
content: Quote from: lukier on October 01, 2017, 09:41:16 amG-Forces wouldn't be much greater than those approved for rollercoasters. During launch and reentry, they'd stay well between 1,5 and 3 G for a few minutes. Perfectly doable for any reasonably healthy person lying on their back in a shock absorbing seat. Centrifuge training is useful for people who are required to perform tasks during launch. There are no tourist seats on a Soyuz, so current spaceflight participants actually had to perform real tasks. But a mere passenger might just close his eyes and endure the ride until the engines cut out and they get a glance of earth from space. Should be compensation enough.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2017, 03:33:37 am
content: Wouldn't luggage weight and people mass need to be specifically aligned on such flights no to overrun the landing burn control thrusters? Also, weather at both sites, take off and landing would be a larger consideration than it is for normal airplanes.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 09:34:49 am
content: They better get the food, booze and dunnies right

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 09:40:52 am
content: There's not going to be enough time to eat, drink or poop. You just know someone is going to puke on every flight though

author: VEGETA
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 10:23:56 am
content: I guess he can use it to transfer materials and products that worth millions like factory machines and so on. Yeah, they can be delivered with this high cost.However, for people, I don't think it is doable now.

author: CM800
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 11:39:08 am
content: I can vouch that there are certainly good use for it for same day / next day shipping.We've had a few customers who need a stock motor URGENTLY to the point they will pay for a taxi to deliver the part across country, or even fly someone to pick it up.If you have a production line down, and it costs you £200,000 or more a day to have the line down, there isn't much someone will pay to get a part asap.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 03:21:42 pm
content: Quote from: VEGETA on October 03, 2017, 10:23:56 amWhatever you are shipping worth 'millions', it better withstand the G-Forces of flight and the rocket noise and vibrations from hell...

author: sarel.wagner
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 04:22:51 pm
content: Barley 10 years ago, no smartphones, 100 years ago no aircraft.... Today, rockets landing themselves back from space, tomorrow commercial rocket flights on earth.There will be less freight that is so time sensitive as people wanting to avoid long haul flights. Remember the BFR cabin/freight designed for Mars transit is bigger than a Airbus 380 cabin volume. And that can be configured for up to 850 passengers. So 100 in BFR uhmm yes indeed, with sooo much space, load more passengers, or freight or something else perhaps

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 04:32:57 pm
content: Much of the discussion here could be transliterated to the discussion of a plan to do overnight delivery of packages by a certain business student.Lots of "there is no market", "you just can't do it" and "costs are too high".Now everyone is doing it and the market is far larger than anyone dreamed. Those who invested in FedEx etal are rich and those who scoffed are busy explaining why they were actually right, but the world changed in some way that changed the analysis. Of course other dreamers have crashed in flames with those who invested losing everything and the scoffers parading their "I told you so"s.The simple lesson from this is that those who sit on the sidelines and pontificate end up with only the satisfaction of hearing themselves talk. Those who commit to far reaching ideas typically either lose everything they commit or win big. The engineering response to this is to not commit more than you can afford to lose, but commit as much as you can.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 06:39:31 pm
content: The market isn't that large, maybe the top 0.01% of income earners..However it is wealthier than ever before, in terms of how much they have to spend.https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/research/research-institute/global-wealth-report.htmlWe have to remember, for certain categories of people, business is becoming more and more profitable quickly, because of automation.Lots of these ideas you read about are targeting that fairly tiny group of people with hyper-luxury goods and services.We've passed the Gilded Ages of the past and we're in an entirely new territory of wealth and conspicuous consumption. People who are flush with cash like never before, and "you can't take it with you".

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 08:18:31 pm
content: Take what you are saying and translate it to 1928. Substitute transatlantic air travel for Musk's rocket. Arguments are nearly identical.The biggest problems I see with this concept is timescale and jet lag. It may be a decade or two later than Musk thinks. It is already a few decades later than the sci-fi guys predicted. And the jet lag problem may overwhelm the time savings.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 08:32:02 pm
content: These news stories are propaganda, plain and simple. Like in North Korea. Paradise on earth, right?Unless they change course, there likely wont be a middle class as exists now in 30 years in the US.People will have tons of time of course, but because of high pollutant levels, its possible that many might age much faster or die much earlier. Many also are likely to have been displaced by climate change or housing markets. Given that retirement will be lifelong, and most people will likely be dead long before they turn 60, also high rates of involuntary displacement due to superstorms, etc, may mean that barriers may be erected to all but corporate travel. Costs may be prohibitive for most of humanity, living as they will be on income they made now and saved. As jobs as we know them today vanish, many people will live in a constant state of poverty. This is already happening around the margins, it could be said that these news stories are an attempt to hide that fact from the public.Considering the disdain shown by the current Administration for environmental regulation, is it really unreasonable to expect that large areas of the nation and planet may have become unsafe due to continued use of deregulated chemicals which were unintentionally released into the environment during extreme weather events? Today's affluent coastal areas may become "terra incognita" due to chemical releases and abandoned due to cleanup costs becoming too high for the revenue starved impoverished, debt ridden nation to address. They may become sacrifice zones, where everything is written off, due to safety concerns.Political barriers will likely exist too.. its even possible that due to the above, much travel for the sake of pleasure may become difficult or even impossible.Shorter term, realistically, aren't we already having huge troubles simply maintaining the infrastructure we built a few decades ago in the face of massive disinvestment?If we continue the way we are, public health will take a nose dive as tropical diseases of poverty move northward and southward.MNCs are positioning themselves to cash in on all the misery. They see higher levels of illness and ultra-destructive weather patterns as bright spots in what they consider to be a dismal economic picture.The following graphic is from the Club of Rome.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 08:37:51 pm
content: There's already enough traffic and pollution in the atmosphere to deal with as it is,without rockets adding more smoke spew to it, just so some impatient cashed up monkeys can get their items quicker than 24 hours

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 11:11:32 pm
content: This thread was triggered by a quite frankly visionary idea which is so ridiculously cool no one cares if it works or not. It takes us back to the future that was dreamed of in the cold war era, but less explodey (perhaps).Three pages into the thread and I'm looking at buying some land in the countryside so I can build my own Bartertown and Thunderdome for when civilisation collapses

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 11:38:55 pm
content: I know people don't like him, or that he's taking on Elon Musk again, but he's not wrong.BFR will be great for getting to planets, but will be impractical for getting point to point on earth.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 11:40:36 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on October 03, 2017, 08:32:02 pmcdev, IIRC you have been warned before about off-topic political rants, please don't do it again.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 11:41:09 pm
content: Well no matter what the cost, I will not participate unless I have a personal window to view out the whole trip.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2017, 02:43:44 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on October 03, 2017, 11:41:09 pmYes, if this were ever to come to fruition, it would be a sight to see & not having a personal window seat would be a waste like riding a roller-coaster in the dark. For such money, I'd rather travel on a direct flight first class on a jumbo-jet or private aircraft with a bed to sleep out the slower approximate 12 hour journey...

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2017, 08:06:12 am
content: To keep the media attention constant in function of time, the lunacy of the launched ideas has to rise exponentially.Time savings could justify the price.Like in: I do the payment now, start the helicopter to the rocket, and get in.Not like: Start the procedure now and take the flight in 6 weeks.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2017, 08:53:38 am
content: Quote from: Galenbo on October 04, 2017, 08:06:12 amHeres excellent source:http://www.tested.com/science/space/456677-gallery-art-tekhnika-molodezhi/Lots of tech-fantasy pics from CCCP popular tech magazine.Even found pic of AI in it:http://www.tested.com/science/space/456677-gallery-art-tekhnika-molodezhi/item/russianmag_015/Or how about this cyborg character:http://www.tested.com/science/space/456677-gallery-art-tekhnika-molodezhi/item/russianmag_020/Real goldmine for far out (over the edge) projectsBut it is not income-neutral to stick only to rich peoples problems. Poor ones want to travel also! Since someone has to pay for rocket-fantasies they will beverypoor. So why not $1 stand-up plane travel? To give a modern twist plane should be electric of course:If think little further it could be solar powered and not stop for small airports, people could just jump off as pictured! You see real good investor-magnet and thats only 1 pic from thousands

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2017, 09:04:13 am
content: Apparently when I was a kid I spent most of my time drawing scenes from that publication

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2017, 01:19:13 pm
content: This Tehnika Molodjoezhi stuff is so good could not resist to post some more:Passenger rocket that would actually save time (compact start-from-city unit)Overpopulation solvedInflatable space elevator%insert_planet_name_here% hoax being filmedMartian face is alive

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2017, 05:51:04 pm
content: Mr. Wolf,That Tekhnika Molodezhi artwork is really good. Thank you for that link.What does the text caption in the Martian Face image say?

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2017, 06:12:03 pm
content: How much are they going to charge for luggage?For in-flight entertainment?In flight meals?Will there be a zero-gravity tax?

author: NMNeil
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2017, 01:02:31 pm
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on October 04, 2017, 06:12:03 pmAfter being strapped into a seat that's perched on top of several tons of high explosive and learning that someone has just lit the fuse, the location and size of the toilet would be my #1 concern, not meals or entertainment.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2017, 02:04:05 pm
content: Mr Wolf;thanks for the Tekhnika Molodezhi link. As others have expressed, the artwork is so good!It shows that people, regardless of ideology or upbringing, do have dreams.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2017, 09:01:34 pm
content: Glad you like. As a kid it was good source for big ideasDid little digging, here seem to be set of genuine download links with full magazines:http://www.diagram.com.ua/library/tm/Also full set + many extras as torrent:https://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4986785If want to type russian letters for search etc then this helps:http://translit.net/

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2017, 10:09:25 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on October 03, 2017, 03:21:42 pmCan't be any worse than what it goes through with UPS/Fedex